-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
RUMOR: Nintendo has plans to revive a 'Dead and Buried' game (Update: Possibly Scalebound?)
- Thread starter iswasdoes
- Start date
- Status
Those assets were designed to run on an Xbox One. It's probably better that they do everything from scratch so it runs the best it can on the hardware. That may include reducing polygon counts and covering that with a different art style.
It's probably best that production gets rebooted imo.
Yes they can use the name. Anyone can at this point. So can you.
They did.
Which also lines up with talk from Platinum during/after the development of Scalebound of wanting to pivot to working on games that they will own the IP of.
Pretty sure even the latter one it still can make Microsoft look really bad, but i guess it may worth it for Nintendo to hurting Xbox brand, since like i said, the hype of Scalebound started after the cancellation, so actually the name is worth it even it may end up complete different thing.
Can you specify? Not trying to be facetious but I'm curious to hear examples in gaming how owning the IP wouldn't cover "characters, assets, setting, etc ". If a company is hired to do work on the part of another there is most certainly a contract put in place to give up the ownership that comes with having created the original work.
True Fantasy Live Online.
Microsoft-funded project with Level-5 that ended up cancelled by MS. While MS still owned the trademark on the name/logo, Level-5 salvaged every assets and the engine they used to make Dragon Quest VIII for Square Enix.
What I'm saying is that "owning the IP" is a very broad term that doesn't necessarily reflect the same situations. You can own the trademark of a game (thus effectively owning an intellectual property right) without owning anything concretely from the game.
"Today we are pleased to announced a new IP by Platinum called "A Boy and His Dragon."
Interesting, do you have the source on assets being reused in DQ8?
I could see tech being an odd spot for ownership (I mean, if you developed a renderer why not do it again?) but stuff like characters and assets seems pretty cut and dry in terms of being linked to the IP.
Hmmm right after confidently saying it from what I remembered, I can't find a source to back that up. I'll keep looking up but hopefully I didn't just fell for an urban legend.
Regardless of whether or not the precedent you cited was real it's still a fair point. "Owning the IP" doesn't actually mean anything in legal terms without specifying which aspect of the IP you own. Do you own the trademark or the copyright? Just the copyright involving characters?
Things like that. There's a whole lot of gray area when you talk about IP ownership. Without knowing the details of the contract we can't know for sure how much MS owns (or owned, if there's a chance they sold anything).
Seems like ZhugeEX is saying that he thinks it's fake because Astral Chain took the ideas of Scalebound (I disagree, but I digress), not that he has information saying that it's fake.
I stand corrected then, you're right.
Yeah ultimately the points still holds as the contract provisions are what rules here.
Right but precedent, as what I posted above from 2004 or numerous other examples of publishers owning contracted IP/assets (Prey 2, Heavenly Sword, Ratchet and Clank, Resistance ), would make that an outlier in gaming. There are cases where the developer owned the IP/assets and had a publishing arrangement (Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Control) but that was communicated as the devs owning the "IP". Using that term to show ownership of the assets, characters and such.
The closest thing I can think of for an odd IP split (aside from 90s PC games) is, if you listen to Denis Dyack, Eternal Darkness. Where that was, allegedly, a case of Silicon Knights having partial ownership of that game.
Last edited:
Yeah originally I was thinking similarly but after everything settle down its a platinumgames game. Almost every game they made has the similar mechanics as another game.
Megaman fans are going to hold multiple Ls if the rumor isn't scalebound or star wars but megaman universe.
Seriously noone aside from myself and 1 guy is stanning for that possibility.
Definitely. If anything, Astral Chain screams strong Nier Automata influences, which makes sense since the director had a key role in making Nier. Astral Chain just so happens to have AI companions.
It holds value to Platinum who have been trying to get this dream project done since the Wii era.
Since it matters that much to them it will be big deal for Platinum fans which are legion.
It's gonna be that weird gritty Mega Man FPS by ex-Retro devs and none of us are gonna know how to feel
I actually have been meaning to ask this, but is there any evidence this is Scalebound outside of the one guy from Nintendo Insider saying that it is? Or is it more people latching onto an idea because it'd be an exciting prospect even though most evidence is pointing towards that not being it?
Jason Schreier and Alanah Pearce said rumors about Scalebound on Switch were floating around last summer. Doesn't mean it's actually happening, though. Either way, I'm really looking forward to Imran's full write-up on the matter if that ever happens.
I think Benji, VG24/7, Jason, and Alanah all said they've heard "Scalebound Switch" at some point.
Whether it's still happening or the game Imran was talking about, we don't know
This rumour has become sentient. It is self replicating. Sustained by the hopes and dreams of those hurt by it's cancellation.
Maybe if enough people believe it they can wish it into existence?
Thanks for answering, that does mean I'm more caught up on this one than I realized. I just was thinking if there's any reason so many are on the Scalebound train at this point since I think there's more that could be weighed to say it's unlikely at this point than likely, though I do understand it's one of those prospects that would be exciting to see so people are pushing for it.
This is just one of my thoughts as well, but if Nintendo were right now thinking of resurrecting a dead franchise, Nintendo has so many franchises' themselves that are dead in the water currently that I'd rather they pull from their own pool rather than for some reason trying to purchase an IP from Microsoft to revive. I also don't think the fact SEGA let Platinum and Nintendo make Bayonetta 2 & 3 bears much resemblance to a potential scenario of Microsoft allowing Nintendo and Platinum to make a Switch console exclusive game as a competing platform with an IP that caused uproar for it not releasing on Xbox One consoles from an enthusiastic crowd. SEGA isn't in the console market, they have a good relationship with Nintendo and Platinum currently and have made games collaborating with both of them in the past, and there was no negative personal stake in it for them to make Bayonetta in this way, just let them make it and they get some royalties and a quality game or two under their belt. I don't think this scenario is reflective at all for Microsoft for some reason selling Nintendo the IP. Add to this JP knows people from Platinum and still is close with a number of people from the company, and is voicing this opinion publicly which makes me believe he really thinks this isn't something to get one's hopes up for. I feel JP commenting on this is because he's more than confident it isn't happening, otherwise he wouldn't comment at all on this. Finally, as Platinum as a company already have their hands full on several projects, two of which already Switch exclusive, so I don't see them having a third Switch exclusive and a fifth overall project in the works right now, especially considering their studio size and how they've worked their project pipeline in the past.
Literally the only evidence I think in favor of this is there were some murmurings some people heard in the grapevine over half a year ago (and things they didn't believe at the time they're only mentioning with this creeping up), and the Nintendo Insider guy saying a source he trusts said this.
I'd be down with MMU and nintendo in general extending the Mario Maker Platform/Line to other classic franchises.
Hmmm yeah it does seem like he doesn't believe it. But not necessarily that he has any real info on it.
If this is really the case (which i really, REALLY doubt, but go figure), i hope they actually manage to bring back Kamiya's original concept for the game (little girl with a dragon) rather than the americanized one they had to settle with to make it more palatable for the Xbox audience.
I think alot of you that believe the IP doesn't have any value don't understand how difficult it is to find the perfect name for something.
1or 2 words that pops and rolls off the tongue well, succinctly describes the product and is easily google-able. Scalebound hits all of those marks very well so I could imagine PG finding a way to keep it.
1or 2 words that pops and rolls off the tongue well, succinctly describes the product and is easily google-able. Scalebound hits all of those marks very well so I could imagine PG finding a way to keep it.
I thought I read somewhere that Kamiya changed the protagonist because he wanted the player-controlled character to have a more direct role in the fighting. I'll see if I can find it
Edit: Here it is.
Damn... I remember someone joking about Nintendo acquiring the Scalebound IP the day the cancellation got announced...
- Status