-
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
If Nintendo financed and published the game, I doubt Sega owns any assets on it. Sega own the brandname, but the Bayonetta 2 and 3 assets and publishing rights belong to Nintendo. If Sega were to make a Bayonetta 4 without Nintendo, they would need to start from scratch with assets or buy the assets from Nintendo.
I would like to know more about this Goldeneye: 007 James Bond sequel, Scale Bond...
Bond goes undercover as a drug dealer, and there is a mini-game involving weighing out precise amounts of drugs.
Now that I think about it, Nintendo dumping money on Grasshopper and resurrecting Lily Bergamo would be one hell of a trip. I don't think it even got past the concept phase when it became Let It Die.
Last edited:
I don't think Lily Bergamo is it because Suda51 probably wants to make No More Heroes 3 first
Someone who worked on the game came in here and said as much
Oh, thank you for clarifying. I was wondering what the poster meant by Microsoft's multiplayer vision for Scalebound, co-op was my best bet.
I have to agree, the game never felt like it had a real identity. The consensus I was part of on the old site was the character design and the world felt like it was decided from a focus group, rather than complete artistic freedom. There is a lot of cool aspects here and there, and the "dragon knight armor" form he performs in the demo footage looks fun. It was just lacking an oomph or an idea that was supposed to blend everything together.
Don't get me wrong, I was excited about this game, and with Sunset Overdrive I was actually compelled to buy an Xbox One because of these two games. After it was canceled it stung, I was upset, and like any rational person, it was too easy to conclude it was Microsoft's fault for the game going under because of what I assume was their incompetence (Xbox fans don't @ me on this). And that was that.
If the project is being brought back with funding from Nintendo, I'll be there day one for the game.
I imagine it's something like this. If you look at the music copyright info for the Bayonetta 2 songs in SSBU, the copyright shows the songs solely belonging to Nintendo, iirc. This is different from the Bayonetta 1 songs, which belong to Sega.
I feel like it probably extends to the rest of Bayonetta 2 as well.
No, they didn't. Posts like that should be reported as it was debunked by the devs themselves.
I have to say, even as someone who was very disappointed in the cancellation of Scalebound, aside from the design of Thuban, there wasn't really a lot that I actually liked about the game or how it looked. I was naively holding out hope for the game to get better in future showings but as someone else said, it felt unfocused and not as coherent as PG's (better) games usually do. The entire isekai angle with Drew, the weird combat options, the open world, the multiplayer... just nothing really seemed to come together at any point. The Japanese RPG element video hinted at something more interesting than Microsoft chose to show and I am aware of the behind-the-scenes footage but still. My main issue really pertains to the relationship between Drew and Thuban.
Maybe it was badly demo'd, perhaps it just wasn't very good or, more likely, the truth was somewhere in the middle. I cannot help but feel that the game's almost slavish adherence to the idea of having a dragon sidekick and an inability to fully capitalize on it was ultimately its undoing. The combat footage with the soldiers and the big bug-like enemy shows this perfectly: It looks impressive on a technical level with Thuban causing damage on a massive scale. In a sense, him moving and acting semi-independently almost feels like an action-RPG version of The Last Guardian. Sadly, playing as Drew ends up feeling extremely underwhelming. Even with Drew turning into his hybrid form, it looked like Thuban was doing all your work for you, which is never a great thing (look at Kirby Star Allies, for a left-field comparison). It creates this weird disconnect where you're technically capable but still not strong enough to actually do anything of note. On some level, Thuban and Drew feel entirely detached from each other, which obviously clashes not only with the fantasy of fighting alongside a huge dragon but also the lifelink the game establishes between the two. It's possible that the solution to this was literally that Dragon Link mode but I have my doubts based on its description (mainly the first-person part).
I can see why people are drawing comparisons to Astral Chain but I think it's pretty clear that unlike the Legion, Thuban was independent AI first and controllable sidekick second. The Legions are more like stands and thus extensions of the player character while Thuban was always meant to be his own separate entity. The immediate control the player has over the Legion likely makes for flashy and very satisfying combat but it's going for something completely different. I think that the untapped potential here was really to have Thuban be a force of nature that can help as well as harm you. In theory, the core gameplay loop would then involve making use of Thuban and his AI to fight enemies in an extremely dynamic battlefield. It's possible that this was actually in the game, in which case, again, bad demos. However, the released footage never showed a level of interaction necessary to make something like this work and it never feel like Thuban could be a danger to Drew whatsoever. Whether that would have made for a good game is a different question and to come back to my The Last Guardian comparison, this is something very difficult to get right.
If this rumour ends up being true, and that's a big if, I am curious how many ideas of the XONE incarnation make it into the new, revived version. AI companions aren't really something new but I really think Kamiya and PG aimed for something deeper and more complex than that. It would be a shame if they just completely abandoned it but I can see them having to make some sacrifices in order to make the game actually fun to play. I could see such a game work more like Astral Chain, where Thuban is controlled directly. On the other hand, refocusing the game on that relationship between Drew and Thuban could help it find its footing. Whatever happens, I still hope that Kamiya gets to make this game in some form.
This gif looks so good man
Same here.
Of course, since Hasbro took back the rights from Activision, anything would have to go through them.
Reporting over this mistake is rather harsh, no? Maybe said poster wasn't around when the forced multiplayer rumour was debunked.
I didn't even think about it til i saw the poll, but i'd sell my soul for timesplitters 4.
scalebound will probably be pretty dope though.
scalebound will probably be pretty dope though.
Mother fans: We want Earthbound 2 already!
Reggie: Okay, okay shut up already!
NOJ: Hi Reggie, what are some Japanese games our American auidence wants?
Reggie: Huh? Oh yeah... I think they wanted something-bound 2?
NOJ: Okay we'll see what we can do.
MS: We're cancelling Scalebound!
NOJ: Oh so our Platinum fans wanted Scalebound too! Thank you Reggie.
Reggie: Sure. Not my problem.
Reggie: Okay, okay shut up already!
NOJ: Hi Reggie, what are some Japanese games our American auidence wants?
Reggie: Huh? Oh yeah... I think they wanted something-bound 2?
NOJ: Okay we'll see what we can do.
MS: We're cancelling Scalebound!
NOJ: Oh so our Platinum fans wanted Scalebound too! Thank you Reggie.
Reggie: Sure. Not my problem.
This rumor is already not fun anymore now that we basically know this rumor just meant Scalebound. Kind of a bummer
Sega owns Bayonetta 2 and 3, the games in themselves, no questions.
I can't share details, but just consider the following, when you acquire ownership over games, you buy the franchise or the structure behind it (a dev studio or a company), not a game in particular, that's how it works. Nintendo never bought Sega or the franchise Bayonetta and that's the end of it. Everything related to Bayonetta belong to Sega, period. They handed the publishing rights for Bayonetta 2 to Nintendo, because it was legally simplier and legally safer that way, as the japanese government doesn't joke over those matters, regardless if you're Nintendo or the taikun Carlos Ghosn himself. You can't just throw money at other companies projects and make some shady deal to make it exclusive to your console, you have to do it the proper way (get publishing rights), especially when you're as exposed as Nintendo or Sega. Both being big and well-known companies. Nintendo didn't "bought" the publishing rights, Sega handed those to them for those reasons. That's it.
Nintendo owning the publishing rights of Bayonetta 2 means that they're somewhat co-owners of the rights of Bayonetta 2. They decide where the game releases, when and how. Everything else outside of publishing rights belong to Sega, which means the game in itself, the assets, the cover art, the soundtrack, the code behind the game etc. That's what I mean by "Sega owns Bayonetta 2", they own the game in itself, while Nintendo only own the publishing rights. It's exactly the same case about Bayonetta 3.
You can have a franchise scattered over many owners, but first, it's extremely rare, so rare that I have trouble giving you recent exemples. All I can think of is the opposite, in fact. Activision acquired Crash and Spyro franchises, not a game in particular, among a vast array of other exemples. Second, it requires a lot of particularities, like two or more companies creating the franchise from the get go. Bayonetta 2 isn't in those cases.
And yes, Nintendo owning the publishing rights of Bayonetta 2 means it won't land anywhere without Nintendo's swearing, regardless of what Sega wants. That's exactly what publishing rights means. They still have to ask permissions to Sega to do anything with the franchise, even just releasing Bayonetta 2 on Switch though, it goes both way.
Since we're here : I don't know if it's known publicly, but despite what people think, Sega followed the development of Bayonetta 2 quite closely once Nintendo acquired the publishing rights. It was quite strange since they it was clear they could care less about it before.
Last edited:
So what's the deal with Mother 3? Are there risque/culturally inappropriate elements that keep a conversion unlikely?
That seems to have been something that always floated around the game like a cloud but no one really talks about it.
Kamiya explained the ownership/publisher rights of Bayonetta 2 & Bayonetta 3 a while ago.
That can be the case simply because the music is all original, while the rest of Bayonetta 2 isn't, is based on story and characters from Bayonetta 1, which Sega "owns", so even if everything made new for the game is "owned" by Nintendo (which we don't know), Sega will always be named as one of the copyright owners because a lot of stuff in the game does belong to them.
I am not a copyright expert by any means, but the way i understand with Bayonetta and new games, is basically that Nintendo can't make a new Bayonetta game by themselves, Sega does, but it would have to be kind of a reboot since Bayonetta 2 and 3 share copyright with Nintendo, and unless Sega convinces Nintendo to let them use that stuff they just can't use it. Which is why i didn't find surprising that Kamiya said that they looked for Nintendo since the beginning, since they presumably wanna build on top of Bayonetta 2.
This reads like over-complicated nonsense.
"SEGA owns bayonetta 2; no question"
"Nintendo co-owns Bayonetta 2"
Also, it says "I can't share details" which implies you're in the know? Not sure if that's what I should be reading from this.
If only we had direct a quote from someone at PG with knowledge of the contracts like the game's director, or maybe the VP of Platinum?
edit: ah
Thanks for sharing that, I didn't know Kamiya spoke about that publicly.
It still isn't that clear who owns what, which the reason I felt giving some precisions (Nintendo owning the publishing rights, Sega owning everything else), but it should kill the narrative that Nintendo own Bayonetta 2 and Bayonetta 3 instantly. It's as clear as day :
"As such, the rights belong to Sega and Nintendo." (Bayo 2)
"All of the rights still belong to Sega and Nintendo" (Bayo 3)
Nintendo don't own Bayonetta 2 and 3, they own the publishing rights, that's the reason Kamiya said the following :
"The rights owners decided the game should be made for Wii U"
"The rights owners decided that the game should be made for Switch"
I can confirm he's speaking about the publishing rights only, everything else belong to Sega.
Ah yeah, I remember that. Think it was a series of tweets he made randomly, well randomly to an extent.
Can't remember why tho. Probably was related to Bayonetta 3 or Steam release of Bayonetta. Fans were probably bugging him about one of those.
It's clear : Sega owns the games in themselves (assets, soundtrack, code, title, cover art, concept-art) and Nintendo own the publishing rights. That's what I meant by Sega own Bayonetta 2 and 3, they own the games in themselves. Read Kamiya interview and you can pretty much confirm what I said earlier. It should also kill instantly the narrative behind Nintendo "owning" Bayonetta 2 and 3. The reason why Kamiya said it belong to Sega and Nintendo is because, like I said, Nintendo own the publishing rights and Sega everything else.
Yes, I'm in the know. I can't share details because you just don't burn people like that. I also doubt people at PG know much about the contract, it's between Sega and Nintendo. At least, I personally don't know this thanks to someone working at PG, but who knows, maybe they know about the deal too.
If you don't believe me, that's fine. Just goes by official informations and find me a single piece of evidence Nintendo own anything else than publishing rights. You won't be able to. Nintendo owning anything else than publishing rights is just a narrative and a speculation (which I confirm today to be false).
Last edited:
Honestly I tend to hate these rumors, it exploded early, then everyone latched on to one game or another and now we have no pay off.
No one has made a concerted effort to round up a list of recently announced and cancelled games in to a more interesting list. Everyone settled on Scalebound, which I always thought possible but not likely. I was kind of hoping we'd try to solve it as a community, but I don't have time to get it started, and I figure not many do. Shame.
No one has made a concerted effort to round up a list of recently announced and cancelled games in to a more interesting list. Everyone settled on Scalebound, which I always thought possible but not likely. I was kind of hoping we'd try to solve it as a community, but I don't have time to get it started, and I figure not many do. Shame.
I don't really understand. If Sega does actually fully own the soundtrack to Bayonetta 2, then why does the copyright listing in SSBU credit the Bayonetta 2 songs to Nintendo and not Sega? Not accusing you of lying or anything, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.
Just double-checked online, and the three Bayonetta 2 songs (Tomorrow is Mine [instrumental], The Legend of Aesir, and Time for the Climax) are all credited as: "Composition and arrangement Copyright Nintendo". What's this about?
Last edited:
There's child abuse, animal torture, and there's controversy of the magypsies and probably more but I haven't gotten that far in the game yet.
That doesn't make good business sense though, why would Nintendo put money into the project, only for Sega too 100% own that, unless Kamiya himself clarifies it, Nintendo owns a slice of the pie, maybe not 50-50 Sega-Nintendo, but they own something. Deals happen like that. I know no such deal, gaming or other businesses that an investor puts all his money in an asset and doesn't own partial property of it.
It means the songs themselves are Smash Bros. exclusives. Same with all of the Mega Man, Castlevania, and other new rearrangements made for this game.
I'm pretty sure the latter two are direct rips from Bayonetta 2.
- Status