Jump to content
Awoo.

Nintendo Exclusive for Next Three Sonic Games


Sapphire the Hedgehog

Recommended Posts

"Mario & Sonic" games are always Nintendo-exclusive, like any other Mario game these days, and nobody was talking about obvious exclusiveness. But this time they felt the need to specially underline exclusiveness of next three Sonic games on Nintendo consoles. Does it mean that none of these three games will be M&S, or include Mario in any way?

Edited by crystallize
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mario & Sonic" games are always Nintendo-exclusive, like any other Mario game these days, and nobody was talking about obvious exclusiveness. But this time they felt the need to specially underline exclusiveness of next three Sonic games on Nintendo consoles. Does it mean that none of these three games will be M&S, or include Mario in any way?

M&S is being counted as one of them.

 

The important thing this time is that next three Sonic games (Lost World, M&S4 and the unannounced game) will only be available on Nintendo systems. So it won't be until all those three games are out that there'll be any chance of seeing new Sonic games on other systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it won't be until all those three games are out that there'll be any chance of seeing new Sonic games on other systems.

 

Possibly a silly question, but is this why the StealthTax Sonic 1 is exclusive to mobiles, and not console/PC?

 

I mean, it's a remake... but a new spin on the old game... so is that a "new" release?

Edited by MamboCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly a silly question, but is this why the StealthTax Sonic 1 is exclusive to mobiles, and not console/PC?

I mean, it's a remake... but a new spin on the old game... so is that a "new" release?

We don't have an official answer on that, but the bet is two things: console and PC releases are more expensive (both cause they have to be made and then there are costs in actually putting them up for download), and then there's the fact that there's bugs to fix. Bugs can be fixed really easily and cheaply on iOS and Android, but it costs SEGA money to issue updates on other platforms. CD on consoles/steam never got any updates while the mobile versions did. Once all the bugs in S1 are cleared up, it might get a console release.

This is all guesswork, mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.....Sega & Nintendo partners.

 

*does complicated math equation*

 

Yup that confirms it. Sonic will appear in Smash Bro 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hogfather

Okay, first, I'm going to state that I agree with you for the most part. I won't support the Wii U until it has functionality in my life. That doesn't just include games but media playback as well.

Right up until you stated that the Wii U has nothing on it.

Saying that is entirely your point of view.

There are a few titles that hold a significant stance in my mind.

An example is Lego City: Undercover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonic and Bayonetta have a great chance to appear together in SSB4. Beeing developed by far better programmers, I hope SSB4 will be a great game. And if really we're getting Sonic & Bayo, as well as some other (possibly) 3rd parties like Ryu from Capcom it'll be a game I just couldn't miss!

still hoping for the game to be an actual Super Smash Bros X (the X stands as cross). Something like Nintendo X SEGA X Capcom X Namco...but that's dreaming a lot... chances are more for a SEGA vs Capcom (with maybe a couple of guests from Capcom/Namco)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've got a vested interest this time. Unless things go sour one way or another, this could be paving the way for the future. And at this stage I really hope it is.

 

I still don't get this. Unless you're already planning on or currently are an owner of a Nintendo system, what is the benefit if it continues even if Sega's fortunes improve and Sonic becomes a de facto Nintendo franchise? Vague assertions of how the games might be better because of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nintendo are making it harder and harder for me to put off buying a Wii U.

I got the Wii shortly after it came out, and after a brief honeymoon period fling with Super Mario Galaxy and Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles, it basically got retired until Darkside Chronicles, then again until Skyward Sword. I was REALLY hoping to be able to put off buying the Wii U until such a time that it became nice and cheap, maybe even as cheap as the Wii was around the time SS came out. Even with Wind Waker HD coming out it was easy for me to put it off because it's a remake of a game I've played to death, but now..?

I guess I'ma be buying a Wii U before the year is out.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nintendo are making it harder and harder for me to put off buying a Wii U.

I got the Wii shortly after it came out, and after a brief honeymoon period fling with Super Mario Galaxy and Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles, it basically got retired until Darkside Chronicles, then again until Skyward Sword. I was REALLY hoping to be able to put off buying the Wii U until such a time that it became nice and cheap, maybe even as cheap as the Wii was around the time SS came out. Even with Wind Waker HD coming out it was easy for me to put it off because it's a remake of a game I've played to death, but now..?

I guess I'ma be buying a Wii U before the year is out.

 

 

 

Well, you're in the UK, aren't you?

 

As far as I know, it's constantly on sale there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get this. Unless you're already planning on or currently are an owner of a Nintendo system, what is the benefit if it continues even if Sega's fortunes improve and Sonic becomes a de facto Nintendo franchise? Vague assertions of how the games might be better because of it?

 

The benefit if it continues is that the series will have a chance to grow in the environment it's best suited to, with an active interest from Nintendo themselves. I don't think that the Sonic series is ever going to return to such a calibre that being multiplatform actually does much good. The market for Sonic games on Nintendo platforms is considerably larger than anywhere else. As of March 2011, Colours had sold 2.18 million units between two Nintendo systems, compared to Generation's sales of 1.85 million in a similar timeframe after release. Generations sales were between three platforms of which only one was Nintendo, and the sales of that version were what kept the game in the charts. The trend is true going further back in time as well- Sonic sells best on Nintendo platforms. 

 

I want Sonic games to sell and I especially want SEGA to start seeing a bit more success as a company. By focusing solely on Nintendo platforms, SEGA is going to be making their own job a lot easier and will simultaneously be reducing their costs. You can then factor in that Nintendo is benefiting from an exclusive franchise that's popular with their market. It's a business decision that's really going to work to the advantage of both parties. 

 

That's the main reason I want this to keep going ahead if it works. The assertion that Sonic games will improve as a result is perhaps a bit vague, but not wholly unrealistic either. That's a waiting game over the next couple of years while this deal plays out. 

 

I'll be honest and say that if Sonic sold best on Sony platforms and this deal was with them that I'd be very disappointed. Glad to see it going ahead for the sake of SEGA and the series, but ultimately just as disheartened as everyone who's not interested in Nintendo is now.

Edited by Blue Blood
  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those are problems that require "Sonic becomes a Nintendo exclusive franchise" as a solution. People have been going on for years now that all Sega games games sell poorly because Sega doesn't bother advertising them, and the fact that they sold well on Nintendo systems even when Sega didn't doesn't mean much as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those are problems that require "Sonic becomes a Nintendo exclusive franchise" as a solution. People have been going on for years now that Sonic games sell poorly because Sega doesn't bother advertising them.

 

That's only one of the problems plaguing Sonic and SEGA. Marketing costs money and requires a degree of competence- I'm not sure they have much of either. Nintendo exclusivity isn't the only solution to that problem, but it's a pretty darn solid one when Nintendo wants the franchise.

Edited by Blue Blood
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Generations comparison of sales, one point to make is that Generations had several things to go off on.

 

Generations came out after the so claimed 'sonic cycle' broke. Sonic Colors had to deal with the terrible reputation that the previous games.

 

Generations also had bigger marketing and bigger hype. Classic Sonic.. revisiting old worlds, 20th anniversary, huge commercials/tv ads/gaming magazine covers, etc.

 

Despite this, Generations somehow did worse than Colors in the same time frame?

 

Edit: Just read the post about UK & SEGA being in bed. Very good point. Having Sonic exclusivity should help boost sales. IIRC, Sonic is huge over there. Many are going to go crazy by not having the latest Sonic experience and may fall into buying a Wii U just to get into the action.

Edited by Autosaver
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nintendo exclusivity isn't the only solution to that problem, but it's a pretty darn solid one when Nintendo wants the franchise.

It's not in the question I asked, though. Several people, not just you, have been acting like this is something that should continue even if it was no longer necessary (allowing the assumption that it was here) because it's better for the series that way. That is the issue at hand. That this temporary deal should become permanent even if the reasoning that caused Sega to broker the deal now stops happening.

 

3 or 5 years in the future. Sega's doing good again, and they've learned some tricks from Nintendo for actually selling the public on their games (or even just relearned the shit they used to know a decade ago). The publishing deal is over. At that point, why is it a good thing if Sega was to restart the deal anyway then? At which point the only response I've seen that answers that question is the same vague things about how the games might be better because of it that I mentioned above.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the logic of permanent partnership from a business point of view, but I have to say I don't like the sound of it. From an admittedly selfish point of view, the games still did sell on other platforms. How long did the SA2 re-release stay in the charts when it launched on Steam? I seem to remember someone here posting it did well, and that was only a re-release of an old game, not a nice shiny new one with all the associated hype. As the 25th anniversary comes up, surely selling to as wide a range an audience as possible is a good thing, not narrowing it down?

Edited by MamboCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not in the question I asked, though. Several people, not just you, have been acting like this is something that should continue even if it was no longer necessary (allowing the assumption that it was here) because it's better for the series that way. That is the issue at hand. That this temporary deal should become permanent even if the reasoning that caused Sega to broker the deal now stops happening.

No that's not the question you asked, and I answered that in the post before. That post was a response to your comment about marketing.

 

3 or 5 years in the future. Sega's doing good again, and they've learned some tricks from Nintendo for actually selling the public on their games (or even just relearned the shit they used to know a decade ago). The publishing deal is over. At that point, why is it a good thing if Sega was to restart the deal anyway then?

 

It's a good thing for SEGA if the money is still there. They can advertise their products as much as they want and still not have them sell well if the market doesn't have any interest in it. Generations was actually not terribly marketed here at least; it sponsored the Simpsons for a fair while before and after release, had in-store promotions for months, standard TV adverts and was given a lot of media coverage online. Of course SEGA could have done better, but they've got to target the right audience. If it's better for them to cut out the smaller audiences on other platforms then so be it. It definitely sucks for people in said smaller audience. No doubting that. I can however still advocate the decision.

Edited by Blue Blood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that's not the question you asked, and I answered that in the post before. That post was a response to your comment about marketing.

It's the question I asked to begin the discussion. Nintendo exclusive may be a solution to a specific problem, but that still doesn't tie back to the original query because it's not the only solution and it would be even less of the only solution in the original hypothetical.

 

 

They can advertise their products as much as they want and still not have them sell well if the market doesn't have any interest in it. Generations was actually not terribly marketed here at least; it sponsored the Simpsons for a fair while before and after release, had in-store promotions for months, standard TV adverts and was given a lot of media coverage online. Of course SEGA could have done better, but they've got to target the right audience. If it's better for them to cut out the smaller audiences on other platforms then so be it.

They also released Sonic Generations within a week of:

Modern Warfare 3.

Skyrim.

Battlefield 3.

Two Metal Gear releases.

Uncharted 3.

None of which came to Nintendo systems, so none of which Sega had to compete with in 2010. The only thing Sega had to battle then was DKCR. Better marketing extends beyond just running advertisements. It also includes not sending a product out to die sandwiched between all of biggest releases of the year. Smaller audiences nothing; if competence is the main issue Sega making Sonic exclusive to Nintendo isn't going to do them any good if they only release the games at the same time Nintendo releases Mario and Zelda games.

  • Thumbs Up 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the question I asked to begin the discussion which is the only question I want answered. Nintendo exclusive may be a solution to a specific problem, but that's still doesn't tie back to the original query.

 

I really don't get what you're saying here. You made a comment and I replied to it. Is it even necessary that you say "oh that's not the specific question I asked" if it's still directly relevant to something else you said in the same conversation? You can't make a comment and then tell me you didn't want it answered. That's not fair at all.

 

They also released Sonic Generations within a week of:

Modern Warfare 3.

Skyrim.

Battlefield 3.

Two Metal Gear releases.

Uncharted 3.

None of which came to Nintendo systems, and none of which Sega had to compete with in 2010. Better marketing extends beyond just running advertisements. It also includes not sending a product out to die sandwiched between all of biggest releases of the year. Smaller audiences nothing. Sega making Sonic exclusive to Nintendo isn't going to do them any good if they only release the games at the same time Nintendo releases Mario and Zelda games.

 

The audience of Sonic games is very similar to that of Mario and Zelda. They can quite happily co-exist when they share a publisher. But all of those games that Generations competed with are catering a totally different market; that's the dominant market on their respective systems.

Smaller audiences means a hell of a lot.

Also I'm getting really bored of this. I've explained what "the benefit if it continues even if Sega's fortunes improve and Sonic becomes a de facto Nintendo franchise" is already. I did that right away. Sorry if you don't care much for the answer. We can't really make arguments that are more certain for a fair while yet.

 

EDIT: I can't hide my edits.

 

EDIT 2: I'm out. I've said my part in this discussion. 

Edited by Blue Blood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't get what you're saying here. You made a comment and I replied to it. Is it even necessary that you say "oh that's not the specific question I asked" if it's still directly relevant to something else you said in the same conversation?

Because it's not really relevant. You're giving reasons why it's good now while selectively bolstering why it has been good in the past; and saying that if this deal goes well then that is good enough to justify the idea that it should be made official and permanent. I'm asking why it would continue to be good on the chance that those reasons no longer apply when it wasn't that long ago that they didn't.

5 years from now and Sega is swimming in money like it's 1993; plus they've got their mojo back. If that happened, why would they need to keep acting like they are Sega of 2013?

 

The audience of Sonic games is very similar to that of Mario and Zelda. They can quite happily co-exist when they share a publisher. But all of those games that Generations competed with are catering a totally different market; that's the dominant market on their respective systems.

They can't happily coexist if they come out at the same time and one of them has infinitely more market presence, especially not if they have the same audience. People have finite amounts of money in the holiday shopping season, and hundreds of things that they "have" to get. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the PS360 7 days away from half a dozen much bigger games, Sonic is going to lose out on sales because those games are going to soak up the money first. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the Wii U a week after a Zelda game comes out and a week before a Mario Kart game, Sonic is going to lose out on sales. If Sega is going to keep fucking up, Sega is going to keep fucking up regardless of which system it's on; so you can't argue that being on Nintendo only automatically means that they'll be better off just because the audiences are closer over the idea that maybe Sega should try to stop fucking up instead.

You're acting like people are predisposed against buying Sonic games on Sony/Microsoft systems, when the reality is much closer to how people are predisposed against buying Sonic games over other games that have more hype. Sonic as a series lost the ability to throw that kind of weight after Adventure 2.

 

Smaller audiences means a hell of a lot.

I never said otherwise. But you're going to tell me that Sonic's audience on the PS360 is so small that a Wii U title has a larger pool to draw from when there aren't 6 games releasing at practically the same time that Sega has to compete with; ignoring outright that Nintendo rarely has much in the way of competition because third parties rarely support them anyway?

 

Also I'm getting really bored of this. I've explained what "the benefit if it continues even if Sega's fortunes improve and Sonic becomes a de facto Nintendo franchise" is already. I did that right away. Sorry if you don't care much for the answer. We can't really make arguments that are more certain for a fair while yet.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty uncalled for. I'm not here to entertain you. I'm attempting to get an explanation behind a sentiment that multiple around here are now treating as a done deal. Nintendo + Sonic 4lyfe = Better than any alternatives. It's not my fault if the reasoning you're giving to justify the viewpoint doesn't actually answer the question that I'm asking when I try to figure out where it came from.

You say that arguments can't be made about the issue, but that goes both ways. The arguments are already being made; just in your favor instead. People are already acting like Sonic and Nintendo should be permanently tied up because it's a good idea, so why can't it be challenged?

  • Thumbs Up 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't happily coexist if they come out at the same time and one of them has infinitely more market presence, especially not if they have the same audience. People have finite amounts of money in the holiday shopping season, and hundreds of things that they "have" to get. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the PS360 7 days away from half a dozen much bigger games, Sonic is going to lose out on sales because those games are going to soak up the money first. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the Wii U a week after a Zelda game comes out and a week before a Mario Kart game, Sonic is going to lose out on sales. If Sega is going to keep fucking up, Sega is going to keep fucking up regardless of which system it's on; so you can't argue that being on Nintendo only automatically means that they'll be better off just because the audiences are closer over the idea that maybe Sega should try to stop fucking up instead.

 

 

You're acting like people are predisposed against buying Sonic games on Sony/Microsoft systems, when the reality is much closer to how people are predisposed against buying Sonic games over other games that have more hype. Sonic as a series lost the ability to throw that kind of weight after Adventure 2.

 

I would like to add Sonic Heroes. Best selling 3D Sonic game of all time, with the PS2 selling the most copies (although the game turned out mediocre which may have started the downfall). So it's not like Sonic has always sold better on Nintendo systems. But this is when Sonic was still respected as one of the top franchises by everyone and getting the similar hype to Skyrim and CoD.

 

Sonic has lost his rep with the releases of Shadow and '06, and gamers have generally moved on from Sonic saying he's dead. 

 

Sonic Generations is really the first good Sonic game that came out on Sony/Microsoft systems ever since Heroes, but it was released around games with far more hype and love. So it will not get any attention, especially with it competing with Uncharted 3 and MW3 within days.

 

And no one's going to preorder and gain hype by millions with Sonic Generations after the half good, half bad (but overall poor reception) Sonic Unleashed and them hearing about the bad Sonic & the Black Knight

 

I honestly don't know why Sega thought it was a good idea making the Lost World and the other unannounced game exclusive to Nintendo. Just when people are looking at Generations months after release and say "Hey, it's not a bad game at all! It's actually pretty good!" (This is the only other active forum I go to...)

 

As long the next Sonic game don't release around top games like Assassin's Creed, CoD and others where Sonic can be ignored, I'm pretty sure these PS/MS gamers will give Sonic another chance after Generations. And if it's another good game, his rep will build up.

Edited by Ming Ming Suzy
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.