HipHopGamer Hears from E3 Reps: Nintendo has Considered Purchasing SEGA

[Stacy]

If this was true, this would only be good news if your an Ninetendo user, if not then this would suck.

[Red]

Even though I'm against Nintendo owning Sonic, as others have said not everything Nintendo is all sunshine and rainbows. Alot of they're popular franchises have surprisingly dark themes. Namely this game in particular:

It's still my favourite Pokemon game ever, and you'd be surprised just how dark this game gets. Especially in Grovyle's special episode.

[Stritix]

Nintendo buying SEGA would mean more money, time, and effort put into Sonic games. Each main game would be in development for around 4-5 years. Giving us a longer, better experience with more content and higher quality.

I've never seen a main series Mario or Zelda game be anything short of great.

Nintendo owning SEGA would be a damn good thing. I don't understand why you would sacrifice all of that for the sake of Sonic being multi-platform.

It's just plain foolish to choose quantity over quality.

[Pixel Brain]

Well. I don't think I'd like this. At all.

But I guess I should go get a Wii U.

[sonfan1984]

Some of us can barely even wait a full year for the next main Sonic game wondering when Sega will announce the next title. You really think we can wait 4-5 years?

[Faseeh]

The thing is SEGA lives on pretty much Sonic now. They have quite some developers, and lil' teams to make a lot of games in about 1 year or so.

Ninty buying them would prolly mean, either they kill him slowly, or they just keep it to the main series.

I actually like quite some spinoffs for this franchise.

There's a lot of disadvantages for SEGA and the non-Nintendo users through this. They far... far outweigh the advantages. Nintendo and its users benefit from this though.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Christmas NiGHTS

[Sion-Ta]

Eh. I like having the option of choosing which platform I want to buy Sonic games on, and outside of Retro Studios I haven't been fond of Nintendo's own first party efforts in years, so I'd be worried about what sort of influence the company would have on the franchise.

Though even if they didn't have any input on the games, I wouldn't buy a Nintendo console just so I can play Sonic games.

[Alex2Beta]

Personally..I would kind of not like this, since I always liked Sonic being available to a wide variety of platforms..Oh and now PC.

If it were to ever happen, then I guess I'll just have live with it and all. And would only hope they would use other SEGA franchises besides Sawnik only.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Rudot

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Nintendo owning SEGA would be a damn good thing. I don't understand why you would sacrifice all of that for the sake of Sonic being multi-platform.

Because many of us aren't exactly going to be committed to a single damn console just to get our fix of Sonic. A lot of us happen to lean more towards the Xbox and Playstation consoles when it comes to variety AND quality when it comes to other games like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Halo, CoD (ignoring snarky comments towards FPSes), and various other games, and these are a lot of multi-platform titles out there that play no favorites when it comes to consoles.

In other words, we don't want to fork over hundreds of dollars on a single system just to play a single franchise on it. Yes, there will be other titles on the Nintendo consoles that could come in time, but if there was the choice to spend money on one console and play two of your favorite franchise on it or to spend money on two consoles to play one of your favorite franchises on each of them, which one seems more convenient? Especially considering the possibility that the other exclusive franchises on that one console may not in fact interest the person beyond that one franchise he bought the system for in the first place.

How is that hard to understand?

TL;DR - If Nintendo acquires Sega, Xbox and Sony fans will be shit out of luck to play Sonic games unless they buy a Nintendo console. And not everyone has the money to buy two consoles, and they might not want to even if they did.

Edited December 7, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Stacy]

Even though I'm against Nintendo owning Sonic, as others have said not everything Nintendo is all sunshine and rainbows. Alot of they're popular franchises have surprisingly dark themes. Namely this game in particular:

It's still my favourite Pokemon game ever, and you'd be surprised just how dark this game gets. Especially in Grovyle's special episode.

Yeah but what you consider dark and what someone else considers dark is subjective, not saying Ninetendo are incapable of making mature themed games. I think they can, I just think they don't want to often, what Ninetendo needs is a modern Contra or Goldeneye, or an Action-Advernture game that can appeal to a wide demographic which as the Nintendo "feel", hell even a racing game exclusive besides Mario Kart.

To be honest I am baffled by what direction Ninetendo wants to take does want to continue its routine of being family-friendly or does it want a slice of Microsoft and Sony's demographic? So far I don't know if they can conquer both.

Edited December 7, 2012 by BW199148

[Teoskaven]

I can accept this only at one condition: games that were originally on other platforms have to become property of the company that own the consoles (if they are exclusives, like for example Yakuza becoming a Sony franchise) or of another company in general if they are multi-platform (like for example Resonance of Fate becoming property of Square-Enix).

[Cola]

You know one good thing that'd come outta this?

No more outsourcing to Dimps.

Also...

hell even a racing game exclusive besides Mario Kart.

DOES F-ZERO RING A BELL

Edited December 7, 2012 by Cola

[Stacy]

You know one good thing that'd come outta this?

No more outsourcing to Dimps.

Also...

DOES F-ZERO RING A BELL

Er, actually no and the last game was made in 2004.

[Cola]

Er, actually no and the last game was made in 2004.

BY SEGA MIND YOU

THE LOGICAL EQUATION MEANS THAT IF NINTENDO BUYS SEGA THEN NEW F ZERO

MAKE IT HAPPEN ADFAFSAFS

Ok, yeah, in 2004 for Gamecube. But, Captain Falcon's Twister Race was just in Nintendo Land, and the Wii U was only just released, So an F-Zero may very well be released on Wii U.

...I have no idea where I'm going with this.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Cola

[Stritix]

Because many of us aren't exactly going to be committed to a single damn console just to get our fix of Sonic. A lot of us happen to lean more towards the Xbox and Playstation consoles when it comes to variety AND quality when it comes to other games like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, Halo, CoD (ignoring snarky comments towards FPSes), and various other games, and these are a lot of multi-platform titles out there that play no favorites when it comes to consoles.

In other words, we don't want to fork over hundreds of dollars on a single system just to play a single franchise on it. Yes, there will be other titles on the Nintendo consoles that could come in time, but if there was the choice to spend money on one console and play two of your favorite franchise on it or to spend money on two consoles to play one of your favorite franchises on each of them, which one seems more convenient? Especially considering the possibility that the other exclusive franchises on that one console may not in fact interest the person beyond that one franchise he bought the system for in the first place.

How is that hard to understand?

TL;DR - If Nintendo acquires Sega, Xbox and Sony fans will be shit out of luck to play Sonic games unless they buy a Nintendo console. And not everyone has the money to buy two consoles, and they might not want to even if they did.

You are missing the point.

I can understand being frustrated at having your favourite franchise tied to only one home console, but is it really worth sacrificing a fantastic game in return of an average one just to play on other systems? Not at all. Where's the logic in picking quantity over quality? Why should the entire series suffer because you don't want to get involved with another company? The Sonic series was originally exclusive to SEGA systems. Being exclusive to Nintendo would be a fantastic move.

SEGA is dying. They just sold off a lot of their franchises due to money trouble. It's only going to get worse overtime. They do not have the time and money to put into making high quality Sonic games that Nintendo could be doing. They do not have the option.

[Stacy]

You are missing the point.

I can understand being frustrated at having your favourite franchise tied to only one home console, but is it really worth sacrificing a fantastic game in return of an average one just to play on other systems? Not at all. Where's the logic in picking quantity over quality? Why should the entire series suffer because you don't want to get involved with another company? The Sonic series was originally exclusive to SEGA systems. Being exclusive to Nintendo would be a fantastic move.

SEGA is dying. They just sold off a lot of their franchises due to money trouble. It's only going to get worse overtime. They do not have the time and money to put into making high quality Sonic games that Nintendo could be doing. They do not have the option.

Dude, what if the quantity is quality in their eyes and they prefer Microsoft exclusives or Sony exclusives over Nintendos? What makes you guarantee that Nintendo will do a better job on Sonic than SEGA? More money doesn't equal better product if that is the case then EA should shitting out top notch games all the time with the profits they make, I think not.

[Stritix]

Dude, what if the quantity is quality in their eyes and they prefer Microsoft exclusives or Sony exclusives over Nintendos? What makes you guarantee that Nintendo will do a better job on Sonic than SEGA? More money doesn't equal better product if that is the case then EA should shitting out top notch games all the time with the profits they make, I think not.

Quantity is not quality. An average game on multiple systems is not better than a fantastic game on one system. SEGA is dying. They don't have the option to put time, effort and money into their games. Nintendo on the other hand does. They have not put a foot wrong with the main Mario and Zelda games. Those series always puts out fantastic games with a high amount of effort and detail with top notch gameplay, lasting for a long time.

I thought I already explained this.

[Stacy]

Quantity is not quality. An average game on multiple systems is not better than a fantastic game on one system. SEGA is dying. They don't have the option to put time, effort and money into their games. Nintendo on the other hand does. They have not put a foot wrong with the main Mario and Zelda games. Those series always puts out fantastic games with a high amount of effort and detail with top notch gameplay, lasting for a long time.

I thought I already explained this.

And I thought explained that what if the quantity was quality and are just as good as the one fantastic game on one system, why bother with one fantastic game when they get more fantastic games exclusive and non-exclusives on another system that they currently own?

Edited December 7, 2012 by BW199148

[Jango]

Who hasn't tried to buy Sega? Haha

Sony tried to team-up with Sega back at 1995,

Microsoft tried to create a console with Sega (and that ended up being the DC),

Now Nintendo.

Even if this is bullshit, I hope Sega keep how they are, I don't want Sonic to be Nintendo exclusive. NEVER.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Jingle

[Shane]

I'm actually going to agree with L for once. I'd rather have high-quality console-exclusive Sonic games every four or five years than average-to-mediocre Sonic games every one or two years.

[Stritix]

And I thought explained that what if the quantity was quality and are just as good as the one fantastic game on one system, why bother with one fantastic game when they get more fantastic games exclusive and non-exclusives on another system that they currently own?

And I thought I explained that it wasn't.

SEGA is dying. They just sold off a lot of their franchises due to money trouble. It's only going to get worse overtime. They do not have the time and money to put into making high quality Sonic games that Nintendo could be doing. They do not have the option.

It's not going to happen. SEGA is in a mess that they won't get out of for a long time. They do not have the option to make fantastic games. Their options are very limited. They cannot spend too much time and effort on a game right now. They need to keep themselves afloat.

[Stacy]

And I thought I explained that it wasn't.

So games like Uncharted, Little Big Planet, Halo and Gears Of War suck then, okay your right these consoles don't have any good games then.

[Patticus]

I hope not because THQ own the Saints Row series and I am not buying a Ninetendo, just for that game.

How about Ninetendo try and make more diverse games themselves?

EDIT: Also SEGA now own Warhammer 4000 series apparently I also forgot that some developers on THQ are big fans of the Wii U namely the developers of the Metro series who apparently stopped development on the Wii U version because apparently it wasn't good enough?

You'd buy a Nintendo console if the Saints Row game was good enough and you know it. It's fun, silly, completely absurd violence - quite a good fit for Nintendo, if you think about it.

Also, Nintendo's portfolio is already sort of diverse, and they do try to diversify further when they feel they need to, but THQ has some kickass licenses and developers under its wing that Nintendo could conceivably put to very good use. And yeah, I know Metro development for the Wii U was halted, but if said developers were bought out by Nintendo as part of a deal with THQ, surely expertise could be funneled to them in order to clear up problems they might be having with development?

Also, Creative Assembly, not Sega as a whole, is the group which bought those Warhammer rights, IIRC, and it's Warhammer Fantasy only (Orcs and Elves, Skaven and the Undead etc), not 40k. THQ still possesses the 40k rights.

[Barry the Nomad]

FUCK to the NO.

What a horrible decision that would be. For starters, multi-platform titles? Bye bye! Mobile games? See ya! The arcade games? Maybe not gone, but definitely not in the right hands. Many of the SEGA employees that we have grown to love (Aaron Webber, the SoA community team)? Probably let go.

In any case, given that Sammy bought SEGA in 2004, I can't see Nintendo buying SEGA now. There are way to many things standing in their way to make it an easy buy. I'll admit, I'm not an expert on the SEGA of Japan side of things, but I don't think they'd sell to Nintendo any time soon. They have the arcade business, the pachinko business, the smart phone market and the occasional AAA PS3 title making big money.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Barry the Nomad

[Semi-colon e]

Who says it's purely about time and effort anyway? They don't magically make a game good. True, an unfinished game like 06 is forever unfinished once it comes out, and that more time can be spent polishing the gameplay and stuff, but think about Metroid: Other M. That had a massive budget and loads of effort to put in, and it wasn't unpolished or broken in any way, but it never stopped the terrible design choices that arose from it. And that was the first Metroid game in 3 years.

Just thought I'd throw that in there.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Semi-colon e