Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

An excerpt from a rumor from remedy47 on Gamefaqs:

I found this out on videogameuniverse.com, anyway they said that Jeff Spangenberg was interested in reviving some other projects for the Gamecube after Echoes is released and that if there was a Metroid Prime 3 game to be made, Retro wouldnt be handling the sequel.

Spangenberg is the guy who was bought out of Retro by Nintendo, and left, wasn't he? The guy was responsible for the "pre-Metroid" Retro, and the merest mention of him completely debunks that rumour (if he's the guy i think he is)

 

[Scalemail Ted]

http://www.n-sider.com/profileview.php?profileid=16

The official line is that:

Jeff Spangenberg desired to pursue other business interests...

 

[SA-X]

I hope Nintendo doesn't force Retro to HAVE to do Metroid Prime 3. A great way to get the talent to leave is to force them make games they don't want to do. If Nintendo wants them to do another fps let it be something brand new.

That said, Raven Blade would be awesome for Revolution.

 

[gofreak]

http://www.n-sider.com/profileview.php?profileid=16

The official line is that:

Jeff Spangenberg desired to pursue other business interests...

Right, so it was that guy. The rumour is bunk.

 

[----]

I'm not so sure. I think the impact of Ghoulies would be minimal. It might have been heartening to know Rare were still there, but I think a lot of people would be wondering what was going on with Rare if all they had released by now was SFA and Ghoulies. In the same way they are now on Xbox.

Not just Ghoulies, Rare would have had Donkey Kong Racing and Kameo done already for Gamecube and would be working on other original high profile games for the Gamecube. Games don't have to be released to sell systems. All along Rare would have been showing off games they had in development for Gamecube, like Dinosaur Planet and Conker these games may have ended up in development for way too long, but they would be show cased by Nintendo at every event and bolster the appearance of Nintendo's game lineup. Losing Rare, losing Left Field, losing Silicon Knights, etc. has really made the upcoming Nintendo lineup look a lot thinner than it otherwise would. But of all the companies Rare was far and away the most historically important company that Nintendo owned a large piece of.

think about it, by this time in the N64's life we had a lot more titles, and of a lot higher quality.

That's because Rare switched platforms. All of Sega's developers were a lot more productive on the Dreamcast as well. You think Rare would have only released 2 games by now if they had stayed on the GC throughout it's entire lifespan? There's nothing to think about. Yeah if Rare had released as few games as they have this generation for Gamecube it would be noticeably bad, but you aren't taking into account that they had to switch focus to Xbox and now many are saying they're focusing on Xbox 2. I don't really give a crap if they release 5 games in 2 years. I care whether they release one really good million selling game. If that's the only game they come out with in 2 years I'm not going to complain anymore than I would about Bungie releasing 1 game every 3 years.

but some of us are just genuinely disappointed as Rare fans.

You haven't even given them a chance to release any new games and you're saying they're looking dead. You're saying that the company itself was broken before the transaction had even taken place with nothing to back that up. Rare had to completely remake half of the games they were working on for Gamecube and cancel the other half. I don't understand how you think what they've released on Xbox is representative of what they would have released on Gamecube???

I am not a Rare fan, but I can admit that the N64 would have been about half as successful as it was if Rare wasn't making games for it. So to say that Gamecube has not been hurt at all by the loss of Rare is bullshit. Would they have been as important to Gamecube as they were to N64? Probably not, but they were still arguably the second most important developer that Nintendo had. There's no denying that Rare's presence on Gamecube would have helped the system.

I think the Rare is doomed message coming out of the Nintendo camp means something significant. It means that Rare has lost most of it's fans. The Gamecube/N64 owners are justifying not leaving Nintendo for Rare by saying that the Rare they liked no longer exists. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they've made their decision already. When Rare releases their games on Xbox they're not going to sell well because the fans aren't there to buy them, the vast majority of people who bought Rare's games religiously on N64 do not own Xbox's. And they're not going to buy them.

I am critical of what Rare has done so far, but in a far different way than anyone else here who is looking to snipe. The problem for Rare isn't that they've lost all their talent. The problem for Rare is that upon switching platforms instead of bringing their recognizable core franchises to Xbox like Banjo-Kazooie and Killer Instinct, they tried to create and build up new and unestablished franchises like Ghoulies, Kameo, and Conker. Sega at least deserves credit for being smart enough to lead their 3rd party development with games like Sonic, Virtua Fighter, Sega Sports, Phantasy Star and other well known Sega franchises. Rare has come to a new platform and led with absolutely nothing that defines them as Rare. Furthermore aside from the initial Rare is on Xbox movie they created they've demonstrated no interest in bringing back franchises like Banjo-Kazooie. The simple fix for Rare is this, stop trying to create new franchises, focus on reintroducing existing franchises and slowly introduce new intellectual properties within those powerful established IPs like Perfect Dark and Killer Instinct. Technically speaking however, Conker's single player has completely re-established my faith in Rare's graphical prowess as a developer.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I agree with the dashes.

 

[gofreak]

...

You haven't even given them a chance to release any new games and you're saying they're looking dead. You're saying that the company itself was broken before the transaction had even taken place with nothing to back that up. Rare had to completely remake half of the games they were working on for Gamecube and cancel the other half. I don't understand how you think what they've released on Xbox is representative of what they would have released on Gamecube???

...

[/b]

Releasing so few titles can be as much of a disappointment as releasing bad ones. And the few they have released, I've been disappointed with (by Rare standards). I agree, it is simplistic to suggest Rare's output would have been the same if they stuck to GC - no doubt, they would have cranked a couple more titles out by now. BUT, even before the deal was struck, Rare was taking their sweet sweet time coming out with anything. They would have been one of the first developers with GC kits, yet they had nothing at launch. So yes, some of Rare's problems do stem out of the transition to Xbox development, and in that sense we can be hopeful for the future on Xenon..but some of the problems were there already, I think. We can never know for sure, but i think there was/is more going on than just the hardware transition.

And I agree, Rare would be doing better, or appear to be doing better, if they focussed on getting the high profile stuff out first. I imagine if we got Banjo instead of Ghoulies, and PD0 instead of Kameo, Rare's image would be better. As a gamer, though, I don't think it's necessarily the most productive avenue to take..I'm glad they're creating new IP, but so far it hasn't been up to scratch (with respect to Ghoulies, all imo). It would have probably have been better to have got something like Banjo in place of Ghoulies..we'll see if Kameo can prove itself worthy. Fingers crossed.

 

[jarrod]

Losing Rare, losing Left Field, losing Silicon Knights, etc. has really made the upcoming Nintendo lineup look a lot thinner than it otherwise would. But of all the companies Rare was far and away the most historically important company that Nintendo owned a large piece of.[/b]

Possibly, though it needs to be noted that Nintendo's strategy changeover from co-funded 2nd party development (Rare, Silicon Knights, Leftfield) to game specific 3rd party colaberrations (F-Zero, Donkey Konga, GBA Zelda) sort of makes up for any perception of a thinner lineup and it's a more cost effective strategy as well. Not to mention Nintendo's increase in internal development this generation (Retro, Brownie Brown, Nintendo Tokyo). GameCube has more Nintendo games in it's first 3 years than Nintendo 64 did, it's not as if Nintendo hasn't compensated for those lost potential games.

Also, I'm not sure Nintendo really lost anyone... in each situation it really seems like Nintendo was the one walking away.

 

[LuckyBrand]

Banjo, Perfect Dark and Killer Instinct are all huge names, and if all 3 were released for Xenon at some point, would all sell huge and sell alot of systems..

too bad MS probably wouldnt release KI3 into arcades first, that would be tizight.

 

[wazoo]

Banjo, Perfect Dark and Killer Instinct are all huge names, and if all 3 were released for Xenon at some point, would all sell huge and sell alot of systems..

Banjo Kazooie sold huge. Banjo Tooie sold a lot less.
KI was big on SNES. KI Gold sold less on N64, even for a launch game.
PD is the only worthy game, but even that one sold "only" 1M. not much for the hyped sequel to Golden Eye.

I doubt the capacity of RARE to sell a lot of games. Not even talking about moving systems.

 

[jarrod]

Yeah, I'm a little surprised Rare didn't start out with Banjo and Perfect Dark honestly. Guess they're saving those for Xenon...

Here's some Banjo/PD N64 sales also if anyone's interested...

Title (JP sales) US sales
-Banjo-Kazooie (405,034) US: 1,616,250
-Banjo-Tooie (194,173) 697,963
-Perfect Dark (76,873) 1,297,490

...each one did pretty well, even in Japan.

 

[JJConrad]

Banjo, Perfect Dark and Killer Instinct are all huge names, and if all 3 were released for Xenon at some point, would all sell huge and sell alot of systems..

too bad MS probably wouldnt release KI3 into arcades first, that would be tizight.

Correction!
Banjo, Perfect Dark and Killer Instinct were all huge names...

Its impossible to gauge the strength of these licenses today, but considering none of these games have seen a console release in at least 4 years and each have another year or two (or 3, or 4, or 10) before any of these even have a chance to see another release.... they're definately not as strong as they use to be. I doubt that these titles could sell on name alone, today (PD would have the best chance).

I think the only real mistake Nintendo made with releasing Rare was not retaining more of the IP's. Especially games like Banjo and KI, which Nintendo was heavily involved with. They didn't even fight for them. However, since Rare has yet to release any of these games for Microsoft, Nintendo hasn't really been hurt by it.

 

[Memles]

Here's some Banjo/PD N64 sales also if anyone's interested...

Title (JP sales) US sales
-Banjo-Kazooie (405,034) US: 1,616,250
-Banjo-Tooie (194,173) 697,963
-Perfect Dark (76,873) 1,297,490

I'll assume you don't have Grunty's Revenge (GBA) Sales sitting around, do you? Because I think that Banjo-Kazooie may find its way onto the DS for Rare, and was wondering where that worked in. The main question is where these employees are coming from; the handheld unit has Mr. Pants and what else in the works, and I wonder if it was that or the Conker/PD/Kameo teams that lost the employees.

 

[jarrod]

Correction!I think the only real mistake Nintendo made with releasing Rare was not retaining more of the IP's. Especially games like Banjo and KI, which Nintendo was heavily involved with. They didn't even fight for them. However, since Rare has yet to release any of these games for Microsoft, Nintendo hasn't really been hurt by it.

Well, the split was amicable. This way Nintendo still gets Rare games on their handhelds without funding the company.

I'll assume you don't have Grunty's Revenge (GBA) Sales sitting around, do you? Because I think that Banjo-Kazooie may find its way onto the DS for Rare, and was wondering where that worked in. The main question is where these employees are coming from; the handheld unit has Mr. Pants and what else in the works, and I wonder if it was that or the Conker/PD/Kameo teams that lost the employees.

I *think* it's around 200k in the US but I'm not sure. I also suspect It's Mr Pants! has moved to DS... DKC3 will probably be Rare's final GBA game.

 

[Chrono]

I hope Nintendo doesn't force Retro to HAVE to do Metroid Prime 3. A great way to get the talent to leave is to force them make games they don't want to do. If Nintendo wants them to do another fps let it be something brand new.

That said, Raven Blade would be awesome for Revolution.

I don't think Miyamoto would let that happen. Nintendo gives its developers all the time they need to finish games-- I doubt they would force a group to do a certain game.

If Retro starts working on the Revolution this fall they could have a game ready on launch day.

 

[TAJ]

>>>Didn't Nintendo buy Retro for the nice sum of 1 million dollars?

Hm, let's see here.

Sell Rare: +175 million
Buy Retro: - 1 million<<<

There's a lot of wishful thinking here about how much Nintendo made out of the deal. Yes, 49% of $375 million would be $183.75 million, but Nintendo didn't sell any of Rare to MS, and I've seen no evidence that they even had negotiations with MS.
Nintendo sold their 49% to the Stamper brothers for an unreported amount, giving the Stamper brothers 100% ownership.
THEN, MS bought the Stamper's 100% stake for $375 million.

IMO, Nintendo probably got much less than half, not least because some say the buyback terms between Nintendo and Rare were predetermined back when Nintendo bought in. (And also because Nintendo didn't have any leverage. Even if MS just bought the Stamper's share, they'd still have control)

 

[Li Mu Bai]

This rumor is indeed bogus. Jeff Spangenberg is no longer with Retro, & hasn't been since well before MP was finished. He sold his controlling shares to Nintendo making them a 1st party, remember? He couldn't handle the Miyamoto/EAD pressure iirc. I should've read this more thoroughly before posting it. My mistake ladies & gents.

 

[jarrod]

>>>Didn't Nintendo buy Retro for the nice sum of 1 million dollars?

Hm, let's see here.

Sell Rare: +175 million
Buy Retro: - 1 million<<<

There's a lot of wishful thinking here about how much Nintendo made out of the deal. Yes, 49% of $375 million would be $183.75 million, but Nintendo didn't sell any of Rare to MS, and I've seen no evidence that they even had negotiations with MS.
Nintendo sold their 49% to the Stamper brothers for an unreported amount, giving the Stamper brothers 100% ownership.
THEN, MS bought the Stamper's 100% stake for $375 million.

IMO, Nintendo probably got much less than half, not least because some say the buyback terms between Nintendo and Rare were predetermined back when Nintendo bought in. (And also because Nintendo didn't have any leverage. Even if MS just bought the Stamper's share, they'd still have control)

I'm inclined to agree but you never know really. Nintendo's the most ruthless company around, I've got a feeling they were probably "compensated" by the Stampers for giving up the partial rights they had over the co-published Rare developed properties.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Rare would be 1000 times better off if the Stampers would simply pack up and leave with their millions in tow. How on earth MS agreed to pay $375M with the brothers still running the show simply boggles the mind. If you want to know the real reason so many talented people have left over the last 5 years, look no further than sentence 1 of this post.

The Stampers, believe it or not are contractually locked at Rare with the MS buy-out for X amount of years, last I heard.

Once Kevin Bayless leaves, that pretty much is the end of the old guard N64 Rare people.

 

[Duckhuntdog]

Well if there is any good that came of the MS purchase of Rare, it's that Bungie might actaully get royalties, because Rare was allowed to have them.

Plus it takes the edge off of having to have Halo 3 for launch.

 

[----]

Look at this holiday season for Xbox, the big Microsoft titles are Halo 2 and Fable. That's it.
Funny how Rare's titles don't make Microsoft's list either!

I'll agree that you can't really judge the success of the Rare acquisition until Xenon comes out. Rare has a huge task ahead of them, though...they need to first get Perfect Dark 0 out for launch and have it sell systems. Then they need to attract a new audience to Xbox with their platformers/cart games/adventure titles. That's what Microsoft really wanted them for in the first place.

The difference being that Xbox and PS2 don't usually rely on 1st party games to sell systems (Halo and GT being the rare exceptions). Nintendo is the opposite with the rare exception of RE4, they are almost always reliant upon internally developed games to sell systems. There may only be 2 big 1st party Xbox games this holiday season, but there are a litany of huge 3rd party franchises coming to Xbox and PS2 this year. I guess the shorthand is that Gamecube needed Rare, more than Xbox needed Rare. The 3rd party developed Nintendo games are not making up for the loss of all Nintendo 2nd parties in sales or quality.

So I don't agree, Rare doesn't have to do any of that stuff you said that they have to do. Sure that would be in the best interest of Rare, and it would help Microsoft, and it may even be what Microsoft is hoping for, but Rare is not make or break for Xbox anymore. The Rare buyout has already helped a lot and if MS is dependent on any one developer, which they aren't, it certainly is not Rare. If PS2 can go on to be the most successful launched system with nothing other than Fantavision from Sony, then Microsoft is not dumb enough to put themselves in a position where they are reliant on first party titles to succeed. The success of Xbox 1, Xbox 2, Xbox 3, should rely on 3rd parties. The only way to succeed is by diversifying. If Microsoft hinges the success of their systems on Rare or Bungie or any one company then they are only increasing the odds that they will fail.

1 or 2 games a year? Nintendo cut the cord because they couldn't even manage the low end of that scale.

Rare would release games in spurts. Some years they'd release no games other years they'd release 3 games. They've always been like that. The company got caught in some very bad transitional states and had to redo and didn't get to release a lot of the content they were working on. I think it's safe to say had Rare stayed on Gamecube they would have released more than the 2 games they've released so far this generation. That being the case an average of 1-2 games a year isn't an unrealistic guess as to how many games they would have ended up releasing for Gamecube in the entire generation. The fanboys beating the drums that Rare was dead before Nintendo sold them are eulogizing a company that is still breathing and has tremendous potential for the future. The fanboys can spin the situation all they like, either way, whether they believe Rare died on it's own account or of this transition that's a blow to Nintendo. Until Nintendo parlays any money they got from the sale of Rare into another developer with equal pedigree as Rare and an equal sales history then you can only say the state of Rare today has significantly hurt the potential of current and future Nintendo consoles.

Nintendo had, what like, 49% of RARE making them a 2ND party, while the Stamper Bros. (and a rich friend of their's) had the controlling stake of 51%. RARE got the money from MS to buy back their shares from Nintendo and in turn gave those shares to MS. So tell me, does ANYONE know if RARE is a 2ND party of MS, or are they wholy owned by them? I don't think they are! If so, then the Stamper Bros. woulda cashed in their stakes and left the shell of a company to MS and laughed all the way to the bank...but they didn't. I think they're still holding onto their controlling stake in RARE so that they could some day go to the highest bidder and still have control of where RARE goes.

Rare are wholly owned by Microsoft 100%. The Stampers bought the 49% stake back from Nintendo and Microsoft bought 100% of Rare from the Stampers. With the Stampers still working for MS, that's not a bad deal. It's not like they paid the majority of the money out to a 3rd party entity that is no longer interested in the continued success of Rare. The majority of that money that MS spent went to a party that is going to reinvest a lot of it into the continued success of Rare. At least $200 million was gained by people who aren't going to let Rare fall apart.

Of course, not to mention that many of these franchises have diminished in prominence since their heyday -- it's been almost 10 years since a new KI game, and there's not a new one in sight, and Conker was never that popular to begin with. Banjo-Kazooie is more recent and sold well in its day, but is there a place in today's gaming world -- especially on the Xbox or Xenon -- for a 3D platformer about a banjo-playing bear and a bird that lives in his backpack?

IMO, these are the more pertinent issues of the Rare-MS deal, moreso than Rare's oft-debated quality or rumored defection of employees.

I don't agree at all on the subject of KI. You could have made the same argument for Ninja Gaiden, Mortal Kombat, or Metroid. If Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance is the best selling 3D fighting game in America, then it would not be that hard to bring back Killer Instinct in a similar fashion. Killer Instinct is the most requested game Xbox owners want from Rare. Xbox owners request Killer Instinct more than they even request Perfect Dark. Of course that may be because they assume PD has already been in development. Banjo I'm not so sure about. I think Banjo-Kazooie would be an essential game to have at the launch of a next generation console to bring the platform gamer or younger audience to the new system. It could bring the audience that Xbox 1 never had from launch and provide a great game in a genre that MS is lacking in. Either way you have to admit that Banjo-Kazooie had a lot more sales potential than Kameo, Ghoulies, or any other cartoony unknown commodity. BK as an IP still holds a lot of weight.

I think people ignore the fact that a purchase of this size was also meant to prove to everyone in the business that MS was here to stay and wouldnt be getting out anytime soon...

and also to remove a vital asset of Nintendo's...

we dont know how badly this hurt nintendos image or brand; we never will, but it certainly had some effect.

All true. The accusations that Microsoft was going to pull out of the console business virtually stopped the day after the Rare buyout. That move gave a jolt of confidence to the Xbox that holiday season that helped it far outsell the Gamecube in the US and Europe. How much you can attribute between the Rare purchase, Xbox Live launch, and Splinter Cell is debateable. The Rare purchase was definitely a major factor in the success of Xbox and perception of MS's commitment to the industry though.

MS made 3 smart moves in 2002 that ended all the doom and gloom talk regarding their future in the games business. The first thing they did was promise a 20 year plan, the second thing they did was purchase Rare for $175M from Nintendo/$200M from Rare, and the third thing they did was promise to invest $2 billion in Xbox Live. The purchase of Rare was definitely meant to be more than symbolic, but even as a symbolic gesture it had a tremendous impact on the Xbox and Gamecube.

How would this hurt Nintendo? They sold their own shares off to MS. They were NOT interested in supporting RARE--there wasn't an elaborate coup to undermine Nintendo.

Regardless of whether Nintendo wanted to sell or not, consumers view it as a significant loss for Nintendo. Unless you think every one of the 35 million N64 owners went out and bought a Gamecube on the day it launched, Rare being arguably the most important developer on the Nintendo 64 suddenly not developing games for Nintendo anymore has a huge affect on consumers desire to buy current and future Nintendo consoles. Personally I always felt that Nintendo's reliance on Rare was a huge mistake during SNES and especially N64 because although Rare's games would sell as well as Nintendo's they never had the gameplay quality that Nintendo's games had. Donkey Kong Country is a perfect example of a game which rips off the Super Mario Bros. gameplay, but isn't nearly as much fun or well designed. Miyamoto has said as much to the Stamper's faces and he is right. Rare always excelled in graphics (far exceeding Nintendo's technical capabilities) but was never able to replicate the great gameplay in Nintendo's games.

 

[Prine]

From a Ex tester @ ntsc-uk

Rare have some interesting games coming soon, and they'll more than like shine through on the xbox 2, but that still didnt make me wanna be a tester for longer than 6 months there... I wonder who left, time to have words

CAnt wait to see what they have instore for Xbox 2

 

[SA-X]

Personally I always felt that Nintendo's reliance on Rare was a huge mistake during SNES and especially N64 because although Rare's games would sell as well as Nintendo's they never had the gameplay quality that Nintendo's games had.

Meh, Diddy Kong Racing and Goldeneye were as polished and of as high quality as anything Nintendo released on N64. I'll agree that the rest of Rare's stuff wasn't quite on the level on Nintendo's, though.

 

[jarrod]

The 3rd party developed Nintendo games are not making up for the loss of all Nintendo 2nd parties in sales or quality.

I disagree, all Nintendo's 2nd party games this gen (NBA Courtside 2002, Eternal Darkness, etc) have been low performers with mixed receptions, the only exception being StarFox Adventures, which like Donkey Kong sold predominantly off the strength of it's Nintendo license. Games like F-Zero and Donkey Konga meanwhile have won critical acclaim and smashed expectations (or at least sold in line with their predecessors). This doesn't even take into account all the software from Nintendo's new 1st party studios like Retro or R&D Tokyo or collaberrations like Pac-Man Vs and Soul Calibur 2. It's not like Nintendo's done nothing after trimming the 2nd party fat, they invested in more internal development (growing themselves rather invested developers) and pushed key 3rd party relationships... a much safer investment in the long term honestly.

Rare would release games in spurts. Some years they'd release no games other years they'd release 3 games. They've always been like that.

Actually no, in the SNES/N64 era there were at least 1-2 releases annually. Rare output started stuttering in 2001, not before.

On the old board we compared the output of EAD, Rare & AM2 directly from 1995 onward (all 3 developers being roughly the same size). While Rare managed about a game for every 2 EAD/AM2 put out in the 1990s, after 2000 they dropped to a fraction of that. Even AM2 handicapped by the resource pit Shenmue and then immediately thrust into 3rd paty development managed to consistantly outdo Rare.

Until Nintendo parlays any money they got from the sale of Rare into another developer with equal pedigree as Rare and an equal sales history then you can only say the state of Rare today has significantly hurt the potential of current and future Nintendo consoles.

Fortunately they did... themselves. Investing in expanding their own 1st party development has been key for Nintendo this generation, rather than funding other companies.

The accusations that Microsoft was going to pull out of the console business virtually stopped the day after the Rare buyout. That move gave a jolt of confidence to the Xbox that holiday season that helped it far outsell the Gamecube in the US and Europe. How much you can attribute between the Rare purchase, Xbox Live launch, and Splinter Cell is debateable. The Rare purchase was definitely a major factor in the success of Xbox and perception of MS's commitment to the industry though.

Possibly within the media but in terms of actual consumer trends, I think the Rare investment has made an almost negligible impact on XBox. And I've seen nothing concrete that could lead one to see otherwise. All their significant IPs seem to be saved for Xenon anyway... and I'd argue firesale pricedrops and bundles were what really fueled XBox's 2nd half of 2002 boom in Europe and America.

The purchase of Rare was definitely meant to be more than symbolic, but even as a symbolic gesture it had a tremendous impact on the Xbox and Gamecube.

Symbolic impact sure, but I'm unconvinced of any real world impact. Seems mostly like $375 million fanboy fodder than anything thus far...

Unless you think every one of the 35 million N64 owners went out and bought a Gamecube on the day it launched, Rare being arguably the most important developer on the Nintendo 64 suddenly not developing games for Nintendo anymore has a huge affect on consumers desire to buy current and future Nintendo consoles.

I'm fundamentally puzzled how you've leaped to that conclusion. GameCube wasn't performing any better when Rare was onboard, there was no sudden drop in hardware sales when they left... how did you arrive at this conclusion exactly? You really attribute GameCube's lower userbase to Rare?

And really in terms of developer significance, while Goldeneye was a top game there's no denying EAD was the most influential (both critically and commercially) developer out there in the N64 days. Super Mario 64 is being remembered as the most important 3D game release of all time, no other game since has had even close to the same level of impact (outside maybe Pokemon & GTA3). Rare's always been viewed as EAD's ugly kid sister, following EAD's lead but always a little off. They were always 2nd best.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Props to Jarrod.

Countering terribly wrong-headed arguments and winning on every count.

Now can this ad nauseum Rare thread be put to rest? At least until something from Stamper & Co. sees the light of day... any year now.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

How do you win if they're both opinions that cannot be obviously proven right? Anyway, Rare not being on the Nintendo side of things has taken away many, many popular IPs from their potential arsenal and will only serve to bolster MS' future platform...even if the significance is debatable. Certainly, the fact that the subject of Rare always tends to draw a lot of ire and polarized views on the internet and among gamers is certainly a testament to their importance. Rare is an established and well-known name in gaming, and will continue to be, regardless of who they produce games for in the industry. IMHO, giving up Rare was simply not a good idea for Nintendo.

 

[jarrod]

IMHO, giving up Rare was simply not a good idea for Nintendo.

From a symbolic standpoint I can see that but unfortunately in real world terms dumping Rare seemed like the best option for Nintendo. Rare's output had slowed dramatically, their sales had continued to plummit since 1998 and really money would be better spent on funding other things besides keeping Rare afloat. And so far the loss seems negligible in terms of market performance. Besides, Nintendo doesn't have the same luxuries Microsoft does when it comes to limitless losses in this industry, I think both Nintendo and Rare are better off with the way things turned out truthfully.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I just don't see, given Nintendo's average sales rate of their GC games, how keeping Rare would've hurt them. Certainly, because of the long time that Rare had to do exploratory work on the GC and that several titles were already pretty far into development, they would have had up to, at least, 4 more games to the GC's lineup by this time. Switching to XBOX stalled them and forced them to rewrite/redesign all of their GC-developed games that were in development and held them back as they were still getting to know the XBOX design. It's was probably best that MS has them going on Xenon early to ensure timely releases.

 

[jarrod]

The problem with Rare was that since 1998 their games hadn't been close to hitting expectations (unless saddled with a Nintendo license). Banjo-Tooie and Perfect Dark didn't make even half what their predecessors managed. Conker was an outright bomb by Rare standards.

Despite being one the first studios with Dolphin kits, Rare couldn't get anything out by it's first year of release. In fact all their GC games were getting continually delayed (SFA, Kameo and DK Racing were all suppossed to be finished by GC's 1st anniversary). Unlike EAD who was actually getting games out when they promised...

Bottom line, Rare weren't performing up to standard in any area and hadn't for a long time. From Nintendo's vantage point, any further R&D investment would be better spent elsewhere, either on aquiring promising small studios or expanding their current internal teams and forming new teams. It's harsh but it's true, the IP loss really isn't too big a deal either when you look at how strong Nintendo's own IPs are (they dwarf Rare's by a gigantic margin in significance).

Nintendo's contract was set to end (at which point they'd either have to buyout the remaining shares or sell off to the Stampers) and given all the reports of staff exodus and internal turmoil coming from Rare (not to mention Rare's lower sales trends and standstill output) , I'd say Nintendo made the right move in dumping. Rare lucked out and got saved by Microsoft (imagine if Activision had gotten ahold of them) who has the resources and patience to try and restore them to their former stature (plus the symbolic victory for MS). Seems like everyone made out okay so far...

edit: ...well, everyone except Ed Fries it seems.

 

[GDGF]

I just don't see, given Nintendo's average sales rate of their GC games, how keeping Rare would've hurt them

Because they were a money pit. Would you give 500 bucks to a random slacker you saw on the street just because you had 1000 bucks? It wouldn't really hurt you, as the 500 you would have left is plenty, but you could certainly find a better use for your money.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Rare lucked out and got saved by Microsoft (imagine if Activision had gotten ahold of them) who has the resources and patience to try and restore them to their former stature (plus the symbolic victory for MS). Seems like everyone made out okay so far...

If Activision had acquired Rare (which they came very close to doing before being scared off by both the price and the Stampers' insufferable demeanor), patience would have run thin very quickly. In fact, it's far more likely that a major reorganization of Rare would have taken place and an overthrow of the status quo set in motion. Under MS, it's been rather smooth sailing thus far, employee defections notwithstanding - but even MS will run out of patience at some point.

 

[jarrod]

Well, hadn't thought of it that way... all things considered I'd say Rare is probably overdue for a major restructuring (probably throwing the Stampers out as well).

 

[SolidSnakex]

"The problem with Rare was that since 1998 their games hadn't been close to hitting expectations (unless saddled with a Nintendo license). Banjo-Tooie and Perfect Dark didn't make even half what their predecessors managed. Conker was an outright bomb by Rare standards."

To be fair, none of the big games being released around the time of those games on the N64 were actually selling. Including games like Zelda MM. It was just a time when no one was buying N64 games, atleast not at the rate they were before.

How did SFA do in terms of what Nintendo was expecting? It seems to be pretty much in line with most bigger GC titles in terms of sales.

 

[jarrod]

To be fair, none of the big games being released around the time of those games on the N64 were actually selling. Including games like Zelda MM. It was just a time when no one was buying N64 games, atleast not at the rate they were before.

Majora's Mask still managed to move 4 million units though (in line with most Zeldas, OoT is a somewhat unfair comparison) despite several handicaps like requiring the RAM pack, unfamiliar world design and launching directly against PS2. And plenty of N64 games were performing amazingly still after 1998 and in line with previous minded games (Mario Party series, Smash Bros, Mario Golf/Tennis, Pokemon Colosseum series, Kirby 64, Excitebike 64, etc), no single developer really took the same sales downturn Rare did.

How did SFA do in terms of what Nintendo was expecting? It seems to be pretty much in line with most bigger GC titles in terms of sales.

I think SFA has performed pretty well, but that's more likely off the strength of it's license than the strength of it's developer. Just like Donkey Kong 64.

 

[Catchpenny]

The difference being that Xbox and PS2 don't usually rely on 1st party games to sell systems (Halo and GT being the rare exceptions).

Huh? Halo put Xbox on the map. It has been THE system seller for Xbox, even two years later. Without it, Xbox would not have the third party support you're talking about. Xenon may not be quite as dependent on having such a megahit early on, with an established brand, the promise of a Halo 3 on the horizon and better third-party support from the beginning. However, it is hardly a PS2 situation, and Microsoft needs more than a Fantavision to convince people to spend another $300 for a console when PS2/GCN are still going strong. Xbox is not a brand so proven that hordes of people will buy it at launch and go on faith that the great games will come in a year or so. Depending on a third party to deliver such a title at launch is risky, so Perfect Dark is likely going to be the game they put in that role.

So I don't agree, Rare doesn't have to do any of that stuff you said that they have to do. Sure that would be in the best interest of Rare, and it would help Microsoft, and it may even be what Microsoft is hoping for, but Rare is not make or break for Xbox anymore.

Never said they were. I'm discussing this in terms of whether the purchase of Rare will be seen as a success or a failure. Microsoft bought them to reach out to a different audience. I think that will be the ultimate test for Rare, more so than delivering a successful Perfect Dark at launch. Selling a million copies of Banjo on Xenon would actually impress me a lot more than selling two or three million copies of Perfect Dark.

It goes both ways, though. Microsoft needs to find a way to market Xenon to a wider audience and give Rare a real chance to sell their games. Ghoulies and Kameo wouldn't sell to the current Xbox fanbase even if they were fantastic games receiving 9's and 10's across the board.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Ghoulies and Kameo wouldn't sell to the current Xbox fanbase even if they were fantastic games receiving 9's and 10's across the board.

It will be the same with Xenon.

 

[Deg]

And plenty of N64 games were performing amazingly still after 1998 and in line with previous minded games (Mario Party series, Smash Bros, Mario Golf/Tennis, Pokemon Colosseum series, Kirby 64, Excitebike 64, etc), no single developer really took the same sales downturn Rare did.

I remember that Rare Mickey kart game. Ugh. They really went downhill.

 

[MetaKnight]

Selling off Rare was a good move. Perception? Consumer's eyes? This is just pathetic spin.