@PlayStation_5

Not sure why you got those disagrees since what you stated is correct. http://www.vgchartz.com/gam... I guess there are allot of but hurt fanboys although, to be honest, I can't see why.

Possibly because you quoted the figures from CGChartz which IMHO is fine since you will find it very difficult getting figures from paywalled statistical sites.

Nice strawman.

What was said wasnt "skip the switch" it was "I would rather play it on another system."

Not only are graphics not a poor reason for a spectacle fighter, but given how weak the switch is compared to the other modern consoles (and the fact that bayonetta is an action game) framerate is also a big concern.

Even with that out of the way, yes there *is* reason to wish it skips the weakest console. If it has to play on the weakest console then at the very least the base game has to run on said weakest console. While things like texture and lighting quality are really easy to scale, there are limits on both how low you can take them and have a decent looking game, and on how many things you can scale back in an attempt to get the game working properly on weak hardware, which can and does get features that better systems could handle cut from games in an attempt to reach more people.

Do I actually want that or think it would be a big issue with out hypothetical Bayonetta 3? No, I think it would be fine, nothing Bayonetta does is especially demanding. That doesn't change that there is, in reality, a very good reason for customers to want games to skip weaker hardware, it's just that in my opinion it's not an issue in this specific case.

@princess_pilfer
Excellent comment!

Very well articulated. You sound like a very rational person. Thanks for calling out the straw man!

And just for fun. Not to anger or incite anyone. Maybe Xbox/ps can get the real version and switch can get that 2D retro side scroller version lol just kidding.

So you would rather only be able to play the game at home and never take it out of the house... you would prefer less features...

@bjorn
Well I suppose if they want to appeal to the portable market they could realize bayo3 for the 3ds.

It would be a different game tho probably smaller bite size levels that could be done in like 10 mins

Nintendo published Bayonetta 2. That doesn't mean they own the IP. Just like MS doesn't own the IP to Sunset Overdrive while they published the game. So Nintendo may have exclusive rights to B2, but not the entire series.

Either way, I would love to see it come to Switch.

Yeah this producer also stated this when they clearly had some sort of prearranged time deal and Ken Levine also stated there was no PlayStation 3 version of Bioshock, Shinji mikami also stated there was no PlayStation 2 version of Resident Evil 4

at the ending of the day the people that made these statements for a fact do not own that intellectual property and likely made those statements to actually sell the game.

Platinum Games does not own that intellectual property in fact all the legal documentation that I've seen regarding the ownership of Bayonetta has been shown under Sega

not Platinum games

not Nintendo

if Nintendo had any ownership of Bayonetta they would also claim the trademark to actually protect the property they now own so I find it very difficult to believe that Nintendo somehow owns something but has zero legal paperwork to show ownership of do you not understand that these things actually need to be made public?

I'm in the middle right now a filing a copyright and a trademark for a business that I'm opening up and I still actually need to know if I actually can own specific names, so if someone else owns a specific name I cannot shoes it so it is made public who owns what on top of that you also need to understand even if you own an existing property when it changes hands it is shown exactly who the trademark or copyright has been traded off to

That means even if I sold my business under the actual law it would show who got the rights to the copyright and trademark when I've sold my business because that legally has to be transferred over if I decided to sell it to protect the rights of the people purchased.

All you have to do is look up the trademarks to companies that have been sold and you'll actually notice the dates that those properties in regards to copyright and trademark that have been transferred over.

For example you could even look up the copyright and trademark from Mass Effect and you actually could see the date it was transferred over from the parent company that owns BioWare to Electronic Arts.

For example I had an idea for an interesting name for my business and it just so happens somebody else halfway across the country also has a similar business with the literally the exact the last name and I actually could not use it for my website.

But these things are actually made public because they legally have to be.

Sooooo no, I don't see anything regarding Nintendo owning Bayonetta because all you have is some comments from a team but does not own the property and from a person that was also paid to exaggerate the timed deal. Vs real legal documentation that technically can be looked up.

Platinum could buy the rights back. or there could have been a time limit on how long Nintendo owns said rights put in the contract, or Sega could have bought the rights. Companies have done it before. We don't know the details of the original deal or any other hypothetical deal that took place, so we don't know.

So it can happen. May not, but can.

I don't know the exact circumstances, but I'm guessing that since Nintendo funded the second game and PG owns the IP, there would be some kind of clause in the contract which legalize PG's purchase of the rights to B2, effectively reacquiring the license.
Only speculation though :D

The intellectual property is the game.

The intellectual property is not specific to individual game it is everything that has to do with the Bayonetta series it actually means for a fact Nintendo legally cannot own an individual Bayonetta game without actually purchasing the entire intellectual property

Sega would have basically had to make some sort of deal in which Nintendo paid them to permanently own a part of their franchise which actually doesn't make any sense because how much money would you charge a person to have ownership of a part of a property that isn't the entire property?

That's like saying how much could I pay you to exclusively use your car without paying you for the whole car.

Sega doesn't need to pay for any of the funding to a game to still on the property no different than somebody could pay your mortgage but technically not on your house.

Nintendo never bought anything, do you have any link to show legal ownership? The actual copyright and trademark is publicly open to show you Sega indeed owns the intellectual property .

Also why do you keep saying to ask a member of Platinum? Platinum does not own Bayonetta

That's like asking Ken Levine if Bioshock is coming to Playstation 3 when Ken Levine does not own the Bioshock intellectual property , mind you Levine have no problem lying to the public about the existence of that game but what did it matter? He didn't own the property in the first place.

Trust me lots of developers have publicly lied to protect time deals.

That is unless you believe Shinji mikami is also go to cut his head off is Resident Evil 4 comes to PlayStation 2....

https://trademarks.justia.c...

It shows the owner as Sega in fact you could comb through all the trademark information with a fine-tooth comb and you will not find Platinum Games nor Nintendo they have a zero ownership over that property.

In order for a company to even exert their rights on a property they actually still need to show that transfer of ownership.

It hasn't happened simply because Nintendo does not own any part of Bayonetta even slightly.

@dav- I'd love to see that legal documentation of Nintendo purchasing the rights...

Link orrr??