Quote:
Originally posted by gekko
Rare would not make more money by being owned by Activision. You think Rare sells their games alone? It's Nintendo that does the advertising for Rare, it's Nintendo that gives Rare the franchises to sell their games. Plus, Nintendo gives Rare more support than Activision ever could.
Nintendo basically funds Rare and everything they do. ActiVision doesn't have the same kind of money, and they can't give the same kind of help, support, and stuff like that. Look at StarFox 64, took off because it had a rumble pak. As a 3rd party, that wouldn't happen. They also wouldn't get the hardware as fast, and wouldn't have the help of Nintendo on their games, like the guidance of Shiggy and stuff. Hell, didn't Nintendo pay for Rare's facility?
|
Good point.
But there are 3 problems.
1) How much does Nintendo supply to Rare as far as $$$, and how do you know Activision can't support as good? (Nintendo may have a lot of money, but that doesn't mean they are giving it all to Rare)
2) How much money does Rare make Nintendo? If Nintendo were to have Rare as a "Camelot"developer for them (making 2nd party titles with franchises, and 3rd party titles for other consoles), would Nintendo walk away with more or less money?
3) If Rare were to remain independent, would they make more money? (not to start off, but 5-15 years down the line)
Quote:
Oh, and let's not forget, Rare can't leave until their contract is up 
|
How do you know it isn't already up?