Activision bought out Rare!!!!!?!?!?!?!

[Xantar]

Justin, I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that Rareware could make more money off their relationship with Nintendo than they could being a third party. I was focusing solely on the possibility of Activision buying Rareware, and in my view, it's impossible. As I already said, even if Rareware were up for grabs, Nintendo (or Microsoft, for that matter) would be able to outbid all contenders. The amount of money Activision, in particular, could bring to the table is just laughable compared to what Nintendo could offer.

You also still haven't addressed my other points (namely Activision's failure to report this buyout, if it actually happened).

I never said in my post that it is not in the best interest for Rareware to become a third party. I don't really understand the business well enough to make that kind of claim. For all I know, it might be in their best interests eventually. But being bought out by Activision is certainly not the way to do it. The only thing that's going to accomplish is give part of the profits from Rareware games to Activision instead of Nintendo. If Rareware goes third party, it will be to publish their own games, not to simply have Activision doing it instead of Nintendo.

Finally, Rareware wouldn't really be in any trouble if Nintendo went belly up (never mind how implausible that is). If Nintendo fails and can no longer afford to keep Rareware, somebody else will buy them. This does not affect Rareware's financial well being. Anybody given the chance would jump at the opportunity to buy them.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Xantar
Justin, I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that Rareware could make more money off their relationship with Nintendo than they could being a third party. I was focusing solely on the possibility of Activision buying Rareware, and in my view, it's impossible. As I already said, even if Rareware were up for grabs, Nintendo (or Microsoft, for that matter) would be able to outbid all contenders. The amount of money Activision, in particular, could bring to the table is just laughable compared to what Nintendo could offer.

You haven't looked at my point either then... because what I'm saying is that Rare is trying to make the most money for themselves.

If Nintendo or Microsoft bought out Rare, they couldn't possibly spend enough money to equal the amount of money Rare would make over the next 5 years as a 3rd party.

Like I said before, they could supply Nintendo with 2nd party games and make all the software $$4 they used to make, and they could stack 3rd party games for all 3 systems on top of that.

I never said in my post that it is not in the best interest for Rareware to become a third party. I don't really understand the business well enough to make that kind of claim. For all I know, it might be in their best interests eventually. But being bought out by Activision is certainly not the way to do it. The only thing that's going to accomplish is give part of the profits from Rareware games to Activision instead of Nintendo. If Rareware goes third party, it will be to publish their own games, not to simply have Activision doing it instead of Nintendo.

But if Rare goes 3rd party thier games sales will go to every platform. That just made a userbase to sell to 4x as big! They would be giving activision $$$, but they would walk away with at least double the profit themselves and and probably make as much as 5x as much $$$. Also, take into the account that ports cost less to make... and they they could still make 2nd party games for Nintendo, there is no way possible they could make less money than they make now.

So, if Activision did in fact buy them, they probably spent a lot less than what Rare wanted Nintendo or Microsoft to pay.

(plus, if Nintendo got second party titles from them with or without a buy, what would be the point of purchasing them?)

the sad part is, were probably just debating about a false rumor

[Xantar]

Originally posted by BigJustinW

the sad part is, were probably just debating about a false rumor

That's really all I'm saying. Ok, I also said that Rareware wouldn't really gain anything out of being bought out by Activision. If Rareware were the size of Retro Studios or perhaps Silicon Knights, I might agree with you. But the fact is they are not. They are so big that they are capable of publishing some of their own games. They have, in fact, already done so on a few N64 games. Having all their games published by someone else would be a step backwards.

You are making all these claims that Rareware could make so much more money if they went third party, but you don't have a shred of evidence to back yourself up. And the real fact of the matter is neither you nor I knows how much money Rareware could make as a third party. There are all kinds of added expenses for that (not the least of which would be having to pay licensing fees to console manufacturers). And we have no idea how well their games would sell, especially since we don't know how well Rareware would be able to pump out the multiple games per year that a third party is required to make in order to survive.

So, if Activision did in fact buy them, they probably spent a lot less than what Rare wanted Nintendo or Microsoft to pay.

(plus, if Nintendo got second party titles from them with or without a buy, what would be the point of purchasing them?)

You don't know that Rareware would cost less to Activision than to Nintendo or Microsoft. Besides, I don't think Rareware would make themselves 20 times cheaper for Activision, and that is the difference between the amount of cash Activision has and the amount of cash Nintendo has.

If Rareware were making games for other platforms, they wouldn't be giving second party titles to Nintendo any longer. The relationship would be broken off. Rareware may make exclusive third party games as Capcom and Factor 5 do, but Nintendo would not defray publishing and most development costs. Besides that, there is most certainly a point to keeping ownership of Rareware: to keep their games off of other platforms. That's a pretty valuable commodity.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Xantar


You don't know that Rareware would cost less to Activision than to Nintendo or Microsoft. Besides, I don't think Rareware would make themselves 20 times cheaper for Activision, and that is the difference between the amount of cash Activision has and the amount of cash Nintendo has.

*sigh*

Please Xantar, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Rare would make themselves cost more to Nintendo because the future potiental cash would be cut WAY down. Use common sense. Limiting development to one console can only hurt the all around games sold from Rare.

Is Rare a software developer or a hardware developer? Rare's money is made from Software, and by becoming a third party they would sell more software.

If Rareware were making games for other platforms, they wouldn't be giving second party titles to Nintendo any longer. The relationship would be broken off. Rareware may make exclusive third party games as Capcom and Factor 5 do, but Nintendo would not defray publishing and most development costs. Besides that, there is most certainly a point to keeping ownership of Rareware: to keep their games off of other platforms. That's a pretty valuable commodity.

1) Rare would be making 2nd party games for Nintendo. Perfect Dark and Conker will become like Mario Golf and Tennis, and Zelda Oricle of seasons for GBC, and Mario RPG for SNES... a 2nd party game made by a "3rd party developer" (even though I still believe developrs can't be classified by party)

2) The only console they would worry about is Gamecube (as a third party developer) Because it would get the most exclusive games. The other Games can be developed for Xbox, and ported by other companies under Activision.

[Xantar]

Never mind...just never mind. I've been reminded now why I try as hard as possible not to get into a debate with you. Let these posts stand as they are and the other members make their own decisions on the matter.

[Ric]

WHY DO people make up crap like this, because thats what this is, crap. Aah I have had enough of this rubbish, all I will say is

RARE ARE SECOND PARTY EXCLUSIVE TO NINTENDO AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

There.

Ooh I know lets take another impossible situation and pretend it's true.... ah hah... did you know Sega are buying out Sony and making consoles again .

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Xantar
Never mind...just never mind. I've been reminded now why I try as hard as possible not to get into a debate with you. Let these posts stand as they are and the other members make their own decisions on the matter.

Ok... whatever you say

Originally posted by Ric
WHY DO people make up crap like this, because thats what this is, crap. Aah I have had enough of this rubbish, all I will say is

RARE ARE SECOND PARTY EXCLUSIVE TO NINTENDO AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

There.

Ooh I know lets take another impossible situation and pretend it's true.... ah hah... did you know Sega are buying out Sony and making consoles again

WTF are you talking about? The only reason Rare is picked on by Rumors is the fact that it IS possible.

You sound like a Sony fan when sombody would say Square is developing for Gamecube....

If it's impossible for Rare to leave Nintendo, tell us why it's so impossible.

[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?

Oh, and let's not forget, Rare can't leave until their contract is up

[BigJustinW]

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)

Oh, and let's not forget, Rare can't leave until their contract is up

How do you know it isn't already up?

[Jin]

Originally posted by Xantar
Never mind...just never mind. I've been reminded now why I try as hard as possible not to get into a debate with you. Let these posts stand as they are and the other members make their own decisions on the matter.

Your points on how Activision is a publicly traded company, and how if Rare was for sale Nintendo would be able to out bid Activision since they have more money, made total sense... to me atleast.

You and BigJustinW were debating 2 totally different things. You were debating about how the rumor wasn't true, and he was debating about how Rare could benifit if it were a third party. You never really said that Rare wouldn't benifit, all you said was that if they were heading in that direction, they wouldn't do it by being sold to Activision.

[Blix]

Originally posted by Jin


Your points on how Activision is a publicly traded company, and how if Rare was for sale Nintendo would be able to out bid Activision since they have more money, made total sense... to me atleast.

You and BigJustinW were debating 2 totally different things. You were debating about how the rumor wasn't true, and he was debating about how Rare could benifit if it were a third party. You never really said that Rare wouldn't benifit, all you said was that if they were heading in that direction, they wouldn't do it by being sold to Activision.

ditto!

[BreakABone]

There are tons of issues I will not even touch in this thread for many reasons, but yet me not even bother to get into that.

I won't really even touch this rumor, but with all the recent news about Rare. I expect a big announcement soon. On what I don't know, but I think it will be something important.

[GameKinG]

I just dont beleive any of it. Dosnt nintendo own rare through contract? And nintendo probably owns 50 percent in stock (Im just guessing) So how could activision overthrow NINTENDO? Especialy over a company which nintendo holds very close.

[quiet mike]

I have no clue how much Nintendo owns Rare, but they are the second share holder after the brothers. So thy have somwhere between 15 and 30 shares. THe rest is in small parts publick domain.

Now to the discussion at hand:

Nintendo makes less money from Rare's games and any other 2'nd party than from their own or 3'rd party games. The whole point of the 2'nd party is to help in hardware sales, which can only be abtained by having games. Since Nintendo can't make all the games needed to sell enough consoles to make a profit, they buy out shares in companies to become part of the board of directors and then makes a contract for exclusivity.

Because of this the 2'nd party gets great advantages compared to other developers (especially a Nintendo 2'nd party)

1. They are the first to get the hardware and development tools (and it's free)
2. First to get any upgraded tools
3. Know all the secrets in Nintendo's camp ahead of anyone
4. They are paid by Nintendo until they get a game out and the game starts to pay (many 3rd party games suck because developers need to sell the game to afford working on the next one)
5. (In Nintendo's camp) they can delay a game until it's really ready to get on the shelves without pressure from the publisher
6. They don't pay for costs of publishing, marketing distribution, etc.
7. If the games is not that great as expected, they don't have to survive on the bad sales of the game.
8. Free support from the 1st party develoment teams in crucial part of games (designers, writers, programers, engines, tools, codes)


Now a company like Rare could easily breack out as a 3rd party and do excelent. But until it is a 2nd party and the contract exists, they cannot be a 2nd & 3rd party like you sugest Justin. Nintendo is part of Board of directors, with the 2nd power in voting.

The same thing happened with Square. Remeber that Sony bought out 19% shares, becoming the second share holder. In order for Gamecube to get any games from then on, they had to branch out a different company that is owned by Square and Nintendo and nothing owned by Sony, so it couldn't have a say in it.

By this whole rant I wanted to show you Justin that Rare can't be both owned by Nintendo and work for other consoles as well.
BY what Xantar showed clearly, Activision could never take the upper hand on Nintendo if Rare would go for grabs, and Rare would better do to go on their own instead of being bought by a publisher.


So the Activision discussion can be stoped here. But I give you something else to munch on, and this rumor is the only one likely, and posible to do without giving Nintendo power to act.

The brothers that own Rare are rummored to go out on their own after the contract with Nintendo starts. They would sale the shares they own in Rare to start another company on their own that would remain independent and in which the best develoment teams in rare would join. Now that could hurt Nintendo for real.

[BigJustinW]

Well, mike, you got me sold.

I still believe them being owned by Nintendo any making thirs party software is possible... hell, it has already happend. A 3rd party games is a game not owned (rights), plublished, or developed by the console manufactur.

Seeing a game from under the name "Rare" appearing on a different system doesn't seem likely to me either.