Activision bought out Rare!!!!!?!?!?!?! [Archive]

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:10 PM

http://www.gamesradar.com/news/game_news_3055.html

Activision have bought Rare. This is the - as-yet unconfirmed - rumour that is currently sweeping the games industry.

Gossip about Rare's future kicked off in December with a Christmas card they sent out to members of the games industry that hinted at a multi-format future for the developers.

At one point, is also appeared as if Microsoft were in the running for buying the company but, if the rumours are correct, it seems that games giant Activision stumped up the necessary cash in order to take control of Rare.

Until now, Rare have coded games exclsuively for Nintendo. With their titles including classics such as GoldenEye, Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark and Donkey Kong 64, they are generally regarded as one of the best - if not the best - games development company in the world.

But if they really have fallen under the Activision umbrella, expect to see them begin work on games for PS2 and Xbox, as well Gamecube. Whether this supposed new multi-format direction will herald a dilution in the quality of their products remains to be seen - don't expect them to be able to use Nintendo characters such as Donkey Kong and Star Fox, for example. More news on this sizzling story as we get it.

I really don't know what to say... in a way, I hope it's true, in a way, I hope it's not.

Perfect Stu

04-11-2002, 03:23 PM

PLEASE BE TRUE!!!!!

Then I won't have to buy a Gamecube :D

*crosses fingers*

designated_GM3R

04-11-2002, 03:25 PM

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=27795

Seems as if C&VG caught wind of this as well.
Funny how Games Radar omits a source from their article. C&VG isn't exactly dependable in this area of news, though I wouldn't hold it to them - they are an exquisite resource for anything gaming-related. Yet, if this "rumor" turns on its belly, it could be a devasting blow to Nintendo and the Cube.

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
PLEASE BE TRUE!!!!!

Then I won't have to buy a Gamecube :D

*crosses fingers*

Be nice Stu... this is a very sensitive subject for Nintendo fans :p

designated_GM3R

04-11-2002, 03:29 PM

You still won't see Star Fox or any other Nintendo-owned franchise on the PS2 or XBX.
Keep in mind, those jewels are owned by Nintendo.

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by designated_GM3R
You still won't see Star Fox or any other Nintendo-owned franchise on the PS2 or XBX.
Keep in mind, those jewels are owned by Nintendo.

Yeah, but Rare's FPS system isn't... So if they make an All new FPS I'd be happy.

Ridley

04-11-2002, 03:34 PM

There's just one thing I find a little odd about this article.

"....it seems that games giant Activision stumped up the necessary cash in order to take control of Rare."

And Nintendo or Microsoft didn't have the money......how? :unsure: It just seems a little odd especially since Nintendo and Microsoft would most likely be more than willing to pay a huge sum of money to buy out Rare and more than Activision would ever be willing or able to pay. The only way I could see Rare being bought by Activision is that the Stamper Bros. weren't totally concerned with the amount of money they'd get. They must have also had certain preferences that Nintendo or Microsoft just couldn't meet such as allowing them to go multi-platform, etc. Anyways, right now it's only a rumor so........

:unsure:

Perfect Stu

04-11-2002, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by designated_GM3R
You still won't see Star Fox or any other Nintendo-owned franchise on the PS2 or XBX.
Keep in mind, those jewels are owned by Nintendo.

Quite frankly, I think they can do better things with their own original ideas...I mean they could make a Star Fox Adventures game that is just as good or better with different characters...

And as for their FPS's....let's just say they own me

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Ridley
There's just one thing I find a little odd about this article.

"....it seems that games giant Activision stumped up the necessary cash in order to take control of Rare."

And Nintendo or Microsoft didn't have the money......how? :unsure: It just seems a little odd especially since Nintendo and Microsoft would most likely be more than willing to pay a huge sum of money to buy out Rare and more than Activision would ever be willing or able to pay. The only way I could see Rare being bought by Activision is that the Stamper Bros. weren't totally concerned with the amount of money they'd get. They must have also had certain preferences that Nintendo or Microsoft just couldn't meet such as allowing them to go multi-platform, etc. Anyways, right now it's only a rumor so........

:unsure:

Yeah, they are probably eagar to be a 3rd party.

We'll see at e3

surfin4lifer

04-11-2002, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
PLEASE BE TRUE!!!!!

Then I won't have to buy a Gamecube :D

*crosses fingers*

Did you read the whole thing? Your still not going to be able to get any games like starfox or DK or anything bc those are nintendo franchises so they will never be anywhere but on a nintendo system.

Idiot

04-11-2002, 03:42 PM

Oh, this rumours still doing the rounds is it? Mark my words: Nintendo will not sell Rareware, as they hardly need the money,($2.9 for 2001.) and it's still too valubale an asset to Nintendo. Nintendo also owns all of Rareware's propetys since it's buyout in 1993. Besides, Activision probably doesn't have the financial muscle to do this sort of thing.

gekko

04-11-2002, 03:43 PM

I wouldn't believe anything from GamesRadar. Wait until you hear it from a reliable source.

But I hope it's not true. For one, Rare would kinda go down the ****ter. There's a reason they've become so good, and that's because of Nintendo. Without their help, Rare wouldn't have become what they are. And if Rare decides to leave, they will end up with cheesy ass games since they no longer have a Bond license, a DK license, a KI license, or anything else like that (Star Fox, PD, JFG, etc.).

It's like when Rare leaves, they lose everything that made them into a great company. It would be like someone buying Microsoft, and in the process they lost Windows and Office. Rare would not be the same Rare anymore, and they would be much worse. Nintendo basically gave Rare everything they could possibly want to make the best games. Now they lose everything, and are going to make games without the great help of Nintendo, and without a franchise name to sell it.

Hell, why doesn't Activision buy out Polyphony Digital and leave the Gran Turismo rights to Sony. Really would benefit them, huh? :rolleyes:

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:46 PM

Rare can always make an All new FPS...

If they can swicth from Goldeneye to Perfect Dark, they can swicth from Perfect Dark to somthing else.

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Idiot
Oh, this rumours still doing the rounds is it? Mark my words: Nintendo will not sell Rareware. Nintendo does not own Rare... they just own thier franchises.

Idiot

04-11-2002, 03:48 PM

Actually gekko, quite a few of us wouldn't mind losing Microsoft Office...

designated_GM3R

04-11-2002, 03:48 PM

Imagine the repercussions if this is indeed proven true.
An unsavory relationship between Rare and Nintendo.
Ouch.

newname

04-11-2002, 03:49 PM

noooo...

perfect dark 0 better come to and stay with the cube.:(

gekko

04-11-2002, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Idiot
Actually gekko, quite a few of us wouldn't mind losing Microsoft Office...

Office for Windows sucks. Office for Mac is a work of art.

And PD blew chunks. Also, searched around. Activision Press Releases, anything? Notta. Now if Rare just invested all this money, they would release a press release because it's critical to their stock holders. And since they didn't, chances are they haven't bought out Rare. Also, they would want to promote a new purchase, wouldn't they?

Also, IGN doesn't have it, and they at least confirm their news before posting it (unlike GamesRadar).

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by gekko
And PD blew chunks.

...

newname

04-11-2002, 04:08 PM

what does pd stand for?:)

Mushlafa

04-11-2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by BigJustinW
Nintendo does not own Rare... they just own thier franchises.

Ummmm doesnt nintendo own like 23% of rare or am i just an idiot?

Anyway i dont think rare will leave nintendo they'll have nothing left and have to start over again.

Ginkasa

04-11-2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by lEatHErFaCe69
what does pd stand for?:)

Perfect Dark.... :hmm:

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Mushlafa

Ummmm doesnt nintendo own like 23% of rare or am i just an idiot?

Sony owns some of Square too... but neither Sony or Nintendo own enough of either company to stop them from developing for another console.

Anyway i dont think rare will leave nintendo they'll have nothing left and have to start over again.

and what's wrong with Starting over?

newname

04-11-2002, 04:22 PM

how did pd blow chunks, that game is gonna be the best fps ever.

sony owns 19% of square

nintendo owns 23% of rare

:)

Bond

04-11-2002, 04:40 PM

This would be awesome news if it is true. Now it's just a waiting game.

Xantar

04-11-2002, 04:42 PM

First of all, GamesRadar isn't exactly what you would call a reputable source. At least I don't consider them to be. They posted a story yesterday which was actually Nintendojo's April Fool's Joke (somehow, GamesRadar failed to realize that news posted on April 1st should be taken with a grain of salt. They also don't seem to realize that Nintendojo is rather sketchy as well).

Secondly, I don't think Rare is for sale. The other major owner of Rareware aside from Nintendo is the Stamper brothers (the guys who founded it). For Activision to buy out Rareware, the Stamper brothers would have to give up their share.

Thirdly, sit down and think about this for a second. Rareware is a huge development house of over 200 employees. Activision is not only much less well known but also smaller. Do you really think Activision can afford Rareware?

Fourthly, Activision is a publicly traded company. They would not be able to secretly purchase another company. Since the purchase of Rareware hasn't appeared on any company reports, it's highly unlikely that it ever happened. In these days with the collapse of Enron, companies are being especially careful not to hide their business deals.

Fifthly, Activision's sales were $748 million last year, with profits of $42 million. Nintendo is expected to post over $1 billion in just profits. All of this is publicly available information. Nintendo is not stupid enough to let some other company buy one of their second parties, and Nintendo wouldn't have any trouble at all outbidding Activision for Rareware.

newname

04-11-2002, 04:56 PM

wow, nice post. ur so right too. everyone listen to this, for this is tru. why would activision want to buy rare anyway. there is no reason for it. i dont think rare is leaving nintendo. thats all jus bull. besisdes i never heard it anaywhere esle besides here and afew non official junk sites.

Jin

04-11-2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Xantar

Fifthly, Activision's sales were $748 million last year, with profits of $42 million. Nintendo is expected to post over $1 billion in just profits. All of this is publicly available information. Nintendo is not stupid enough to let some other company buy one of their second parties, and Nintendo wouldn't have any trouble at all outbidding Activision for Rareware.

That's a very good point. If Rareware was for sale, which it probabaly isn't, Nintendo would definetly be able to bid more than Activision. I think it's possible for Rare going 3rd party, but I highly doubt Activision would be able to buy it.

D-realJos

04-11-2002, 05:37 PM

That is such a preposterous rumor!

How likely it is for Rare to leave the biggest international console games publisher in the world, to go with Activision(not saying they aren't big too)?

At this point onward, Rare's objective will most likely to move UP in the industry...not take a backward step.

If Rare goes any where, they'll most likely go the independent route, and expand from there.

PS: I suppose if they HAD to go the multiplatform route, Activision is a good resource supplier to have. However, this is Rare we are talking about, they have a name and will be more than willing to expand on it... meaning; Acquisition are out of the mix!.

BigJustinW

04-11-2002, 05:53 PM

Xantar, your point is invalid...

1) Nintendo will post 1 billion in profits because they make consoles... and they have the handheld market on lock.

2) What would make RARE more money (not Nintendo)... think about it. Rare could continue making exclusive games for Gamecube plublished by Nintendo and make all the money they made as a 2nd party.... and on top of that they would be able to port (new) games to every system and make a lot of extra $$$.

5 years down the line, Rare being a 3rd party would be a LOT more smart. I'm not even going to touch on the fact that GCN might fail (stping Nintendo from buying Rare)... and Xbox might fail (stoping Microsoft from buying Rare)...

IMO this news makes perfect sense... Rare wants to make more money in the long run.

Xantar

04-11-2002, 06:23 PM

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

04-11-2002, 11:35 PM

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

04-12-2002, 12:10 AM

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

04-12-2002, 12:36 AM

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

04-12-2002, 10:11 AM

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

04-12-2002, 10:59 AM

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 :rolleyes:.

BigJustinW

04-12-2002, 11:46 AM

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 :rolleyes:

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

04-12-2002, 12:15 PM

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

04-12-2002, 12:28 PM

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

04-12-2002, 03:30 PM

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

04-12-2002, 08:43 PM

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

04-12-2002, 10:28 PM

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

04-12-2002, 10:54 PM

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

04-13-2002, 12:38 AM

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

04-13-2002, 02:11 AM

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.

BigJustinW

04-13-2002, 03:21 AM

look at these interesting tidbits from IGN

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/357/357301p1.html

A Rare Situation

There is a phenomenal amount of hubbub surrounding the recent story of Rare, the most prominent and important second-party developer in Nintendo's stable. The details are far from clear, and the rumors are growing ridiculously out of proportion by the minute, but from what we can gather, there are a few details that are reliable.

First, Rare is at the end of a five-year contract with Nintendo (Gekko) and both parties are at the negotiating table, discussing what they want, and how to resign another contract. Nintendo owns a minority stake in the private company, with the Stamper Brothers owning the majority. Sources say that neither party is interested in resigning the contract (Myself), and with the phenomenal amount of change going on at Nintendo of America, there's reason to believe that the two may be parting ways. Either that, or they resign a different kind of contract, one that positions Rare as a third-party developer, or perhaps even as a publishers of its own games on various systems.

The fact is Rare could potentially make a lot more money if it did strike out on its own, reaping higher profits with multiple skus, and working with multiple publishers (Xantar/Mike). We all know the company has the ability to create unbelievably fun games, so why should they share the wealth on all systems? But the possible parting of the twain also spells trouble for Nintendo, whose harem of second-party companies is slowly dwindling (Left Field, Retro), and Rare has, pardon the pun, rarely let Nintendo down. Just look at what it did for N64 -- Blast Corps, Goldeneye 007, Diddy Kong Racing, Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Kazooie 2, Perfect Dark, and Conker's bad Fur Day.

gekko

04-13-2002, 09:56 AM

It would almost be be funny seeing Rare leave. Everyone expects Rare quality games no matter what, forgetting many things.

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)

1. Development tools will be at Activision too. Of course, come the next line of systems, they will be getting them later, and that means the quality of their games will suffer because they will begin development of beta kits.

2. Rare will have to wait to get the new technology.

3. Rare won't know all of Nintendo's secrets now. In fact, they get to wait like everyone else.

4. Rare will be forced to release games by a deadline. Nintendo delays games a lot? Look at how many are from Rare :) Rare's games are good because Nintendo funds them until they are perfect. Rare won't have that luxury, their games will be unfinished, and unpolished, and not the quality you would expect from Rare.

5. Activision will need the money. None of this million-and-a-half StarFox Adventure and Perfect Dark delays.

6. Now Activision is going to have to fork over money to try to sell a crappy game. Of course, when it sells like crap too, Activision takes most of the money, and Rare gets very little for their next game.

7. If the game sucks (and you know Rare's would for a few years), they are still going to have to pray it sells. Also, by releasing these horrible games, Rare looses it's reputation as a quality developer.

8. No more of Nintendo's help mastering the system, help with game design, and all that stuff. Of course, in the process your programmers also have to figure out Xbox and PS2, too.

Now maybe it's just me, but Rare is nothing without Nintendo. It's like A1 steak sauce, put it on some nice juicy NY Strip steak, and you got a great dinner. Eat it alone, and it's not very good (Ok, me starving, using food examples). Rare is only good because of Nintendo, they work as a team. If they leave and go with Activision, they can potentially make more money, but they are going to spend a hell of a lot more, and they won't have the luxury of making their games perfect. And once they release a few low-quality games, Rare will be no more. Once they lose their reputation, it's all over.

Perfect Stu

04-13-2002, 10:43 AM

I'm not gonna say much, other than the fact that it's really interesting that all Nintendo fans are saying that this is impossible. Other than maybe BaB, who didn't say much.

We'll see at E3...or earlier...:)

Joeiss

04-13-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
I'm not gonna say much, other than the fact that it's really interesting that all Nintendo fans are saying that this is impossible. Other than maybe BaB, who didn't say much.

We'll see at E3...or earlier...:)

haha.. I wouldn't doubt that this announcement will be made in late summer. Like in the middle of August.

Hell, I doubt there will be an announcement any time soon. And this is all probably one HUGE rumour that has no truth behind it.

Bond

04-13-2002, 12:07 PM

I think that if Rare did leave it would just shake Nintendo's already unstable boat even more.

Wait until E3.

Shadow_Link

04-13-2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Bond
Wait until E3.

And I thought only Nintendo zealots used that phrase :D.

Perfect Stu

04-13-2002, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

And I thought only Nintendo zealots used that phrase :D.

you should know, shouldn't you :rolleyes:

:p

Shadow_Link

04-13-2002, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Perfect Stu

you should know, shouldn't you :rolleyes:

:p

:rolleyes: Not really Stu, since I do own all three (four inc. GBA) systems :D. But maybe YOU would know, hehe.

Oh, and did anyone check out the letter section at GS? Here: (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/letters/)

The reply to the first question in the section seems to quash the rumours. I don't know. I reckon that this whole excerise could have been a trial balloon or something of that sort.

For those who don't know: a trial balloon iswhen a person or a company purposely leaks information to see the reaction of the public.

But anything goes I guess...

Blix

04-13-2002, 01:46 PM

I don't know how they could possibly focus on more than one platform since it takes them about 20 years to get each game out, heh. BTW, I think the rumor is flase. Only wishful thinking guys would think it's true. I'm not saying it can't happen, just that it'll most likely not.

Bond

04-13-2002, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

Oh, and did anyone check out the letter section at GS? Here: (http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/letters/)

Now lets not even get into that idiot known as Shane, ok?

Also look at this:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=27795

18:44 Over the last couple of weeks, rumours about a possible Rare buyout have swept across the Web faster than the bubonic plague. First, whispers spread that Microsoft had bought out the Nintendo second-party, with Ken Lobb's move from Nintendo to Bill Gates's empire adding fuel to this speculative fire.
In recent days, however, Activision's name has been the surprising entry into the fray, with the rumours initially dismissed as baseless, especially with the tail-end of various high-profile April Fool's Day pranks in our midst. But the link between Activision and Rare has not gone away and sources are in fact pointing to its verity.

One source, who wished to remain anonymous, claimed to have seen actual evidence of the deal, and others also attest to having heard solid information that the transaction has been made.

If indeed true, the import of this should not be underestimated. UK-based Rare has been a stalwart of Nintendo hardware for many years, producing some of the greatest titles to appear on the various platforms. With hits including GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie and Donkey Kong 64, the developer gave N64's oeuvre much-needed back-bone. Indeed, many consider the N64's very survival relied heavily on Rare's output, since third-party support was narrow and first-party releases infrequent.

More pertinently, Nintendo has also been relying heavily on Rare's forthcoming projects, which include Star Fox Adventure, Kameo and Perfect Dark Zero on GameCube, and Diddy Kong Pilot and Sabre Wulf on GBA. If the rumours prove true, it now seems increasingly likely that these titles will now go multiformat. In fact, a PS2 version of Star Fox Adventures has been rumoured for some time. And let's not forget the Christmas card Rare issued at the end of last year, which featured Xbox, PS2 and GameCube shaped presents under the true. Just a harmless joke?

But how could this happen? One school of thought suggests that, in the event of any buyout, Rare's motivating factor might be that GameCube is Nintendo's last piece of under-the-TV hardware, with the developer wishing to establish itself across all formats. Hot air? Maybe; maybe not.

The main stumbling block, of course, is Nintendo's stake in Rare and it does seem almost unbelievable that the Japanese giant would let such a valuable commodity slip through its fingers. But, as we've said, the mud is beginning to stick. This could all be empty speculation, of course, but stranger things have happened. You're playing Sonic on a GameCube after all.

Spokespersons for Activision, Rare, and Nintendo remained unavailable for comment at the time of going to press.

BigJustinW

04-13-2002, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Nemesis
I don't know how they could possibly focus on more than one platform since it takes them about 20 years to get each game out, heh. BTW, I think the rumor is flase. Only wishful thinking guys would think it's true. I'm not saying it can't happen, just that it'll most likely not.

Well, it's not like they really have to focus on all 3 systems... look at every other developer. They focus on the Ps2 product first, then everything else will be ports. So it's not like they are going to be putting seperate effort into all three systems.

Also, don't forget, Activision has a huge amount of developers. This means a Nintendo group of 100 Rare developers can become 3 groups of Activision developers (just take the top 33 from each group). It won't hurt the qulity either, because a great game has a great formula, and it only takes a few developers to give out that formula (Look atTimesplitters, it has about 10 developers from the Goldeneye007 project (for N64), and look how good it's turning out.

Shadow_Link

04-13-2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Bond
In fact, a PS2 version of Star Fox Adventures has been rumoured for some time.

Now isn't it wierd how a game with nintendo mascots can appear on the PS2?

BreakABone

04-13-2002, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by BigJustinW

Well, it's not like they really have to focus on all 3 systems... look at every other developer. They focus on the Ps2 product first, then everything else will be ports. So it's not like they are going to be putting seperate effort into all three systems.

Also, don't forget, Activision has a huge amount of developers. This means a Nintendo group of 100 Rare developers can become 3 groups of Activision developers (just take the top 33 from each group). It won't hurt the qulity either, because a great game has a great formula, and it only takes a few developers to give out that formula (Look atTimesplitters, it has about 10 developers from the Goldeneye007 project (for N64), and look how good it's turning out.

Hmm.. now here is a question. Which of the 3 platforms will they actually focus on?

And what you mean every other developer?
There are a few that actually make all 3 games seperate such as Acclaim with Turok and Vexx.

And well for the rest of your post. I won't even bother to comment on it.

Joeiss

04-13-2002, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

Now isn't it wierd how a game with nintendo mascots can appear on the PS2?

No. Rare will not be making Nintendo-franshise games on other consoles. If RareWare departs, they will have to create their own mascots and characters to put on Xbox and PS2. And then they can still make Nitendo-franchise games for GCN and GBA.

Bond

04-13-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

Now isn't it wierd how a game with nintendo mascots can appear on the PS2?
I didn't say that Shadow_Link. The article said that.

Shadow_Link

04-14-2002, 05:29 AM

Er, Joeiss and Bond, if you did notice, I put a quote up (obviously from the article :rolleyes: ), I never said you said that Bond. I was just pointing out something a bit iffy in the article.

Idiot

04-14-2002, 09:23 AM

Meanwhile, the rumour trundles on, with no truth behind it......

Xantar

04-14-2002, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Bond
Now lets not even get into that idiot known as Shane, ok?

Whether or not Shane is an idiot, he's right about this one. Let's look at what he said on The Spot.

It's not true. This rumor was started on a message board on a fan site purely to see how quickly the false information would spread. Everyone who sent me effigies mourning the death of the great Rare/Nintendo relationship can stop crying now.

And here (http://pub35.ezboard.com/fgamingageforums2frm0.showMessage?topicID=20502.topic) is a thread from the Gaming Age forums reacting to Shane's reply and admitting that the whole rumor was started by one particular Lord Federman back in March. A few choice quotes from that thread...

WE'RE FAMOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait a minute, we can't be a fan site!
Beware the power of Gaming-Age.
Does Shane visit GA?
It is border-line scary what this forum and Lord Federman have done. I mean, wow.

It's just like I told you guys before in another thread. This was all started as a joke on a message board at Gaming Age.

GameKinG

04-14-2002, 01:51 PM

Rare COULD branch out to a 3rd party, but they would not get some of the benefits mike stated in his earlier post.

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)

I think sticking with nintendo and re-sgining a contract would be smarter.

Of coarse this information is useless, as this whole topic is just a rumor started on a board.