Should Nintendo buy Rare from Microsoft?

[Foxus]

To quote Rare co-founder, Tim Stamper:

"I've no idea why they didn't do that. I thought we were a good fit."

And I couldn't agree more. There's no denying some of the best games in Nintendo's history have been developed by Rare. I'm stumped why Nintendo didn't do so as much as Rare's co-founder. So what do you think? Should Nintendo buy out Rare (Rare's last work for Nintendo being Star Fox Adventures, which was graphically developed fantastically). Rare, as a company, has been going down the tubes since Microsoft's acquisition. Nintendo could very well be its savior from the continuous downward spiral the developer has experienced.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see Nintendo's acquisition could benefit both Nintendo and Rare.

That's my perspective on the idea. How about you?

 

[PKFreeze89]

No.

Rare are a bunch of traitors, they're better off with Clonesoft.

 

[finalark]

No.

Rare are a bunch of traitors, they're better off with Clonesoft.

I don't think a parent company selling a dev studio to another parent company is really a traitorous act.

Personally, I think Nintendo should not buy Rare. I know there's a lot of people who think that Rare being back in Nintendo's hands will magically bring back the beloved 90s Rare, but that's just now how it would be. Most of the key staff from classic Rare is gone, a majority of the current staff have never worked on anything but Kinect games and none of them know how to make the kinds of games that Rare is known for, platformers and shooters.

Besides, it's not like the market is exactly lucrative for 3D platformers right now. Hell, even if they made a 2D platformers we've been absolutely flooded with those in the past few years and it would probably get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention that we're starting to reach a point where shooters are beginning to get some serious backlash from people who are tired of them.

On top of all of that, if Nintendo bought Rare we'd probably get more platformers for the Wii U. And the last thing the Wii U needs is more platformers.

 

[PKFreeze89]

I don't think a parent company selling a dev studio to another parent company is really a traitorous act.

Personally, I think Nintendo should not buy Rare. I know there's a lot of people who think that Rare being back in Nintendo's hands will magically bring back the beloved 90s Rare, but that's just now how it would be. Most of the key staff from classic Rare is gone, a majority of the current staff have never worked on anything but Kinect games and none of them know how to make the kinds of games that Rare is known for, platformers and shooters.

Besides, it's not like the market is exactly lucrative for 3D platformers right now. Hell, even if they made a 2D platformers we've been absolutely flooded with those in the past few years and it would probably get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention that we're starting to reach a point where shooters are beginning to get some serious backlash from people who are tired of them.

On top of all of that, if Nintendo bought Rare we'd probably get more platformers for the Wii U. And the last thing the Wii U needs is more platformers.

My thoughts exactly. They were good once, not anymore.

 

[GunGunW]

To be 100% honest, I think the Rare IP's are better off on the Xbox platform.

 

[Foxus]

I don't think a parent company selling a dev studio to another parent company is really a traitorous act.

Personally, I think Nintendo should not buy Rare. I know there's a lot of people who think that Rare being back in Nintendo's hands will magically bring back the beloved 90s Rare, but that's just now how it would be. Most of the key staff from classic Rare is gone, a majority of the current staff have never worked on anything but Kinect games and none of them know how to make the kinds of games that Rare is known for, platformers and shooters.

Besides, it's not like the market is exactly lucrative for 3D platformers right now. Hell, even if they made a 2D platformers we've been absolutely flooded with those in the past few years and it would probably get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention that we're starting to reach a point where shooters are beginning to get some serious backlash from people who are tired of them.

On top of all of that, if Nintendo bought Rare we'd probably get more platformers for the Wii U. And the last thing the Wii U needs is more platformers.

This is just me speaking when I say Microsoft poisoned Rare (who even uses Kinect anymore?). As badly as it might have done in sales, the last somewhat good Rare game I found was Conker's Bad Fur Day (shivers). I identify Rare games most by their trademark modeling look (using Fox in my avatar as a example). The modeling that expanded from Perfect Dark to the game I just mentioned, while developers like Electronic Arts used modeling software that looked more like Maya with The SIms. The rendering work in FNAF reminds me somewhat of Rare's work, if they were to go to the extremes of nightmarish looking creatures.

The developer definitely would be in need of some reorganization if they were bought out.

I always joke Minecraft looks so much like a PC-knockoff of a N64 game based on the graphics.

 

[SphericalCrusher]

Yes. I've been saying this since MS picked them up. Nintendo didn't really have the money to buy them when MS did... but now, they would. If not Rare, select Rare's IPs would be nice. But I don't see it ever happening unfortunately.

 

[Foxus]

Yes. I've been saying this since MS picked them up. Nintendo didn't really have the money to buy them when MS did... but now, they would. If not Rare, select Rare's IPs would be nice. But I don't see it ever happening unfortunately.

Well the thing is the first Xbox (the glowing black and green box back in the day) was good. After that, MS just kinda got carried away and made a half-assed attempt at mimicking the Wii's wireless capability with their Kinect system.

Acquiring Rare, or at least Rare's IP's, given the track record, would be a good business move for Nintendo.

 

[Deleted member]

Most of the key staff that developed some of the best games available on the SNES and Nintendo 64 are long gone-- they've moved on to different projects, as finalark noted in an earlier comment. As a result, I don't think it would be a great idea for Nintendo to acquire the whole company. If anything, they can acquire the key IP from Rare and let a company like Retro (for example) to develop new games of those series. But even then, Rare is very well-known for shooters and platformers, and there's so many of those kinds of games available on the market already.

I think they're better off being with Microsoft, at least for the time being. The people who developed the games we enjoyed playing back in the days aren't there anymore and won't come back.

 

[Arcadenik]

Yes, Nintendo needs to get the Rare IPs back from Microsoft... at the least get these IPs back: Banjo-Kazooie, Battletoads, Conker, Jet Force Gemini, Killer Instinct, Perfect Dark, and Snake Rattle 'n' Roll (I got NES nostalgia on this one).

Rare Replay is the ONLY reason I would get a Xbox One... but it's not worth getting a whole new console for. Xbox games in general don't really appeal to me. For me, it is Nintendo > Sony > Microsoft.

I still wish that Nintendo didn't let Rare go... I don't understand why Nintendo did that. I mean, Rare made some really good games for the SNES and N64 and they were making money for Nintendo... and the Rare characters felt Nintendo-esque to me and many of them would have been perfect additions in Smash.

 

[Heroine of Winds]

I would say no because the Rare we know now doesn't have the same staff as it did years ago. They've all moved on to form a new company Playtonic (don't know if every single one of the old Rare staff is part of it, though). I think the best suggestion is buy some of Rare's old IP's instead of buying the entire company. That's a better solution, imo.

 

[GunGunW]

I think Nintendo buying Playtonic would be a better solution.

 

[Heroine of Winds]

I think Nintendo buying Playtonic would be a better solution.

^This. The old Rare's pretty much gone now, so Nintendo buying Playtonic instead would be better. Buying Rare at their current state is pretty pointless.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Yes, Nintendo needs to get the Rare IPs back from Microsoft... at the least get these IPs back: Banjo-Kazooie, Battletoads, Conker, Jet Force Gemini, Killer Instinct, Perfect Dark, and Snake Rattle 'n' Roll (I got NES nostalgia on this one).

Rare Replay is the ONLY reason I would get a Xbox One... but it's not worth getting a whole new console for. Xbox games in general don't really appeal to me. For me, it is Nintendo > Sony > Microsoft.

I still wish that Nintendo didn't let Rare go... I don't understand why Nintendo did that. I mean, Rare made some really good games for the SNES and N64 and they were making money for Nintendo... and the Rare characters felt Nintendo-esque to me and many of them would have been perfect additions in Smash.

If it helps, they sold Rare because they had to.

At that point Microsoft owned 51% of the company. The 49% Nintendo owned was worthless so they sold it.

Blame Rare's founders. Not Nintendo.

 

[Sünta]

Rare is a completely different company than it was 20 years ago. Buying it at this point wouldn't really bring anything to Nintendo or its fanbase.

 

[Arcadenik]

Rare is a completely different company than it was 20 years ago. Buying it at this point wouldn't really bring anything to Nintendo or its fanbase.

But it would allow Nintendo to legally release Rare games on Virtual Console... and enable Nintendo to make new games like the proper Banjo-Threeie (developed by Retro Studios would be amazing).

Damn it. I guess I should just get on eBay and find Banjo-Tooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day (I never finished them since I rented them from Blockbuster... same with Quest 64).

 

[finalark]

same with Quest 64.

Trust me, buddy. You're not missing out on much.

 

[Arcadenik]

Trust me, buddy. You're not missing out on much.

I know. I just liked that game even if it was generic and linear. Just ask @HyperFalcon

 

[finalark]

I know. I just liked that game even if it was generic and linear. Just ask @HyperFalcon

How far did you get? Because the game also gets very, very grindy and more and more underwhelming as you proceed.

 

[Deleted member]

From what I've read, Activision originally wanted to buy Rare. That could've been a lot worse than being owned by Microsoft.

But it would allow Nintendo to legally release Rare games on Virtual Console... and enable Nintendo to make new games like the proper Banjo-Threeie (developed by Retro Studios would be amazing).

Again, I wouldn't be against selling their key IP to Nintendo so that one of its divisions or subsidiaries (like Retro as you mentioned) would develop new titles of those series. Though wouldn't they port over the XBLA versions of games like the two Banjo games for example, instead of the original N64 versions? If they ever did, that is.

 

[Arcadenik]

How far did you get? Because the game also gets very, very grindy and more and more underwhelming as you proceed.

Don't remember where... I think I wound up on a town that was on a river... I remember seeing the name "Epona" in the game because that one stood out in my mind since I recognized that name from Zelda 64 but it was not a horse's name in this game. That's how far I made it through without a save cartridge (why it didn't have built-in save like Mario 64 or Zelda 64 is beyond me) before I had to return it to Blockbuster.

 

[finalark]

Don't remember where... I think I wound up on a town that was on a river... I remember seeing the name "Epona" in the game because that one stood out in my mind since I recognized that name from Zelda 64 but it was not a horse's name in this game. That's how far I made it through without a save cartridge (why it didn't have built-in save like Mario 64 or Zelda 64 is beyond me) before I had to return it to Blockbuster.

It sounds like it's been a while since you played. Hopefully you won't end up in that awful "this-game-I-like-as-a-kid-is-actually-garbage" scenario if you ever decide to revisit it. That's what happened to me when I revisited that game, sadly.

Honestly, this is why I don't consider my opinions on games I haven't played in nearly a decade or longer valid. I wouldn't trust a twelve year old to recommend games to me now and me being that twelve year old doesn't change this.

But I digress, we've gotten way off topic.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

One of XBOX's most popular IP;s ATM is a RARE game

 

[Swamp Sensei]

One of XBOX's most popular IP;s ATM is a RARE game

Indeed. Killer Instinct is something special.

 

[Deleted member]

Indeed. Killer Instinct is something special.

Even though Xbox One's Killer Instinct wasn't actually developed by Rare themselves, I guess that's something.

 

[finalark]

Even though Xbox One's Killer Instinct wasn't actually developed by Rare themselves, I guess that's something.

Which further proves my point that acquiring new Rare is pointless because nobody is new Rare knows how to make the kinds of games that people want.

 

[Deleted member]

Which further proves my point that acquiring new Rare is pointless because nobody is new Rare knows how to make the kinds of games that people want.

Yeah, it's best to keep things the way they are right now. It wouldn't be worth the purchase anyway.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I think the IP's are what people want from RARE, not the company itself at this point

 

[Rashyboy05]

I don't think Nintendo should buy Rare at this point. I mean, looking at them now, they're just a shadow of what they used to be. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't some of the staff from Rare working in Retro Studios now?

 

[pupNapoleon]

I don't think a parent company selling a dev studio to another parent company is really a traitorous act.

Personally, I think Nintendo should not buy Rare. I know there's a lot of people who think that Rare being back in Nintendo's hands will magically bring back the beloved 90s Rare, but that's just now how it would be. Most of the key staff from classic Rare is gone, a majority of the current staff have never worked on anything but Kinect games and none of them know how to make the kinds of games that Rare is known for, platformers and shooters.

Besides, it's not like the market is exactly lucrative for 3D platformers right now. Hell, even if they made a 2D platformers we've been absolutely flooded with those in the past few years and it would probably get lost in the shuffle. Not to mention that we're starting to reach a point where shooters are beginning to get some serious backlash from people who are tired of them.

On top of all of that, if Nintendo bought Rare we'd probably get more platformers for the Wii U. And the last thing the Wii U needs is more platformers.

This was exactly my thought; the developers at Rare which made it so special are gone.
Nintendo would be better off buying back an IP or two, and that seems unlikely.

The sad truth is that I've realized that the Rare games were, in fact, my favorite growing up. This took me two decades to actually come to understand.

 

[N3ON]

From the gamer's perspective, yeah of course they should. Get those IPs back and return them to glory. Stick Banjo in Smash. Rehire those Playtonic guys and live happily ever after.

From a business perspective... no. All the talent has left the studio and the value of their old IPs has steadily decreased since their time with Nintendo. Not to say they're worthless, far from it, but it's an uphill battle getting the studio back to what it used to be.

Nintendo should just stick Banjo in Smash and make everyone except themselves happy, lol.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Rare Ltd. pretty much dug a big grave after joining Microsoft. It's bad enough that the Conker series has gone all M-rated on us, but to add insult to injury, the Banjo-Kazooie series got wrecked with the creation of Nuts & Bolts. And now, there are games that I haven't heard of at all, as they've never ever been advertised on television; not once have I heard of Yooka-Laylee outside of a computer, and the same thing goes for Five Nights at Freddy's (I think that's what the game is called).

Frankly, even if Rare was to return to Nintendo, the company will never again be what it was like back in the SNES and N64 days.

 

[finalark]

It's bad enough that the Conker series has gone all M-rated on us,

Now, I'm not much of a Rare fan. I think the only games they've ever made that impressed me were the early DKC games, but aside from the GBC game hasn't Conker always been in M-rated territory?

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Now, I'm not much of a Rare fan. I think the only games they've ever made that impressed me were the early DKC games, but aside from the GBC game hasn't Conker always been in M-rated territory?

He was in Diddy Kong Racing, which is a child-friendly game.

 

[Depressed Gengar]

Now, I'm not much of a Rare fan. I think the only games they've ever made that impressed me were the early DKC games, but aside from the GBC game hasn't Conker always been in M-rated territory?

Technically yes, but there's also the fact that he first starred in Diddy Kong Racing first, and the GBC game came out first (with the sole purpose for giving people something to do while Bad Fur Day/ "Twelve Tales" was stuck in it's long development). And since Big Reunion is only T-Rated IIRC, Conker's been more E-Rated than he's been M-Rated.

 

[Heroine of Winds]

Twelve Tails was originally gonna be a thing after Conker's Pocket Tails for the GBC, but Rare was getting complaints about Twelve Tails being another Banjo-Kazooie, so it was this reason that Twelve Tails got retooled into Conker's Bad Fur Day. Conker was indeed originally more of an E-rated franchise before it became an T and/or M-rated franchise.

And I thought Conker's Bad Fur Day was considered one of the best games on the N64. Why is it being M-rated a bad thing?

 

[pupNapoleon]

And I thought Conker's Bad Fur Day was considered one of the best games on the N64. Why is it being M-rated a bad thing?

Apparently, because it breaks the retroactive perception of the character.

 

[Freduardo]

I'd be more interested in Nintendo buying Hudsonsoft and it's IPs from Konami (Namely Bonk and Bomberman).

And while they're at it buy a few off Konami (Goemon, Castlevania, and Contra)

 

[finalark]

And I thought Conker's Bad Fur Day was considered one of the best games on the N64. Why is it being M-rated a bad thing?

Pretty much this. Whenever I hear people talking about Bad Fur Day it's usually with praise. I didn't know the GBC game had enough of a fanbase for Bad Fur Day to actually upset some people.

 

[Arcadenik]

Frankly, even if Rare was to return to Nintendo, the company will never again be what it was like back in the SNES and N64 days.

I know...

I just want those Nintendo-era Rare games on the Virtual Console at the very least...