Getting along is all well and good, but that doesn't really change the way business is actually done. A hypothetical Sora inclusion means Nintendo wants something from Disney and that's not a position to take lightly. It's one thing if Disney wants something from you and you can snag out a deal on that end (Like what I'm sure happened between Sega and Disney for Sonic Racing Transformed and the Wreck it Ralph movie). The issue, for me, has always been "What will Disney want as compensation for their IP". Disney's a Mega Corporation and we're already seeing what a company like that can do outside of the game to affect the game as a whole (Toei and Dragon Ball Fighterz).
The world of business is complicated as all hell and nothing is as simple as "We allow you to use X IP in your product" unless you're an indie company. We are not privy to the details behind those types of negotiations and they will always be an unknown. However, I have family that works at Disney, I know how hardball they can get.
This. We have people here who've worked with Disney or know people who have such as
PlayerOneTyler
and
NonSpecificGuy
who can vouch for how difficult Disney can be. That being said, there's still a chance given that Disney and Nintendo seem to have good relations, and it's Nintendo approaching Disney and not some smaller studio. I think if anybody has a chance, it's Nintendo.
Sora is a 50/50 coinflip in terms of speculation. It relies on Disney playing nice, and no one knows if they will or not.
A not so serious Theory indeed
I may be the only one who also expects this just because I don't know how intellectual property works, but there are my points just because
- No credits for SE despite using Geno (And Mallow) on the 22yo anniversary tweet and the HQ question during TGA (I guess nor in the game either?)
- No new SE content on Smash except for Geno and Mallow, it could be the only "new" content, or it could be because they're now Nintendo Property
- All the "Geno talks" from insiders may be not related to smash, but for a HD Remake or something.
I love to imagine a world where SE finally said "Okay, I won't use this stuff, wanna buy it?" But again, this is just selfmade by my innocent-hopeful mind, Oh and again, I don't know patents or intellectual property works at all.
That's not how it works in the slightest.
- Nintendo doesn't necessarily need to credit Square Enix every single time they mention Super Mario RPG. And even then, instead of crediting, it could simply be a check with the higher ups. As someone who's run a relatively large social media account in the past, I'm willing to bet money that Nintendo's social media posts are prepped weeks, if not months in advance. That gives plenty of time to check to see what's okay and what's not. Even then, if Square Enix can sell Kingdom Hearts merchandise for profit even though it's owned by Disney, Nintendo can similarly mention Super Mario RPG even though it's owned by Square Enix.
- This has already been mentioned, but Square Enix is credited anyways because of Cloud. Why would they credit Square Enix twice for three characters? Because they're from different series?
- This is an interesting point given that it's happened in the past with insiders such as Liam Robertson and Hitagi, but @PolarPanda's NoA source stated that he heard Geno would be the DLC character as office water cooler talk, so if insider talk about Geno is in relation to another project, it's not consistent, and therefore not likely.
Most importantly,
what reason does Nintendo have to buy the rights to Super Mario RPG? They'd be buying the rights to a couple of original characters, some songs, and other miscellaneous assets for way more than they're worth since Square Enix, like any other business, would want to get the most money out of this transaction. Sure, buying the rights would give Nintendo all profits from future sales, but they'd have to sell a lot more units to make up for the cost of the rights. People aren't going to buy Super Mario RPG, a 20+ year old game that you can download off of the internet and play for free with emulation, in enough volume to accomplish that. It's simply not going to happen. Why do that when they can keep rereleasing the game and give a smaller cut of the sales to Square Enix (Sales through the Wii Shop Channel, eShop, and those of the SNES Classic are very likely not cut 50/50)? It makes sense from a business standpoint because they make more money, and the bottom line is what's most important.
I hate to be the dream killer here, but people should be realistic. I understand that people like to have hope, but there's no hope to be had in fantasy.