darkSpyro

This is beyond me. I'd love to see Sly Cooper and Crash for Playstation and the Battletoads for Xbox (fairly certain Microsoft has the Rare contract damn near permanently at this point).

Yeah it'd be annoying for you to have to play certain versions to be able to play certain characters, but if Nintendo already did it, why don't these other guys jump on the bandwagon. Idiots like myself would end up buying all three versions.

Now I'm off to daydream about Zitz punching Kaos with a Super sized fist!!!

Nintendo was originally approached for the Skylanders franchise; they turned it down, but it's clear that the developers really love Nintendo. The Treehouse Live @E3 just had them gushing over the game and the Nintendo guys showing up.

Plus, Nintendo has had exclusives since the first game came out. SSA had Dark Spyro, Giants had Punch Pop Fizz, Swap Force had Molten Eruptor and Trap Team had Gusto and Barkley (which while not exclusive, were different than regular starter pack figures) P

I think it's probably a combination of a few things though. Skylanders sells the best on Nintendo systems (at least from what we've heard in sales figures), Skylanders really love the Nintendo guys, and I don't think any other company sees the value in the brand/figures. Sony has a special deal with Infinity, Microsoft has nothing for toys to life stuff, although I expect to see them jump in by next year with a company.

Hardcore developer bias. Guha Bala did no effort in hiding that they're the ones that asked Nintendo to make the figures of their favorite characters playable(it's even in the interviews: he was asked to why Bowser and not a hero as a skylander, loud and clear he responds with "It's my favorite character" and some bull about not having him playable in person even if M&L Bowser's Inside Story exists). Nothing to do much with money(at least in concept), it's the same problem as Stealth Elf being the higher up's favorite character so EVERYONE needs to have her in starter packs.

And we discussed before; it's be actually fair if everyone had an exclusive. Everyone has 20 characters, it's just different ones. But apparently other consoles don't exist since in interviews GB will repeat over and over that "Nintendo is where our fans are at".You heard from him first guys, Sony and MS never had the games in their consoles, your copy of PS3 SSA is just in your imagination.

Nintendo probably paid the most money. Like how Sony paid more for Call of Duty and Destiny exclusives than Microsoft.

I'd be very surpised if Nintendo paid money - it's really not something they're known to do.

Something a lot of folks overlook is the fact that Nintendo already has a Toys to Life series of their own that allows for Activision to appeal to amiibo fans while allowing Nintendo to perhaps pick up some Skylanders fans. Sony and Microsoft do not have this.

By that logic we could crossover with DI and Lego Dimensions, since they're also on all consoles.

It's really the standard reason to be money and partnership deal, but the Treehouse showcase and the interviews were loud and clear - VV wanted it more than anything, Acti just gave the ok for them to negotiate.
Or it's just GB being a broken record to pass off the partnership as something "we wanted", as usual, they could be lying too.

It does sound a little like System war bias. Nintendo fanboys making the decisions versus trying their hardest to set up the scenario I laid out as to increase sales (you can't tell me 20% of the folks out there wouldn't then buy it for multiple systems just to play the exclusive characters).

They are essentially leaving money on the table. Well for everyone good business decision a company is doomed to make a bad one.

Because they are huge Nintendo fans and screw the other consoles/customers/versions.

This game has 18 new Skylanders.
Period.
And I'm already being too kind with the reposes by considering them as "new".

Quote: Bifrost

By that logic we could crossover with DI and Lego Dimensions, since they're also on all consoles.

When Disney and/or LEGO release their own console, then we'll talk.

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: Bifrost

By that logic we could crossover with DI and Lego Dimensions, since they're also on all consoles.

When Disney and/or LEGO release their own console, then we'll talk.

You're letting your own fanboism show. Throwing out reasons why Nintendo "should" get favored does not dismiss the fact VV/TFB/Activision left money on the table by not doing it for all three. Either the developers are also fanboys (likely) or Nintendo shelled out some cash to get exclusives with incentives to not let the others get any (also likely) or both (most likely). They still had to get access to Amiibo tech to design the figures, so I doubt money was not involved.

Despite what the Nintendo fanboys will spin, Nintendo is bleeding. They've completely under utilized the Wii U game pad, have had most of their contracts from third party's opt not to renew despite Nintendo offering some better percentages, and are falling way behind in the tech department. Truth be told, with online multiplayer, folks are gonna push towards the other systems. If Nintendo didn't snag exclusive content, they probably would have gotten smoked.

I don't believe I said Nintendo *should* get exclusives, merely stated reasonings why.

And Nintendo isn't bleeding any more than Sony or Microsoft's gaming divisions have been in the past few years.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

Quote: UncleBob

Quote: Bifrost

By that logic we could crossover with DI and Lego Dimensions, since they're also on all consoles.

When Disney and/or LEGO release their own console, then we'll talk.

You're letting your own fanboism show. Throwing out reasons why Nintendo "should" get favored does not dismiss the fact VV/TFB/Activision left money on the table by not doing it for all three. Either the developers are also fanboys (likely) or Nintendo shelled out some cash to get exclusives with incentives to not let the others get any (also likely) or both (most likely). They still had to get access to Amiibo tech to design the figures, so I doubt money was not involved.

Despite what the Nintendo fanboys will spin, Nintendo is bleeding. They've completely under utilized the Wii U game pad, have had most of their contracts from third party's opt not to renew despite Nintendo offering some better percentages, and are falling way behind in the tech department. Truth be told, with online multiplayer, folks are gonna push towards the other systems. If Nintendo didn't snag exclusive content, they probably would have gotten smoked.

How so? Besides PS3, the Wii U is the only console with free online.

Well, let's see. The starter pack mess would be even MORE of a mess. All the die-hards Would have to buy Wii, Dark Wii, Wii U, Dark Wii U, PS3/4, Dark PS3/4, Xbox360/one, And Dark Xbox 360/one. That is 8 Starter Packs. If the prices of starter packs stays the same (and they might even go up this year) It is 74.99 at any retailer (in the US) besides TRU for a normal edition. 74.99 x 4= 299.96. If I recall correctly, dark editions are normally $99.99 where I live (more, if you go to TRU) 99.99 x 4= 399.96. $399.96 + $299.96 = $699.92 +tax. And before anyone says eBay would be the best way to get them, I don't think so. Because they would be exclusive to each console's starter packs, I think the Ebayers would mark them waaaaaay up, just because they can.

To everyone saying Nintendo is bleeding.

Quote: Sleepy0429

To everyone saying Nintendo is bleeding.

Plus the fact that, dispite lower overall system sales, the Wii U version of Trap Team out sold the XBO/PS4 versions, if the numbers I've seen are any indication.

As usual, people only use the numbers they want. Folks bring up articles from 3 1/2 years ago just cementing you have the blinders on. Wii U is free online because it has less to offer. Just like PS3 was inferior to 360. A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

Less to offer? I guess Splatoon, MK8,Bayonetta 2, a ton of indies and a lot more I can't remember at the moment don't exist with online interactions. I'm no economy expert to say if Nintendo is suffering or not, but what I can say is that the Wii sold a ton, the WiiU hasn't been doing so well, but it's picking itself up, and that also not a whole lot of people here aren't economy experts either, just people biased towards certain companies because of their decisions.

Either way this topic's subject definately isn't if you like Nintendo or not or if you have the power to guess if they're doing badly or not, pretty sure we are in the Superchargers subject.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

As usual, people only use the numbers they want. Folks bring up articles from 3 1/2 years ago just cementing you have the blinders on. Wii U is free online because it has less to offer. Just like PS3 was inferior to 360. A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

-less to offer
-about only one that doesn't make mainly M games that are all pretty near the same thing

I'll agree they haven't done some of the best business decisions in the past few years, though not as long as you said.
And I'll also agree PS3 was inferior to 360, but because I'm biased against Sony.
The first paragraph you are also slightly hypocritical in.

And I'm being very off-topic
On topic: I would love Banjo-Kazooie on the Microsoft versions, except that would make me have to get that version instead and then I'd have to use the Superchargers portal instead of the much cooler Traptanium one.
Ratchet & Clank is a good choice for Sony.

I can kind of understand why there's no Microsoft exclusives. Because aside from Banjo and Kazooie (who they ruined), the only other well-known characters Microsoft has under their belt are Master Chief and Conker the Squirrel... neither of which come from family-friendly series. Though granted, Conker could work if they changed his personality, but MC... yeah, no.

But as for Sony, they've got a lot of family-friendly icons that could work - Sly Cooper and Sackboy, just to name a few.

But at the end of the day, even though this may have been what VV wanted, it was still Nintendo's decision to have DK and Bowser in the game, and just because Nintendo's cool with it may not mean other companies would be with their IPs.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

As usual, people only use the numbers they want. [...] A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

I think when the "single game" is the previous entry in the exact series we're discussing, it's pretty significant.

Quote: AdamGregory03

I can kind of understand why there's no Microsoft exclusives. Because aside from Banjo and Kazooie (who they ruined), the only other well-known characters Microsoft has under their belt are Master Chief and Conker the Squirrel... neither of which come from family-friendly series. Though granted, Conker could work if they changed his personality, but MC... yeah, no.

Judging by how much they're pushing it recently, they could probably include a Battletoads character along with Banjo. Heck, both of them already have vehicles they could use, and the Battletoads jet ski is pretty iconic.

Sony has a lot of mascots, but I'd say they'd make sure that Sackboy and Ratchet & Clank get in, due to those being some of their more popular kid friendly series.

I'm almost fairly certain that we'll be getting more console exclusive characters in the next game anyway, cuz with this addition, there's no going back.

Nintendo is the obvious choice, regardless of whether the devs are Nintendo fanboys or not. Nintendo has the most recognizable characters that would fit in Skylands (personally, I don't even think it's close). The series sells the best on Nintendo. Nintendo is the only console that has a TtL feature, so that the characters could have dual functionality. Also because of Amiibo, there is a much higher chance that amiibo fans who would not otherwise buy the game may become fans of Skylanders. We already know these fans are toy collectors, exactly the kind of customer Activision wants.

And yes, Activision could have made exclusives for other consoles at the same time. It would have increased sales with the die hard collectors who gotta have it all. However, how many collectors would throw in the towel out of frustrastion due to the extreme costs? How many parents would get frustrated with the confusion about what works with what? I'd say you might end up losing more sales then gaining sales withthat strategy. Besides, why the big rush? If the nintendo exclusives do well, they you bring the sales figures to Sony and Microsoft execs and cut a deal with them for the next release.

As for the idea of bringing in crossover characters from DI, I can't see that happening. Disney is much more of a direct competitor. And I see little monetary motivation from either side on this. Are DI people going to buy Skylanders so they can play as Stitch? Are skylaner people going to be buy DI so they can play as Spyro? I think it's slim on both accounts. Really the same goes for lego. I just don't see customers that interested in playing DI, Lego, or Skylander exlusives in another universe.

I'm sure Sony and Microsoft could have had exclusive characters if they wanted them. But in case you haven't notice, both companies have been ignoring their family friendly franchises pretty badly. Sony slightly less so, since they still make LittleBigPlanet and Ratchet & Clank games occasionally (though even then the focus of Sony-related media is always on stuff like Uncharted and FIFA) but even so it's obvious that neither company is particularly interested in focusing on games aimed at kids and families.


Don't get me wrong, they are perfectly happy to have toys-to-life games on their consoles since they make tons of money without much effort on their part, but as far as actually putting their own resources and IP toward family friendly games goes...they haven't done much at all in the last two gens. That's why neither Sony nor Microsoft have their own toys-to-life line. They just aren't interested in going in that direction.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

As usual, people only use the numbers they want. Folks bring up articles from 3 1/2 years ago just cementing you have the blinders on. Wii U is free online because it has less to offer. Just like PS3 was inferior to 360. A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

Want some more?
Also Nintendo is dominating the handheld market.

Quote: Earth-Dragon

As usual, people only use the numbers they want. Folks bring up articles from 3 1/2 years ago just cementing you have the blinders on. Wii U is free online because it has less to offer. Just like PS3 was inferior to 360. A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

Wow, you're like, the dumbest person I've seen on the forum.

You do know they ran for the console that has Amiibo's on it right?

Quote: Earth-Dragon

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

I wouldn't say before the 64, as the SNES and NES sold truckloads of systems (with the NES completely reviving an industry that every investor and businessman had written off in '83 as dead). They made some pretty interesting decisions/blunders with the N64 though...

But something you're not accounting for - the N64, GameCube and, for most practical purposes, the original Wii all survived on basically one thing and one thing alone... first party Nintendo titles. The Wii U, the NX, and whatever comes after that will do the same thing.

You can double check my adding, but from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ing_video_games - yeah, it's wikipedia, I'm lazy), there are 43 games that have sold over 15 million copies. Of those 43 games, 21 were developed by Nintendo. 28 of these 43 games are from the last ten years. Nintendo developed 13 of those (nearly half!).

Those are amazing sales that *any* developer or publisher would kill for. Nintendo games sell Nintendo systems. I would be seriously surprised if we see any legitimate development of Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft or Sony platform in the next ten years.

Did the topic change from 'why Amiibolanders' to 'is Nintendo selling well' still? If so, I'm out, not here to partake in console wars.

Do Sony and Microsoft have their own characters? I know they may have exclusives, but aren't they developed by other companies (and thus the rights owned by those companies)? Nintendo has characters that have been around for over 30 years that are their own. None of the other systems can say they have characters that have become such social icons, not less for that long.

MS owns Rare so they own BK and Conker, Sony owns Insomniac so they own Rachet and Clank. These IPs belong to the publishers, the creator devs just have to comply.

Quote: obidawsn

Do Sony and Microsoft have their own characters? I know they may have exclusives, but aren't they developed by other companies (and thus the rights owned by those companies)? Nintendo has characters that have been around for over 30 years that are their own. None of the other systems can say they have characters that have become such social icons, not less for that long.

While you're correct about the iconic thing, Sony and Microsoft has these things called Second Part developers, who are contracted by Sony or Microsoft to make exclusive games for their consoles. Said second party developers are most likely, but not always, owned by Sony or Microsoft, and as such all their exclusive licenses are owned by the big companies. This is why, despite Bungie and Insomniac leaving Microsoft and Sony respectively, we will never see a Halo game or a Ratchet and Clank game on different consoles, since those licenses are owned by Microsoft and Sony.

Nintendo also has second party developers (Retro Studios, for example) but they also tend to have more in-house developed games.

Quote: Bifrost

Did the topic change from 'why Amiibolanders' to 'is Nintendo selling well' still? If so, I'm out, not here to partake in console wars.

The topic is what people post in it. If you want to steer the thread more towards "Why crossover characters", feel free to contribute to the conversation with posts about that.

Previous posts in this thread have talked about Nintendo sales w/r/t why they are the only ones with exclusive figures, so that's where the conversation has gone.

Be the change you want to see...

No change if attempts to rerail get ignored. It needs to be effort from the OP.

If you contribute worthwile conversation to the thread, folks will reply in kind.

Don't expect everyone else to make all the changes you want to see for you.

Honestly, I have a feeling that maybe this is practice for something. Like, maybe there's going to be a Skylanders game in the future in which is a crossover with another series, like Steven Universe or something like that, that plays a part into the game's gimmick.

Quote: AdamGregory03

Honestly, I have a feeling that maybe this is practice for something. Like, maybe there's going to be a Skylanders game in the future in which is a crossover with another series, like Steven Universe or something like that, that plays a part into the game's gimmick.

That is a very bad example. It would probably be, you know, an actual video game franchise.

I like the idea. Let's crossover Skylanders with Invader Zim. :D

Quote: Bionichute

Quote: AdamGregory03

Honestly, I have a feeling that maybe this is practice for something. Like, maybe there's going to be a Skylanders game in the future in which is a crossover with another series, like Steven Universe or something like that, that plays a part into the game's gimmick.

That is a very bad example. It would probably be, you know, an actual video game franchise.

Probably... Steven Universe was just the first thing on my mind when I wrote that honestly.

Quote: Bifrost

MS owns Rare so they own BK and Conker, Sony owns Insomniac so they own Rachet and Clank. These IPs belong to the publishers, the creator devs just have to comply.

Actually Sony doesn't own Insomniac, they just own the Ratchet & Clank IP. Insomniac's most recent game (Sunset Overdrive) was in fact an Xbox One exclusive.

But the point still stands. Sony and Microsoft both own plenty of family friendly (or family friendly satire, in Conker's case...) IP. The problem is that they just don't focus on them much.

I miss the time when consoles had more titles that were exclusive to them, rather than bits of multiplatform games being locked out/timed to other customers

Quote: Angry Rage Quit

I miss the time when consoles had more titles that were exclusive to them, rather than bits of multiplatform games being locked out/timed to other customers

So you miss not being able to play a game at all due to your platform choice as opposed to missing a small chunk? That seems ... puzzling.

It kinda feels like getting a Lego set, and then a few unique joints or whatever are missing. Sure, you've got most of it, but you'll always know that bit isn't there.

I know it sounds weird, but that's just how I feel about it. "You don't get it on this system" is more final and black and white than "You get it, but..." which irritates me.
I can't clarify it any more

Quote: Earth-Dragon

As usual, people only use the numbers they want.

hypocrite much? You're twisting the facts yourself a bit, aren't you?

Quote: Earth-Dragon

A single game out selling on a single system is hardly the overall picture.

the overall picture of a console's success itself means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to a game develer who has already found success on that system. The success of THEIR FRANCHISE on that system is what matters. (Assuming they weren't scared off before getting to that point, but I shouldn't have to explain what I already covered)


Quote: Earth-Dragon

Don't be surprised if you start playing Nintendo franchises on a Microsoft system next decade. Nintendo is not making, and has not been making, the best business decisions post N64 (and you could argue before N64).

Don't be surprised when they STILL have their own systems even IF they continue to suffer losses like this THIRTY YEARS from now. They've been saving money. They say they're goal is to entertain, and they're prepared to KEEP doing that, even if it ceases to be profitable for a lil' while. If they suffer losses like this for longer, than 3 decades, THAT's when they'll start selling off their IP.
They cut the EXECUTIVES' pay checks in half just to keep as much of their family intact as possible. Normal shareholders wouldn't do that. They do what they want to because it is what they want to do, not because it makes them money.

dude, when someone else uses nintendo IPs, it's cause THEY ask, Nintendo doesn't pay for deals, it charges for them. Take Zelda for example. Capcom ASKS to do a Zelda for the Gameboy Color. They are permitted to make a remake of the original Zelda, see how well that does, and make an original selda if it works out, but the team wants to do ORIGINAL content right away, and after seeing how GOOD oracle of seasons(and eventually ages) was, nintendo's like, cool! That's how 90% of our ,
Zelda concepts start off anyway. As remakes.

More recently, KOEI asks to make a Zelda/Dynasty Warriors crossover. Nintendo sees how much they want to and are like "okay". they put legitimate effort into a warriors game for a change, and it feels like a TRUE crossover.

Quote: Drek95

Because we are ALL huge Nintendo fans and screw the other consoles/customers/versions!

I'm fixing this post so it properly conveys happiness As it well should. Let a real gaming company have what it deserves. Games are supposed to be FUN that's why they're games. I'll take a gimmick over specs any day, because specs seem.... Soulless. If all they can do is improve, that makes for boring hardware. When the games begin, the best man ought to win, and Nintendo IS the best man (keep in mind that corporations are people on paper)


Quote: Drek95

This game has 20 new Skylanders.
Period.
And I'm not being kind enough to the reposes by considering them as "new" without using quotation marks I mean I'm being pretty bullheaded when I complained left and right about four versions of the same character and now I'm doing the same with a character that is the same only in NAME even though acti adresses my PREVIOUS issues with reprints, it's okay, I'll keep finding new excuses to hate on them until there's absolutely nothing left to complain about, because I'm a bitter person, even though it's OBVIOUS that the VEHICHLES took half of the CHARACTER roster, so I should be blaming THEM for the shortage of new landers, because they need at least ONE FULL set of reprints anyway,since it's pretty much obligatory

If there were any exclusives for the XBOX, I'd choose Conker the Squirrel and Banjo & Kazooie.

Sure, change what I said.
This will no doubt change what I think too!

Reposes are lazy, no matter how much they will change them, they are lazy, lazy, LAZY.
We could have had 20 brand new characters this year instead we got 10 new Skylanders, 8 reposes and 2 characters which aren't even universally compatible.

I personally want to see new faces.
I'm tired of seeing Gill Grunt, I'm tired of seeing Jet-Vac and GOOD EON I'm tired of seeing Stealth Elf over and over and over again.

They could have at least used some "new" characters, like Pop Thorn, Rip Tide, Déjà Vu... But NOPE.
Stick with the overused (except for Roller Brawl).

This year's roster is disappointing to say the least.
Since when are reposes mandatory?
Why should I blame vehicles for that?
They took away some Skylanders places but it's not like the devs took advantage of the remaining spots...

I would rather have 3rd party charcters then more gill grunts but I understand that people are upset about them but I can see them making more like crash for playstaion next year

Just to make things clear, I'm annoyed by both revamps and Skymiibos but waaaaay more by the formers.

Bowser and Donkey Kong are still new and cool characters even if I don't like how they have been implemented.

Perhaps it's a memory issue Drek? 20 new ones need too much memory/disk space or whatever, and as a result you can't support the older consoles for as long? So it might be more memory conservative to just add a new move for some older ones.

I have no idea.


Anyone else think we'll see more than just DK and Bowser in this game? A magic element Rosalina etc?

Mmmh... I doubt it.

They still took a lot of space by creating new animations and upgrades for the old characters, might have used new models as well.

Vehicles probably don't take that much space either.
I guess it was simply a decision.

I think Rosalina would suit the Light Element better somehow since she's associated to stars and space.

Dark element Meta Knight anyone? A earth element Knuckles to be played on all systems? (Because Sonic is not Nintendo exclusive.) Air Element Kirby? A life element Banjo-Kazooie? (Both on nintendo and Xbox because RARE still does stuff for the handhelds.)