Should Rare come back to Nintendo?

[Kong Rong]

Considering the fact that Nintendo was the ones who dropped Rare in the first place, I don't see it happening.

Why do you not know what your talking about Nintendo only owned 49% of rare

In the corporate world, 49% is a lot.

In most cases, 49% is actually a majority.

And even if it's not in the case of Rare, Nintendo still dropped their 49%.

Do you understand how useless it would be for Nintendo to own 49% of a company when the majority would be owned by a rival?

 

[Kong Rong]

Damn it number my one weakness (I think the source I had forgot to take into account European sales) I will concede that point that Banjo Kazooie is a more profitable series (if done right) then Kintect Sports

 

[Glowsquid]

No..

vgchartz is a really shitty source for modern game sales, never mind older games which weren't accuratly tracked by organisations like the NPD Group.

 

[2257]

Do you have access to a better source?

 

[Toad Eightyfive]

Considering the fact that Nintendo was the ones who dropped Rare in the first place, I don't see it happening.

Why do you not know what your talking about Nintendo only owned 49% of rare

In the corporate world, 49% is a lot.

In most cases, 49% is actually a majority.

And even if it's not in the case of Rare, Nintendo still dropped their 49%.

Do you understand how useless it would be for Nintendo to own 49% of a company when the majority would be owned by a rival?

What I'm saying is that the % of a company is held by shareholders, not the company itself. The shareholders, for the most part, are from Rare, but the people own the stocks, not the company.

So Nintendo holds 49%. Generic McName, who let's say is CEO of Rare, holds 26%. Gaming Q. Developer, who let's say is a head designer, holds 11%. And so on.

 

[supermariofan]

If it happens I'm hoping to see Banjo-Kazooie and/or Conker in SSB4

 

[Kong Rong]

Considering the fact that Nintendo was the ones who dropped Rare in the first place, I don't see it happening.

Why do you not know what your talking about Nintendo only owned 49% of rare

In the corporate world, 49% is a lot.

In most cases, 49% is actually a majority.

And even if it's not in the case of Rare, Nintendo still dropped their 49%.

Do you understand how useless it would be for Nintendo to own 49% of a company when the majority would be owned by a rival?

What I'm saying is that the % of a company is held by shareholders, not the company itself. The shareholders, for the most part, are from Rare, but the people own the stocks, not the company.

So Nintendo holds 49%. Generic McName, who let's say is CEO of Rare, holds 26%. Gaming Q. Developer, who let's say is a head designer, holds 11%. And so on.

But that's not how it happened it was the stamper brothers had 51% and Nintendo held 49%

 

[supermariofan]

They should just give their characters back to Nintendo because they're barely using them anymore and I haven't heard anything from Conker

 

[Kong Rong]

Wait you want them to give character that they own and created to Nintendo keeping in mind that Nintendo has never once claimed to own these characters.

 

[AquaYoshi]

I would Love Rare to comeback to Nintendo but It won't happen. I always wanted D.K to be a playable character in Mario Party again but I don't think it will happen

 

[Paper Jorge]

I would Love Rare to comeback to Nintendo but It won't happen. I always wanted D.K to be a playable character in Mario Party again but I don't think it will happen

irrelevance much