Topic: Should Nintendo Buy SEGA?

[Kytim89]

With the recent financial turmoil that SEGA has experienced their long term health is in question. So, would there ever be a chance that Nintendo would buyout SEGA? SEGA could still remain an independant company, but would have the financial backing of Nintendo. The QA from Nintendo assure that SEGA's IPs would get better iterations, and Nintendo themselves could benefit from having more hardcore franchises under their belt.

[broodwars]

I don't know if Nintendo would bother buying SEGA.  Aside from Sonic, I'm not sure there's a franchise SEGA has that Nintendo would actually see value in.  SEGA's mismanaged itself for too long, and its non-Sonic franchises have suffered for it so their value to prospective buyers could be suspect.

Should they buy SEGA, though?  I'd rather they didn't, because I don't think Nintendo would have any interest in continuing most of SEGA's brands.  There are franchises like Valkyria Chronicles or Sakura Wars that I could see Nintendo acquiring for the sheer purposes of making sure they don't exist anymore to compete w/ Nintendo's own (like Fire Emblem or Advance Wars).  Square-Enix has followed a similar strategy with studios they have acquired.

I'd rather a company acquire SEGA that would actually do something good with their properties, though at the moment I'm struggling to think of one.  Square-Enix already has its hands in too many projects; Atlus simply isn't big enough; and Sony has financial troubles of their own.  Ubisoft would acquire SEGA's studios just to have more manpower to throw at Assassin's Creed, and EA probably wouldn't know what to do with all those non-shooter franchises.

It's probably best for all involved if SEGA just had completely new, different, and (most importantly) competent leadership for once, so they could have a chance to recover into a stable company again.

[Chozo Ghost]

Instead of buying Sega entirely, they should do what they did with Rare and buy a 49% stake and make them a 2nd party which makes games exclusively for Nintendo hardware and have Miyamoto and other Nintendo experts supervise them and ensure the quality of the games is of the utmost.

[Khushrenada]

It's an interesting idea. If the staff from Amusement Vision is still around, it might be worth it. They were responsible for the Monkey Ball series on Cube and in collaboration with Nintendo made my favorite cube game, F-Zero GX.

The Mario & Sonic at Olympics games are huge sellers so there's definitely an upside to collaboration with Sega.

While Sega's properities might not have the weight they once did, I think there would be an interest in them again after such a merger. Plus, they are of a real different nature to the Nintendo franchises instantly giving Nintendo a much wider diversity of more teen/adult fare in a way.

That said, the hardest part is how much influence should Nintendo then exert on Sega as they make their games? The point of acquiring them for the franchises would be because they are different from what Nintendo has. But if Nintendo doesn't think something is working and starts making suggestions of how to fix things, will it be for the best or could it end up turning away those original fans because now the games don't have the same attitude or feel as before? What if those franchises then become completely unpopular? Then was it worth acquiring Sega?

[Ian Sane]

If Nintendo bought Sega, someone would have to make the games that use Sega's IP.  So who makes Sonic for Nintendo, then?  The same dolts working on it now?  It's not like Sega currently is very talented.  They USED to be good and have some great historical IP but someone has to work on those games or there's no point, at least from our perspective (ie: Nintendo might like selling crap Sonic games to suckers).  These games don't make themselves.  Either Nintendo uses the existing Sega staff, hires more staff, or moves their staff to Sega IP (at the expense of Nintendo IP).

And even if it worked out and Nintendo had Sega back on track, it won't feel like Sega.  The similarities between Nintendo and Sega was simply that they were the top videogame companies in the world for a while and they made really good games.  But I could never see Nintendo making Sonic, Streets of Rage, Panzer Dragoon, etc.  It's not Nintendo's style.  It would be better for gaming if Sega just didn't suck anymore.  I want other developers to make games as good as Nintendo but I don't want them to make games LIKE Nintendo's.  I have Nintendo for that.  Sega was probably never going to make Pokemon and Nintendo would never make Shenmue.  That's good.  The artform needs that kind of variety.  I figure if Nintendo bought Sega, Sega's new games would just feel like Nintendo games.  I would assume they would be good games but it would lack the Sega identity that made them matter in the first place.

It's like how Square Enix didn't create some super RPG company.  All it did was take away two different approaches to the genre and replace it with one.  You don't want Nintendo Sega.  You want Nintendo AND Sega, two different companies with different approaches to videogame design both making great games.  The constant mergers and acquisitions in this industry aren't something we should want as it will just result in safer homogenus game design.

[ZabeMusic]

I'm just trying to think who would buy Sega... Capcom perhaps?

[stevey]

**** no, they should wait till they bankrupt and buy all of Sega's assets and IPs like Playmore did with SNK. Far better (legally and publicly) than buying them now and firing everyone right afterwards. After that, Nintendo should finally start to expand its developing throughput and make a number of new "SEGA EAD" teams to keep those IPs alive as well as to work on new ideas.

Too bad it will never happen...

[NWR_insanolord]

If Nintendo could buy the company, and leave it structurally intact and able to do its own thing to a certain extent, except with Nintendo producers coming in and supervising projects and bringing up the quality like they always do when working with outside developers, it could be a really excellent move.

[Shaymin]

Should they? Yes. At the very least, they can justify it with the strong Japanese presence *coughyakuzacough* and finally print an insane amount of money with the inevitable Mario/Sonic platformer.

Can they? Well, it depends on how much Sammy wants for it.

[Kytim89]

Should they? Yes. At the very least, they can justify it with the strong Japanese presence *coughyakuzacough* and finally print an insane amount of money with the inevitable Mario/Sonic platformer.

Can they? Well, it depends on how much Sammy wants for it.

I am sure that Sammy would be quick to get rid of SEGA and wash their hands of it considering how much SEGA has fallen from grace.

[Chozo Ghost]

Aside from Sonic, I'm not sure there's a franchise SEGA has that Nintendo would actually see value in.

Keep in mind Nintendo recently bought the Fatal Frame franchise, which seems to be at odds with what one would expect Nintendo to want ownership of because Fatal Frame is an M rated series. Sega owns a lot of stuff in a similar vein to Fatal Frame.

[Spak-Spang]

Actually I see at least 5-6 franchises that would be good for Nintendo.  I would not keep the management structure, but independent development teams intact...and I would allow the Sonic Team to do anything BUT sonic. 

Jet Grind Radio,
Sonic,
Panzeer Dragoon
Phantasy Star series
Eternal Champions revival
Space Channel 5 (A game that screams casual market)
Shinobi

And that is just off the top of my head.  There is a good list of franchises that could be revived and renewed.  And it would be good for Nintendo to keep those games and Retro games off of the competitors systems.  I think it could be great.

[Kytim89]

How hardcore is SEGA IPs? If Nintendo had exclusive control over them they could bring in even more hardcore gamers to the Wii U because those fans would have no where else to turn for SEGA game than Nintendo, or second hand retailers.

[TJ Spyke]

Aside from Sonic, I'm not sure there's a franchise SEGA has that Nintendo would actually see value in.

Keep in mind Nintendo recently bought the Fatal Frame franchise, which seems to be at odds with what one would expect Nintendo to want ownership of because Fatal Frame is an M rated series. Sega owns a lot of stuff in a similar vein to Fatal Frame.

Nintendo co-owns it, along with Tecmo Koei (they didn't buy it outirght).

[Chozo Ghost]

Aside from Sonic, I'm not sure there's a franchise SEGA has that Nintendo would actually see value in.

Keep in mind Nintendo recently bought the Fatal Frame franchise, which seems to be at odds with what one would expect Nintendo to want ownership of because Fatal Frame is an M rated series. Sega owns a lot of stuff in a similar vein to Fatal Frame.

Nintendo co-owns it, along with Tecmo Koei (they didn't buy it outirght).

Okay, but my point still applies. They bought co-ownership which means they must have some sort of interest in expanding more into M rated hardcore style gaming. Sega has a large library of games like that which would help address weaknesses (perceived or real) in Nintendo's own library.

Its like in the movie Rocky where Rocky explains why him and Adrian were good for each other because they filled gaps that the other had. Sega and Nintendo would be a lot like Rocky and Adrian because they each have gaps the other could fill.

[Kytim89]

Aside from Sonic, I'm not sure there's a franchise SEGA has that Nintendo would actually see value in.

Keep in mind Nintendo recently bought the Fatal Frame franchise, which seems to be at odds with what one would expect Nintendo to want ownership of because Fatal Frame is an M rated series. Sega owns a lot of stuff in a similar vein to Fatal Frame.

Nintendo co-owns it, along with Tecmo Koei (they didn't buy it outirght).

Okay, but my point still applies. They bought co-ownership which means they must have some sort of interest in expanding more into M rated hardcore style gaming. Sega has a large library of games like that which would help address weaknesses (perceived or real) in Nintendo's own library.

Its like in the movie Rocky where Rocky explains why him and Adrian were good for each other because they filled gaps that the other had. Sega and Nintendo would be a lot like Rocky and Adrian because they each have gaps the other could fill.

Nintendo could publish mature titles under SEGA's logo to avoid them tainting Nintendo's family friendly name and hurting the sales of the game itself.

[Pixelated Pixies]

Short answer?
 
No.
 
My opinion is that Sega's franchises and IP would be more valuable sold/licensed individually or in bundles.

[lolmonade]

Should they buy Sega?  I think them purchasing Sega would provide quite a diverse series library to produce new games from.  I bet Nintendo could benefit from having the rights to Sonic exclusively (i remember reading somewhere that despite my generation's griping about them, that the 3D Sonic games are actually quite successful).

The question is "does Nintendo really want exclusive rights to sonic when they already have the sonic characters for their olympic games series?".

[Chozo Ghost]

If Nintendo were to buy Sega they might as well buy what they can of Atari as well. That way they would become a one stop shop for all Retro fanboys.

[tendoboy1984]

Actually I see at least 5-6 franchises that would be good for Nintendo.  I would not keep the management structure, but independent development teams intact...and I would allow the Sonic Team to do anything BUT sonic. 

But then we would have never had the fantastic Sonic Colors (Wii) or Sonic Generations (Xbox 360/PS3).


You should be blaming Dimps for tarnishing the recent Sonic games. They're the ones that can't even get the Genesis physics right in their "Sonic 4" games.

[TJ Spyke]

Actually I see at least 5-6 franchises that would be good for Nintendo.  I would not keep the management structure, but independent development teams intact...and I would allow the Sonic Team to do anything BUT sonic. 

But then we would have never had the fantastic Sonic Colors (Wii) or Sonic Generations (Xbox 360/PS3).


You should be blaming Dimps for tarnishing the recent Sonic games. They're the ones that can't even get the Genesis physics right in their "Sonic 4" games.

The Sonic Rush games (made by Dimps) got good reviews and were well received.

[NWR_insanolord]

I didn't care for the Dimps games at all. They were all about constantly running at full speed and random spikes. Contrary to what some people believe, that's not what the old games were like. They were fast, but they were still fairly traditional platformers. I liked what Sonic 4 was trying to do, it just didn't do it that well.

[Kytim89]

How would SEGA'a IPs benefit from being owned by Nintendo and how much do you think that Nintendo would pay for SEGA?

[NWR_insanolord]

Sega's IPs would benefit from the fact that Nintendo makes every outside developer they work with perform at their best. Sega's a mess internally right now, and Nintendo would fix that (and if not, no one could). Nintendo is a fairly frugal company, though, so I can't imagine them getting into a bidding war, and if there's serious competition, as I imagine there would be, Nintendo won't be the ones that get them.

[Kytim89]

Sega's IPs would benefit from the fact that Nintendo makes every outside developer they work with perform at their best. Sega's a mess internally right now, and Nintendo would fix that (and if not, no one could). Nintendo is a fairly frugal company, though, so I can't imagine them getting into a bidding war, and if there's serious competition, as I imagine there would be, Nintendo won't be the ones that get them.

A new Shenmue, Shinobi and Panzer Dragoon would go a long way as being exclusives to the Wii U.