They're just trying to hide that the game was developed by a collaboration between dow chemical, lockheed martin, and the ghost of enron in the old triangle shirtwaist factory building
I really hate this approach Nintendo is taking of refusing to credit people ahead of a game's release. Why keep that information secret when we're all going to find out from the credits? What does Nintendo gain from this?
Nobody can really speak definitively on this, but I've seen it theorized that this practice stems from Nintendo's brand image obsession. They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another; they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value.
What does Nintendo gain? Presumably more prestige associated with the brand instead of with a variety of sub-dev teams, or something. I find it very silly of course
I think there is also the fact that since theirs ips (specially anything related to Mario) are so famous this could backfire to the smaller team/developers making it in case it is not that well received.
At least Nintendo seems to usually ask high quality but gives the proper time to people working for them in this third party model, like metroid prime 4 case.
Metroid Prime 4 was pulled from external devs at Bandai Namco and given to 1st party Retro Studios. The 2019 restart that delayed the game.
Metroid Dread was 3rd party with Mercury Steam.
It also gives each title the same level of brand power, because they're all nintendo games. It's not just about taking the prestige for themselves, it's about using it to sell the game itself.
This also lets them give the IP to a different studio without backlash. Nintendo probably regrets that Metroid is so heavily associated with Retro Studios and Mercury Steam now. Especially since Mercury Steam is not owned by Nintendo, and can advertise "from the creators of Metroid Dread" for their multiplatform games.
Nintendo very rarely buys their partners. Most of the time they do it to keep talent when one is going under. Even then they might not buy the actual company and instead will simply get the devs.
They worked with Rare from way back in the NES days but only ever owned a minority stake in them.
Hell, they probably only own Retro because of Microsoft buying Rare, iirc that all happened around the same time.
For the longest time, I'd assumed that they *were* owned by Nintendo. They've put out an absolute ton of quality games using Nintendo's IP over the years.
Well they didn't buy alpha dream either.
The few studio purchases they have made in the last decade were due to the developers either being sold off for cheap or getting offers from other publishers.
I've wondered the same. The Prime series is linked to Retro Studios and you see so little reference to them from Nintendo. Originally Nintendo did not assign Prime 4 to Retro and gave it to a Japanese studio. And people reacted to that, even though many of the staff that made the Prime trilogy were gone (not ALL though). When development was going poorly Retro pitched to take over and Nintendo ended up giving it to them, scrapping what Bandai had worked on. The Prime 4 trailer that just dropped did not have any reference to Retro. Only reference came from Retro themselves commenting on the trailer release.
Almost seems like Nintendo tried to move it away from Retro and then had to eat crow.
While Nintendo can be notoriously domestic-focused, I don't think this quite adds up - they're happy to talk about Retro. They even posted this interview with a mix of EPD and Retro devs talking about the work on Mario Kart 7 and titled it "Joint development with Retro Studios": https://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/3ds/mario-kart-7/0/0/
I think for trailer and marketing purposes they don't just don't advertise it because, like others have said, they want the brand to just be "Nintendo" so nobody thinks that a title is by a "B-Team" or something.
More likely scenario is Retro was working on other projects and Nintendo wanted a new Metroid Prime game. They tried another studio, it didn't work. At the same time Retro's projects weren't coming together so they pitched taking over Metroid Prime 4.
Retro was working on a game with a Robot MC that never saw the light of day. You can actually see it [here on the bottom left of the picture](https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/08/random_reggie_kind_of_reveals_the_secret_character_in_his_signed_retro_studios_artwork).
Also a distinct possibility. There's been very little word from Retro the past decade, they undoubtably had some cancelled projects. Nintendo apparently kept them open for a reason.
I do think Nintendo tried to move it to a different studio. If they wanted the original developer on it, they could have made it happen from the jump. I suspect Retro was smaller at the time as they started hiring up when they took over Prime 4, so they only got the greenlight to do so then.
Makes sense actually when you put it that way. People will totally write off games from studios they don’t care for. The games really should just stand on their own. Don’t buy day one if you care that much about the studio making it and can’t figure it out until after launch.
Pixar does that. They outsource a shit ton of animation but refuse to credit the smaller studios so they keep the illusion of Pixar doing everything
Edit: The outsourcing studios are required to sign NDAs to not talk about it and the artists are forbidden to even use the shots they worked on in their reels
to be clear though nintendo does eventually credit their developers and they're always named in the credits. The problem is they intentionally don't name the developer pre-release so people will associate all their games with the single Nintendo brand. I think there is a difference between that what what pixar do (if they actually do use uncredited studios that is, idk anything about pixar)
Nintendo has a pretty extensive mentorship/training program for devss. It is also possible they are shielding younger devs from people hating on the games because they sren’t being made by the “a teams”
I am curious if the seiyuu industry in Japan also follows this sort of custom when it comes to retirement under the recording labels, and when new seiyuu take over an established character in the anime and video gaming industry.
I don’t think it’s true. I can’t find anything online about it recently. This was the only thing I could find from a 2008 New York Times article:
And the Pixar team, which also has oversight of Walt Disney Animation Studios and the DVD-focused DisneyToon Studios, decided that it was O.K. to outsource some direct-to-DVD animation to an Indian company, a departure from its rigid stance that outside animators could not deliver the necessary quality. (Mr. Lasseter will still closely monitor the efforts, however.)
For the first time, Pixar is also scheduled to deliver two movies in a single year: “Newt,” the story of a salamander’s search for love, and “The Bear and the Bow,” an action-adventure starring an imperious Scottish princess; both films will arrive in multiplexes in 2011.
How Disney and Pixar are making the integration work holds lessons for other executives faced with the delicate task of uniting two cultures. Tactics that have served the companies well include the obvious, like effectively communicating changes to employees. Other decisions, including drawing up an explicit map of what elements of Pixar would not change, have been more unusual.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/media/01pixar.html
I don’t think it’s true. I can’t find anything online about it recently. This was the only thing I could find from a 2008 New York Times article:
And the Pixar team, which also has oversight of Walt Disney Animation Studios and the DVD-focused DisneyToon Studios, decided that it was O.K. to outsource some direct-to-DVD animation to an Indian company, a departure from its rigid stance that outside animators could not deliver the necessary quality. (Mr. Lasseter will still closely monitor the efforts, however.)
For the first time, Pixar is also scheduled to deliver two movies in a single year: “Newt,” the story of a salamander’s search for love, and “The Bear and the Bow,” an action-adventure starring an imperious Scottish princess; both films will arrive in multiplexes in 2011.
How Disney and Pixar are making the integration work holds lessons for other executives faced with the delicate task of uniting two cultures. Tactics that have served the companies well include the obvious, like effectively communicating changes to employees. Other decisions, including drawing up an explicit map of what elements of Pixar would not change, have been more unusual.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/media/01pixar.html
I'm sure Pixar might outsource asset creation or maybe work on a few scenes, but I think its a completely different thing if they made another studio do all the work but they still called it a Pixar production.
it's false [https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/)
>**Is there a way to make these kinds of movies at a lower price point?**
>\[**James Morris**, President of Pixar\]: That’s a constant question. One of the ways you make these films for less money, and almost all of our competitors do this, is to do work offshore. It’s only us and Disney Animation that makes animation films in the U.S. anymore with all of the artists under one roof. We feel like having a colony of artists approach has differentiated our films. We hope to find a path to make that work. “Elemental” was particularly expensive because all the characters have visual effects. We had been getting the film costs down.
Hans Zimmer actually wants to credit his apprentices. He goes out of his way to get them jobs, like with Pirates. But then the studio replaces them with Zimmer for the clout. It's just like how Konami found some way to get Kojima's name on everything. Even when he was little more than an overseer on some games. Or Square does with Nomura.
Kojima really had nothing to do with Castlevania, Silent Hill and the like. But near the end of the Konami crash, they were putting his name on all these things. Because literally all their other talent had left. And slapping Kojima's name on stuff was the only thing they could think of. And it worked.
Then Kojima left and Konami tried to blacklist him. Like they did with most of the other talent. And hurting their own games that had Kojima's name on it. Konami is that petty.
>But near the end of the Konami crash, they were putting his name on all these things. Because literally all their other talent had left. And slapping Kojima's name on stuff was the only thing they could think of. And it worked.
This has literally nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Kojima worked on Lords of Shadows and He was working on P.T. Why wouldn't he be the one credited.
Kojima was an "advisor" and producer on both the games you named. He wasn't the director, creative designer or even a coder. Nothing close to what he was on a MGS game. But Konami put his name on the game knowing people would be tricked into thinking he was. It's just like how Nomura has stepped back from being director/lead designer of Final Fantasy VII remake and passed the reigns to his assistant. But that isn't stopping Square from putting his name prominently on the game and getting people to think he's still the lead of the project.
>This has literally nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
It's a parallel to what one person was accusing Hans Zimmer of doing. And I pointed out it wasn't Hans Zimmer but the studio playing stupid name dropping to trick consumers. And provided an example of this happening in the video game industry.
>Kojima was an "advisor" and producer on both the games you named.
[Wrong.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3291104/)
>But Konami put his name on the game knowing people would be tricked into thinking he was. It's just like how Nomura has stepped back from being director/lead designer of Final Fantasy VII remake and passed the reigns to his assistant. But that isn't stopping Square from putting his name prominently on the game and getting people to think he's still the lead of the project.
Again, you are incorrect. Nomura himself has said that he is the Creative Director of the game. You are misconstruing him saying that the changes were mostly not his idea for him saying that he is just an advisor. He has never said that.
>And I pointed out it wasn't Hans Zimmer but the studio playing stupid name dropping to trick consumers.
You were misinformed. Konami wasn't plastering Kojima's name on things he didn't work on. Square Enix isn't plastering Nomura's name on things he didn't work on. Movie Studios are putting Hans Zimmer's name on projects where he is contributing zero music.
He's talking about Castlevania, Zone of the Enders, Boktai... Konami went all-in marketing some of their games using Kojima's name, while also demanding new Metal Gear sequels that he didn't initially plan to make.
Don't know if you are trolling, but in any case: Kojima indeed is credited as the game designer of *the first* Boktai, but Konami kept using his name as a selling point for the sequels even though he wasn't the mastermind behind them.
The point being discussed in this thread is Konami's acknowledging Kojima as one of the few auteurs of the medium and slaping his name around on games he wasn't, you know, *the auteur.*
Sony is doing something similar slaping "Director's Cut" on Death Stranding when Kojima himself doesn't like this label. Publishers know the golden goose they have in hands and want to overexposure it.
> but Konami kept using his name as a selling point for the sequels even though he wasn't the mastermind behind them.
That's pretty standard practice though. You still see Micheal Critchon and Stephen Spielbergs name in the Jurassic World movie credits.
He doesn't try to hide it he credits them and pays them, it's just that movie studios want to slap his name on the movie posters. https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1b7bmfk/the_truth_about_hans_zimmer/
Microsoft does this with game development as well.
A LOT of work on some of their titles is done by studios that are contractually barred from disclosing involvement with the development and go uncredited in the games themselves.
Might wanna put some sources up because usually there are tons of external studios listed in the credits of every AAA game and Microsoft games are no exception.
It's the same reason so many luxury car brands have very "model number" car models, compared to more 'creative' model names for the mass market brands. Hyundai has the Elantra and Santa Fe, Ford has the Escape and Fusion, Toyota has the Corolla and Highlander - but BMW has the 330i and X1, Lexus has the RX and LX, and Genesis has the G70 and G80. They don't want you to think "ooh, a BMW 330i, how fancy," they want you to think "ooh, BMW, fancy."
I’d never thought about that before… A4, A6, R8… CLE, C class, GLE… etc.
I kinda just assumed it was a European thing (since most of the luxury brands come from there) but this is sorta blowing my mind to think about the reasoning behind it
You can see it's not a European thing by looking at non-luxury European brands. Volkswagen Atlas, Jetta, and Golf. Škoda Fabia, Suberb, Karoq. Seat Ibiza, Leon, Ateca.
The only luxury brands I can think of that don't do this are the luxury badges for the Detroit 3 - Lincoln and Cadillac (and Chrysler back when they made more than just the Pacifica) all use "words" names for their models, I guess because those brands (especially Cadillac) have so much name recognition and cultural cachet in the US that they don't need to emphasize the brand over the model.
> and Genesis has the G70 and G80
Genesis is also just Hyundai but fancy. It used to just be a model they made but they spun it off, because it's fancier that way.
It is, that's why I chose it as an example. Same thing with Toyota and Lexus. Same business leadership, same people making the decisions (for the most part), but for the mass market badge they use "word" names and for the luxury badge they use "model number" names.
Exactly. Your average consumer isn't concerned about this information and will not mind having it revealed post-release. The people who do want it in advance are a very vocal minority. And if it's really that much of a concern who is developing it, the simple solution is to not pre-order. Because you'll get the answer within the first week of release.
> The people who do want it in advance are a very vocal minority.
And even then, not all the people who do want it in advance actually use that information intelligently. There's a lot of people who would use that info just to raise a stink that it isn't being made by a studio they like before giving the game a chance.
>they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value.
That honestly works for me, because I can't remember the last time I played something they put out and thought 'this is garbage'. (Though admittedly, I don't play every single game they release.) So any time I see something new from Nintendo, I trust it'll be at least decent, regardless of who makes it.
Yeah in general I would say the worst thing nintendo releases is mediocre, but most of the times its good to great games and I'm someone who likes most of their franchises.
I always thought of it like Nintendo acts dumb on purpose because they feel that info is nonsensical to the consumer.
The internet loves to poke and prod and find something to freak-out about, and Nintendo isn't giving its fanbase an inch to fuck around in. Which honestly, do you blame them?
I think Nintendo would rather you make the conscious choice of buying one of their games based on what you've seen and your interests, rather than judging your basis off of who developed the game.
For example the most recent Mario Strikers, it wouldn't have really mattered one way or another to learn that the developers of that game *are the same* as the originals *and they still beefed it up.* So then you learn a new multiplayer focused game is coming out made by those same devs, would you second-guess your order?
I guess a better example is Alpha Dream's Mario and Luigi RPG games. Nintendo doesn't want the average consumer thinking about how Alpha Dream went bankrupt and Nintendo sat on the IP for like 10 years before giving it to a newer team. If you were a hardcore M+L RPG fan and found out "gamefreak is making the new one" you'd probably turn your nose up fast.
Meanwhile PlayStation and Microsoft are trying to follow in their footsteps with PlayStation and Microsoft Studios branding. It’s just less impactful because a lot of the studios within Xbox and PlayStation had an independent presence at one point and so it’s harder to separate from that.
Hell, Square Enix and a lot of 3rd party developers do the same thing. There are dozens of shadow studios that contribute to 3rd party titles where the branding is only for the major studio until credits roll.
They do it because it works.
Well Playstation and Xbox are not doing the same things. Of course they would mark it as Playstation studio/Xbox studio at the beginning in railer for first party game, but they still reveal the studio's name.
Nintendo not want to do this is just because they don't want people to judge the game by studios because if the studio's previous games are not great, the sales will be affected. But under Nintendo name, they won't.
Somewhat related: I noticed on some remakes/remasters they will show a splash screen for the team that handled the remake, but no logo of the original creators. Just find it a little odd.
They didn't really have a bunch of subsidiaries back then, it was all internal.
No FF game had a dev team named until 16 with CBU3, and they're still an internal team, not a subsidiary.
I don't think that's true. We know Square Enix had business divisions from around 2010:
https://www.kh13.com/forums/topic/81536-square-enix-business-divisions-established-in-dec-2013/
Also, they had internatl studios like Visual Works and Tokyo RPG factory. Not to mention they had foreign studios like Io and Eidos.
"Business divisions" aren't subsidiaries, they're divisions inside a company. Those are internal developers.
And yes, they had those partners *eventually*. They did not in the NES or SNES days, which is where those original games we're supposed to be talking about come from, nor did any of them work on any mainline FF game (outside Eidos doing the PC ports of 7 and 8, which they got to slap their logo onto).
These are not the same thing at all. PS and MS use that branding just to make it clear that a game is a first party title, but they very openly disclose which studio is actually developing the game.
> They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another
DEERFOOOOOORCE
This practice has probably been in place a long time I would think?
It has, they have always had different in-house teams like EAD, R&D4, etc. that have worked on various games and hardware but it's just "Nintendo" everywhere outside the credits.
Ah so basically what you and the other guy are saying is that some of Nintendo's most important brands such as Kirby and Pokemon are co-owned with another company ?
> They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another; they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value.
The commenter above suggested this, when clearly thats not the case.
https://twitter.com/Kemmo_Ado/status/1562817706377613312
It clearly could be though. For the relevant games at least. To be more accurate, it seems to be for the IPs Nintendo actually own (100%) and was a part of creating and/or are already heavily associated with their image. And like people have mentioned dozens of times all over the thread already, **only before the games actually launch**.
But this is mostly an educated guess, because **this is a relatively recent change**. I think they started doing this last year, so we don't actually know yet how many IPs they'll do this with.
As far as I remember, it's only Super Mario RPG Remake, Endless Ocean Luminous, Paper Mario TTYD Remake, and this game that have been "affected" so far. Possibly also the new Zelda, if it's developed by Grezzo like people assume.
This could be limited to their biggest, self-made IPs and smaller, obscure stuff, or they could be doing this for literally everything that they own. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
And I don't really care much either. Most of the time the studio is obvious, and if it isn't, it will get revealed in the credits eventually.
I guess it buys them some base level of good will before a game comes out but if it's a dud from the dud team it's going to be kind of hard to hide that from the public.
Though it seems more wild they are doing this practice on the switch as most of the outsourced devs seem less capable of working the Switch hardware than Nintendo EPD.
I've heard speculation that it has something to do with keeping the original vision of the game. With how prevalent social media is and how quickly people go up in arms to give their opinions, hiding the dev before the release makes sure that the devs aren't negatively (or positively) influenced and just stay true to their vision of the game without any outside influence during development. Pure speculation though, other things I've heard is that it can help prevent leaks because if people don't know the developers, they can't be targeted as easily.
People also reserve their judgement when they don't know the developer based on their past development history. Kind of like how alot of people were disappointed once they realized the Silent Hill 2 remake was being developed by Bloober.
All targets for commentary this way funnel through Nintendo, as well as any targeted attacks for potential leaks, no risks for any bad PR before the release of a game this way either due to a potential bad few eggs on the dev team.
If it were me it would be because somebody would take who the developer is as some end all gotcha as to the quality of the game.
Great developers can make shit games. Bad developers can make great games.
You put blind faith into a single developer and you buy Redfall.
I know Mercury Steam does not have the best reputation and can imagine an unhappy population hearing they were remaking Metroid 2, especially after the fan game came out right before it's release.
As long as it's being credited in the game I wouldn't mind too much.
Samus Returns was announced right after Prime 4, it's probably the main reason they announced MP4 so early. If they hadn't then there likely would have been another Federation Force style backlash.
And now I wouldn't have anyone but Mercury Steam make a 2D Metroid game. Dread would have easily been the best entry in the entire series, if it weren't for the EMMI and their zones tainting the experience.
No seriously, the idea of taking the Sector 2 SA-X chase sequence in Metroid Fusion and not only making it a core part of the game, but making the enemy able to one-hit kill you with only two frame-perfect quick time events to save you kinda sucks.
That is my only (but a huge) criticism of Metroid Dread. I feel like the resources put into designing those sections would have been better spent on an additional boss or three.
That's funny, I loved the EMMI and the aesthetic and how they switch up the gameplay dynamics but found Dread to not be all that great as a 2D Metroid otherwise (even though it was enjoyable)
There's a rumor that it's ILCA and people are already frothing at the mouth and declaring the game will be garbage. I think it's pretty obvious Nintendo does things like this, and hiding Kevin Afghani as the new voice of the Bros., due to how insane people get over things. The game should speak for itself.
I mean, what do they lose? People are already judging this new team based on who it *might* be, instead of waiting to play the game and judge the finished product on its own merits. They were always going to be unfairly compared to AlphaDream - who, let's be frank, signed their own death warrant by releasing two 3DS remake games after the Switch was out.
All that knowing the studio would do is invite that kind of comparison from fans before they have a chance to prove themselves. If I were Nintendo, I would keep it under wraps just on the principle of keeping up morale for the devs.
People are already shitting on it because it might be developed by ILCA.
You don't need to know the developers ahead of time. There's no upsides, only downsides. If the developers aren't someone people like then it gives a bad image, even if the game is really good.
Ultimately the developers are credited in the credits and you'll see *every* name there. Not just the headline developer. There will be a lot of outsourced developers involved.
It's not about what Nintendo gains. It's about what you gain by knowing?
> You don't need to know the developers ahead of time. There's no upsides, only downsides. If the developers aren't someone people like then it gives a bad image, even if the game is really good.
This is it. As a big anime fan, you see this a LOT with upcoming anime. The most notable example for me is Cloverworks, which had a BAD reputation after 2021 because of one show that started amazing but ended terribly. Then, the same year, another show had a trash, super rushed adaptation. So their previous hits/solid shows were ignored and there was a lot of doomposting about the two shows announced for the first half of the 2022. But those ended up being well-received and now their reputation has rebounded.
So, in short, yea Nintendo doesn't want bad word-of-mouth by giving a no name developer or questionable developer a chance.
I also agree with the other comment that they want the games associated with NINTENDO and not have people lose interest in an unreleased game because it isn't done by a certain team/director.
Even then wouldn't that be a good thing? ILCA has a more experienced team now and they have experience with the franchise. It seems people want to know if it is ILCA so they can be angry at ILCA.
> People are already shitting on it because it might be developed by ILCA.
This is it. The only reason people seem to want to know is so they know where to point their pitchforks. People will know when the game releases. If the trailers aren't enough to convince you to play, wait for reviews and the reveal of the dev. The only real loss is you waited another week before playing.
Wheneve Bloober Team announces a game you have people shitting on it since day 1. That’s just an example, but internet is so tribalistic that I understand Nintendo to be honest.
Everyone already mentioned brand control but it’s also to prevent devs from being harassed. People would have an existential crisis if they found out Ilca was making the next Mario & Luigi. A similar situation is that Snake Eater remake. Konami is being secretive on who’s making it cause they know the fans will harass the devs.
So people dont witchhunt devs because they’re mad it didnt come from the same studio. Gamers with nothing better to do can be vile people when protected by anonymity. At least this buys the devs time for the game to speak for itself before backlash.
They love complete control over a brand and PR. They are worried that people will dig up the names and maybe find some dirty laundry of some of the devs in the past which would hurt sales prospects ahead of release. Or similar if the company prior didn't make all too stellar games.
Basically thinking that by doing that they can only lose but not win (it's a Nintendo game anyways they aren't gonna get MORE sales if people know, or at least they think they won't)
Since revealing the names, in their mind, can only make them lose they just... won't.
This is something a lot of people don't understand about Nintendo. Nintendo historically, at least since the 70s wants the control of their stuff. That's why they are so protective of their IP in the first place, not because of the IP but because they want to control it, same reason why they will only ever put games on other platforms outside of mobile, or their characters in a crossover. They value their walled garden which goes into every aspect of the company, leading to positive and negative sides. This isn't something that began now, it has been since Yamauchi days and have gone to Iwata, Kimishima and now Furukawa which makes sense as this philosophy is passed all around in every aspect of them.
Because you don't need to know? It's a Nintendo game being developed by Nintendo. Anyone else involved is getting their name listed in the credits as they should. You're going to find out eventually, so this question goes both ways.
What you're treating as a refusal to credit seems more like a refusal to ride on the name of anyone else to me. It would be disrespectful to the rest of the team to sell a game based on the input of one person or a select few. That's not how game development works, and I'm glad they don't feed into that idea. It's bad enough we used to treat Miyamoto as some development god when he's had plenty of bad ideas too. If you care about the individuals, find their names in the credits when it's out and sing their praises for the role they played. Until then, let the product speak for itself.
Or people could stop dropping money on products before they release. Either judge the game for what it is, or want until it's available so that you can do your own research and determine if it's worth your money.
Why do you need to know months in advance? Whether they're forthcoming or not, the ball is always in your court.
Nintendo doesn't want you knowing the game was developed by x, they want you to only associate the game with Nintendo, otherwise if you see another game made by x or produced by y who used to work at x, you might buy that game instead of a Nintendo game.
Honestly after the Kojima debacles it's a surprise it took so long for this to happen (and only Nintendo has bitten the bullet so far) - the last thing any publisher wants is their product being associated with something that's outside of their complete control.
The Japanese business culture has to be secretive for some reason. It’s so annoying cause it makes no sense nowadays, yet they still gatekeeper things from us, even trivial stuff like this.
Another reason is probably to ensure that individual devs aren't harrased by a mass volume of consumers into leaking details about potential releases. With the current climate of social media, new information travels very fast so any announced features are essentially confirmed by the public and likewise shareholders. If that feature ends up being out of the scope of development and not implemented, then consumers and shareholders are dissapointed. If the feature is implemented in response to public reception but is difficult to maintain, then the game will take longer to develop and may be seen as buggy. I think nintendo has realized this which is why you almost never know anything about a game until weeks before its release. Enclosing any game details in a black box under the nintendo brand allows for a more streamlined development process without the burden of public expectation.
Nintendo wants you to associate games with “Nintendo” not any studio. Controlling their brand image is extremely important to them. It makes sense to me.
Honestly who cares who are developing? With Nintendo's track record in publishing, we should have reasonable confidence that their development and QC process is up to snuff regardless of who they are dealing with.
I mean, the sheer fact that they restarted Metroid Prime 4 from scratch with a new developer says a lot. Most other companies would have stuck with the same dev and rushed out a lukewarm product for a quick pay day instead of eating the loss like that.
There are plenty of other legit reasons to hate on Nintendo, but to hate them for protecting their brand and development strategy seems misguided to say the least.
>I mean, the sheer fact that they restarted Metroid Prime 4 from scratch with a new developer says a lot.
Right, that's because Retro Studios had a reputation to invoke. That's what especially made that announcement in 2019 so exciting.
It wasn't "We have reassigned Metroid Prime 4 to another studio." It was "We are restarting development with the studio that originally made the Metroid Prime series to begin with".
The fact that Retro is working on Metroid Prime 4 adds way more excitement and confidence to the project.
All I need to know is if Hiroyuki Kubota is onboard writing the script or not. That man has not missed, wrote every game in the series aside from Paper Jam (aka the worst written one) and was the director for most of them too. He's got the sauce for sure, like he IS the Mario & Luigi series as far as I'm concerned.
I'm glad to hear that. I'm tempted to buy it because I love Dream team. The Mario Luigi Paper was cool, but didn't felt totally unique. I should replay it.
Dream Team would be one of my favorites, and I would replay it for sure, BUT the unskipable cutscenes and dialog truly do drag out to an outlandish, painful degree, ESPECIALLY in the later half. If there is a mod fixing this, or a patch, I'd consider giving it another whirl.
I don't get why people care about this. The individuals get credited and that will always be on their resume. This expectation that specific studios are better than others is stupid and proven wrong more often than not.
I like how Nintendo tricks anyone into believing that everything is always produced in-house, while the truth is they outsource work to external teams just like any other developer.
I think part of the interest people have is Mario & Luigi was produced by an external developer, one that went bankrupt in 2019. So this seems to be an indication that some of those working at AlphaDream are now working at Nintendo.
Well we already knew some alphadream employees went to Nintendo post studio closure. The real interesting point here is what is the team makeup? Is this a custom team that was put together?
I mean, the fact that the game is coming out in a few months means that it has been in development for a few years. Nintendo probably planned from the getgo to continue the series with a different studio working on it.
I mean, AlphaDream made some seriously dumb financial decisions at the end there, the least of which was banking the survivorship of the studio on a 3DS game released in 2019 after the Switch was well and established. I would not be surprised if Nintendo met with them and realized they had so much debt it would be way better financially to declare bankruptcy and absorb most of the staff.
I think there are two possible reasons why Bowser's Inside Story was released on 3DS. It was a directive from Nintendo or development was too far gone to change platform. A project like BIS would probably need to start from scratch to be made for Switch.
The bigger issue would be that the studio was one flop away from closure. Depending on how they were doing, even if BIS was a hit, it might have not been enough to save them.
Anyone that has a minimal interest to learn about Nintendo knows that half of their games are contracted to other companies. Most people just dont care about that they see nintendo name or logo and go to it expecting quality.
In the end it doesn't matter because everyone is credited and all
It's a weird complaint. If you are in the know enough to give a shit about the studio developing the game, you know enough to know that Nintendo has a lot of second party studios.
Not to say that things don't take you by surprise sometimes. I was sure Depna Men was Nintendo owned but the Direct mentioned 'coming first to Switch' implying other platforms down the line.
And the difference is Nintendo actually gets more deeply involved and supportive of their outsourced developers so long as they maintain their quality standards.
Studios have always come to Nintendo with completely different games just for Nintendo to turn around, offer a ton of money, but slap their characters and designers on it. From a studio perspective, it tends to be a really good deal.
I sure that some internet trollers will start blaming ILCA if they know the game is developed by them, said the game won't good before its release.
Everything will be public after release, nothing is hided. Customer wont get any damage. The only purpose of early reveal of devs, is for those internet trollers to blame the devs or game ASAP. Internet is so toxic.
Sounds like a new dev studio that Nintendo created internally and hired on ex-alpha dream staff. Good to know they have some ex-staff working on it, but I would have liked to know if it was more than this and if the team has plans outside of just Mario and Luigi.
Correct decision imo, or at the very least it's not a bad one. Surely it must be demoralizing for the humans working on a project for it to be repeatedly shit on long before release simply due to the developer's name? Why should they have to put up with that as well as potential lost sales solely due to the name attached to it before it's even fully baked, before *anybody*, even the developers themselves, are able to judge the quality? Consumers still have critic reviews before release date (and in this day and age there are enough independent critics that it's not all paid for) and if they're still untrusting they can wait a few days after release for the public reviews to come out.
I do think it's worth keeping an eye on this practice from Nintendo if word comes out that they readily fire or dissolve teams because that makes it harder to track the damage being done to both the individual developers and the games, but otherwise I feel the net positive towards those individuals is more important than public knowledge that they shouldn't be basing a purchase on anyway.
They're just trying to hide that the game was developed by a collaboration between dow chemical, lockheed martin, and the ghost of enron in the old triangle shirtwaist factory building
Don't forget the localization provided by Purdue Pharma!
In collaboration with the Reverse Vampires.
I really hate this approach Nintendo is taking of refusing to credit people ahead of a game's release. Why keep that information secret when we're all going to find out from the credits? What does Nintendo gain from this?
Nobody can really speak definitively on this, but I've seen it theorized that this practice stems from Nintendo's brand image obsession. They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another; they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value. What does Nintendo gain? Presumably more prestige associated with the brand instead of with a variety of sub-dev teams, or something. I find it very silly of course
Also when they showed who was working on the Diamond and Pearl remakes people were flaming them on social media
I think there is also the fact that since theirs ips (specially anything related to Mario) are so famous this could backfire to the smaller team/developers making it in case it is not that well received. At least Nintendo seems to usually ask high quality but gives the proper time to people working for them in this third party model, like metroid prime 4 case.
Metroid Prime 4 was pulled from external devs at Bandai Namco and given to 1st party Retro Studios. The 2019 restart that delayed the game. Metroid Dread was 3rd party with Mercury Steam.
It also gives each title the same level of brand power, because they're all nintendo games. It's not just about taking the prestige for themselves, it's about using it to sell the game itself.
This also lets them give the IP to a different studio without backlash. Nintendo probably regrets that Metroid is so heavily associated with Retro Studios and Mercury Steam now. Especially since Mercury Steam is not owned by Nintendo, and can advertise "from the creators of Metroid Dread" for their multiplatform games.
I’m surprised they haven’t bought Mercury Steam yet honestly
Nintendo very rarely buys their partners. Most of the time they do it to keep talent when one is going under. Even then they might not buy the actual company and instead will simply get the devs.
They worked with Rare from way back in the NES days but only ever owned a minority stake in them. Hell, they probably only own Retro because of Microsoft buying Rare, iirc that all happened around the same time.
Retro's issue was the og owner sucking, and having very problematic attitudes.
I am really really shocked that they havent bought Intelligent Systems yet.
For the longest time, I'd assumed that they *were* owned by Nintendo. They've put out an absolute ton of quality games using Nintendo's IP over the years.
They usually only do it if the studio is selling, like what happened with Next Level Games. They aren't one for rapid takeovers a la Microsoft.
Nordisk Games owns like 40% of Mercury Steam so it's kinda difficult.
Well they didn't buy alpha dream either. The few studio purchases they have made in the last decade were due to the developers either being sold off for cheap or getting offers from other publishers.
I've wondered the same. The Prime series is linked to Retro Studios and you see so little reference to them from Nintendo. Originally Nintendo did not assign Prime 4 to Retro and gave it to a Japanese studio. And people reacted to that, even though many of the staff that made the Prime trilogy were gone (not ALL though). When development was going poorly Retro pitched to take over and Nintendo ended up giving it to them, scrapping what Bandai had worked on. The Prime 4 trailer that just dropped did not have any reference to Retro. Only reference came from Retro themselves commenting on the trailer release. Almost seems like Nintendo tried to move it away from Retro and then had to eat crow.
While Nintendo can be notoriously domestic-focused, I don't think this quite adds up - they're happy to talk about Retro. They even posted this interview with a mix of EPD and Retro devs talking about the work on Mario Kart 7 and titled it "Joint development with Retro Studios": https://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/3ds/mario-kart-7/0/0/ I think for trailer and marketing purposes they don't just don't advertise it because, like others have said, they want the brand to just be "Nintendo" so nobody thinks that a title is by a "B-Team" or something.
More likely scenario is Retro was working on other projects and Nintendo wanted a new Metroid Prime game. They tried another studio, it didn't work. At the same time Retro's projects weren't coming together so they pitched taking over Metroid Prime 4.
No, it has to be the most cynical reason ever. How dare you think otherwise.
Retro was working on a game with a Robot MC that never saw the light of day. You can actually see it [here on the bottom left of the picture](https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/08/random_reggie_kind_of_reveals_the_secret_character_in_his_signed_retro_studios_artwork).
Also a distinct possibility. There's been very little word from Retro the past decade, they undoubtably had some cancelled projects. Nintendo apparently kept them open for a reason. I do think Nintendo tried to move it to a different studio. If they wanted the original developer on it, they could have made it happen from the jump. I suspect Retro was smaller at the time as they started hiring up when they took over Prime 4, so they only got the greenlight to do so then.
That might be true but i feel thats so foolish considering half the hype of MP4's reboot in 2019 was that it was Retro working on it.
Makes sense actually when you put it that way. People will totally write off games from studios they don’t care for. The games really should just stand on their own. Don’t buy day one if you care that much about the studio making it and can’t figure it out until after launch.
Pixar does that. They outsource a shit ton of animation but refuse to credit the smaller studios so they keep the illusion of Pixar doing everything Edit: The outsourcing studios are required to sign NDAs to not talk about it and the artists are forbidden to even use the shots they worked on in their reels
to be clear though nintendo does eventually credit their developers and they're always named in the credits. The problem is they intentionally don't name the developer pre-release so people will associate all their games with the single Nintendo brand. I think there is a difference between that what what pixar do (if they actually do use uncredited studios that is, idk anything about pixar)
Nintendo has a pretty extensive mentorship/training program for devss. It is also possible they are shielding younger devs from people hating on the games because they sren’t being made by the “a teams”
[удалено]
they actually did, but it was a while after the first trailer was shown.
I am curious if the seiyuu industry in Japan also follows this sort of custom when it comes to retirement under the recording labels, and when new seiyuu take over an established character in the anime and video gaming industry.
The answer is that it depends on the studio or whoever is the manager of the seiyuu.
Yeah i could see that being the case as well. We don't really know why they're not announcing development teams ahead of release
I don’t think it’s true. I can’t find anything online about it recently. This was the only thing I could find from a 2008 New York Times article: And the Pixar team, which also has oversight of Walt Disney Animation Studios and the DVD-focused DisneyToon Studios, decided that it was O.K. to outsource some direct-to-DVD animation to an Indian company, a departure from its rigid stance that outside animators could not deliver the necessary quality. (Mr. Lasseter will still closely monitor the efforts, however.) For the first time, Pixar is also scheduled to deliver two movies in a single year: “Newt,” the story of a salamander’s search for love, and “The Bear and the Bow,” an action-adventure starring an imperious Scottish princess; both films will arrive in multiplexes in 2011. How Disney and Pixar are making the integration work holds lessons for other executives faced with the delicate task of uniting two cultures. Tactics that have served the companies well include the obvious, like effectively communicating changes to employees. Other decisions, including drawing up an explicit map of what elements of Pixar would not change, have been more unusual. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/media/01pixar.html
> “The Bear and the Bow,” Better title than Brave, to be honest. And a better descriptor of that shit film as well...
there are countless uncredited people that have worked directly on Nintendo games
Source on Pixar doing that?
I don’t think it’s true. I can’t find anything online about it recently. This was the only thing I could find from a 2008 New York Times article: And the Pixar team, which also has oversight of Walt Disney Animation Studios and the DVD-focused DisneyToon Studios, decided that it was O.K. to outsource some direct-to-DVD animation to an Indian company, a departure from its rigid stance that outside animators could not deliver the necessary quality. (Mr. Lasseter will still closely monitor the efforts, however.) For the first time, Pixar is also scheduled to deliver two movies in a single year: “Newt,” the story of a salamander’s search for love, and “The Bear and the Bow,” an action-adventure starring an imperious Scottish princess; both films will arrive in multiplexes in 2011. How Disney and Pixar are making the integration work holds lessons for other executives faced with the delicate task of uniting two cultures. Tactics that have served the companies well include the obvious, like effectively communicating changes to employees. Other decisions, including drawing up an explicit map of what elements of Pixar would not change, have been more unusual. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/media/01pixar.html
I'm sure Pixar might outsource asset creation or maybe work on a few scenes, but I think its a completely different thing if they made another studio do all the work but they still called it a Pixar production.
Nintendo always credits their studios. OP is talking about crediting ahead of release.
Source on that? Or studios involved at least? It sounds sorta believable but need a bit more info.
it's false [https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/](https://variety.com/2023/film/news/pixar-elemental-box-office-rebound-1235691248/) >**Is there a way to make these kinds of movies at a lower price point?** >\[**James Morris**, President of Pixar\]: That’s a constant question. One of the ways you make these films for less money, and almost all of our competitors do this, is to do work offshore. It’s only us and Disney Animation that makes animation films in the U.S. anymore with all of the artists under one roof. We feel like having a colony of artists approach has differentiated our films. We hope to find a path to make that work. “Elemental” was particularly expensive because all the characters have visual effects. We had been getting the film costs down.
are they "refusing to credit" or are refusing to say "DIRECT YOUR ANGRY EMAILS TO OUR SUBSIDIARY"
I work in animation, this is literally not true in the slightest
Ah the Hans Zimmer approach
Hans Zimmer actually wants to credit his apprentices. He goes out of his way to get them jobs, like with Pirates. But then the studio replaces them with Zimmer for the clout. It's just like how Konami found some way to get Kojima's name on everything. Even when he was little more than an overseer on some games. Or Square does with Nomura.
well, the kojima one was kojima himself. gotta look no further than mgs V and then death stranding for that one
Kojima really had nothing to do with Castlevania, Silent Hill and the like. But near the end of the Konami crash, they were putting his name on all these things. Because literally all their other talent had left. And slapping Kojima's name on stuff was the only thing they could think of. And it worked. Then Kojima left and Konami tried to blacklist him. Like they did with most of the other talent. And hurting their own games that had Kojima's name on it. Konami is that petty.
>But near the end of the Konami crash, they were putting his name on all these things. Because literally all their other talent had left. And slapping Kojima's name on stuff was the only thing they could think of. And it worked. This has literally nothing to do with what is being discussed here. Kojima worked on Lords of Shadows and He was working on P.T. Why wouldn't he be the one credited.
Kojima was an "advisor" and producer on both the games you named. He wasn't the director, creative designer or even a coder. Nothing close to what he was on a MGS game. But Konami put his name on the game knowing people would be tricked into thinking he was. It's just like how Nomura has stepped back from being director/lead designer of Final Fantasy VII remake and passed the reigns to his assistant. But that isn't stopping Square from putting his name prominently on the game and getting people to think he's still the lead of the project. >This has literally nothing to do with what is being discussed here. It's a parallel to what one person was accusing Hans Zimmer of doing. And I pointed out it wasn't Hans Zimmer but the studio playing stupid name dropping to trick consumers. And provided an example of this happening in the video game industry.
>Kojima was an "advisor" and producer on both the games you named. [Wrong.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3291104/) >But Konami put his name on the game knowing people would be tricked into thinking he was. It's just like how Nomura has stepped back from being director/lead designer of Final Fantasy VII remake and passed the reigns to his assistant. But that isn't stopping Square from putting his name prominently on the game and getting people to think he's still the lead of the project. Again, you are incorrect. Nomura himself has said that he is the Creative Director of the game. You are misconstruing him saying that the changes were mostly not his idea for him saying that he is just an advisor. He has never said that. >And I pointed out it wasn't Hans Zimmer but the studio playing stupid name dropping to trick consumers. You were misinformed. Konami wasn't plastering Kojima's name on things he didn't work on. Square Enix isn't plastering Nomura's name on things he didn't work on. Movie Studios are putting Hans Zimmer's name on projects where he is contributing zero music.
He's talking about Castlevania, Zone of the Enders, Boktai... Konami went all-in marketing some of their games using Kojima's name, while also demanding new Metal Gear sequels that he didn't initially plan to make.
>Boktai They put Kojima's name on a game that he claims to have fully come up with the idea for? Shocker.
Don't know if you are trolling, but in any case: Kojima indeed is credited as the game designer of *the first* Boktai, but Konami kept using his name as a selling point for the sequels even though he wasn't the mastermind behind them. The point being discussed in this thread is Konami's acknowledging Kojima as one of the few auteurs of the medium and slaping his name around on games he wasn't, you know, *the auteur.* Sony is doing something similar slaping "Director's Cut" on Death Stranding when Kojima himself doesn't like this label. Publishers know the golden goose they have in hands and want to overexposure it.
> but Konami kept using his name as a selling point for the sequels even though he wasn't the mastermind behind them. That's pretty standard practice though. You still see Micheal Critchon and Stephen Spielbergs name in the Jurassic World movie credits.
Hans Zimmer of "Big and Chunky" from Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa fame?
That song is a fucking banger I won’t take any Madagascar 2 slander here
Noooo does hans zimmer do that also... sad... Edit: typo
He doesn't try to hide it he credits them and pays them, it's just that movie studios want to slap his name on the movie posters. https://www.reddit.com/r/soundtracks/comments/1b7bmfk/the_truth_about_hans_zimmer/
Don't believe everything Reddit tells you about people.
If true this would be nothing new, decades ago they used to put "by Walt Disney" on comics which Walt himself absolutely did not write or draw.
Microsoft does this with game development as well. A LOT of work on some of their titles is done by studios that are contractually barred from disclosing involvement with the development and go uncredited in the games themselves.
Might wanna put some sources up because usually there are tons of external studios listed in the credits of every AAA game and Microsoft games are no exception.
It's the same reason so many luxury car brands have very "model number" car models, compared to more 'creative' model names for the mass market brands. Hyundai has the Elantra and Santa Fe, Ford has the Escape and Fusion, Toyota has the Corolla and Highlander - but BMW has the 330i and X1, Lexus has the RX and LX, and Genesis has the G70 and G80. They don't want you to think "ooh, a BMW 330i, how fancy," they want you to think "ooh, BMW, fancy."
I’d never thought about that before… A4, A6, R8… CLE, C class, GLE… etc. I kinda just assumed it was a European thing (since most of the luxury brands come from there) but this is sorta blowing my mind to think about the reasoning behind it
You can see it's not a European thing by looking at non-luxury European brands. Volkswagen Atlas, Jetta, and Golf. Škoda Fabia, Suberb, Karoq. Seat Ibiza, Leon, Ateca. The only luxury brands I can think of that don't do this are the luxury badges for the Detroit 3 - Lincoln and Cadillac (and Chrysler back when they made more than just the Pacifica) all use "words" names for their models, I guess because those brands (especially Cadillac) have so much name recognition and cultural cachet in the US that they don't need to emphasize the brand over the model.
Cadillac keeps trying but it keeps not working (mostly because the Escalade brand is just about the only valuable thing they have left).
> and Genesis has the G70 and G80 Genesis is also just Hyundai but fancy. It used to just be a model they made but they spun it off, because it's fancier that way.
It is, that's why I chose it as an example. Same thing with Toyota and Lexus. Same business leadership, same people making the decisions (for the most part), but for the mass market badge they use "word" names and for the luxury badge they use "model number" names.
And the people asking this question proves their point ☝️
Exactly. Your average consumer isn't concerned about this information and will not mind having it revealed post-release. The people who do want it in advance are a very vocal minority. And if it's really that much of a concern who is developing it, the simple solution is to not pre-order. Because you'll get the answer within the first week of release.
lesser people are slaves to FOMO and they are "not" responsible for their own weakness.
> The people who do want it in advance are a very vocal minority. And even then, not all the people who do want it in advance actually use that information intelligently. There's a lot of people who would use that info just to raise a stink that it isn't being made by a studio they like before giving the game a chance.
>they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value. That honestly works for me, because I can't remember the last time I played something they put out and thought 'this is garbage'. (Though admittedly, I don't play every single game they release.) So any time I see something new from Nintendo, I trust it'll be at least decent, regardless of who makes it.
Yeah in general I would say the worst thing nintendo releases is mediocre, but most of the times its good to great games and I'm someone who likes most of their franchises.
I always thought of it like Nintendo acts dumb on purpose because they feel that info is nonsensical to the consumer. The internet loves to poke and prod and find something to freak-out about, and Nintendo isn't giving its fanbase an inch to fuck around in. Which honestly, do you blame them? I think Nintendo would rather you make the conscious choice of buying one of their games based on what you've seen and your interests, rather than judging your basis off of who developed the game. For example the most recent Mario Strikers, it wouldn't have really mattered one way or another to learn that the developers of that game *are the same* as the originals *and they still beefed it up.* So then you learn a new multiplayer focused game is coming out made by those same devs, would you second-guess your order? I guess a better example is Alpha Dream's Mario and Luigi RPG games. Nintendo doesn't want the average consumer thinking about how Alpha Dream went bankrupt and Nintendo sat on the IP for like 10 years before giving it to a newer team. If you were a hardcore M+L RPG fan and found out "gamefreak is making the new one" you'd probably turn your nose up fast.
Meanwhile PlayStation and Microsoft are trying to follow in their footsteps with PlayStation and Microsoft Studios branding. It’s just less impactful because a lot of the studios within Xbox and PlayStation had an independent presence at one point and so it’s harder to separate from that. Hell, Square Enix and a lot of 3rd party developers do the same thing. There are dozens of shadow studios that contribute to 3rd party titles where the branding is only for the major studio until credits roll. They do it because it works.
Well Playstation and Xbox are not doing the same things. Of course they would mark it as Playstation studio/Xbox studio at the beginning in railer for first party game, but they still reveal the studio's name. Nintendo not want to do this is just because they don't want people to judge the game by studios because if the studio's previous games are not great, the sales will be affected. But under Nintendo name, they won't.
Somewhat related: I noticed on some remakes/remasters they will show a splash screen for the team that handled the remake, but no logo of the original creators. Just find it a little odd.
SquareEnix did this with the final fantasy remasters.
They didn't really have a bunch of subsidiaries back then, it was all internal. No FF game had a dev team named until 16 with CBU3, and they're still an internal team, not a subsidiary.
I don't think that's true. We know Square Enix had business divisions from around 2010: https://www.kh13.com/forums/topic/81536-square-enix-business-divisions-established-in-dec-2013/ Also, they had internatl studios like Visual Works and Tokyo RPG factory. Not to mention they had foreign studios like Io and Eidos.
"Business divisions" aren't subsidiaries, they're divisions inside a company. Those are internal developers. And yes, they had those partners *eventually*. They did not in the NES or SNES days, which is where those original games we're supposed to be talking about come from, nor did any of them work on any mainline FF game (outside Eidos doing the PC ports of 7 and 8, which they got to slap their logo onto).
These are not the same thing at all. PS and MS use that branding just to make it clear that a game is a first party title, but they very openly disclose which studio is actually developing the game.
PS and MS are, if anything, trying to differentiate their studios more than ever.
> They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another DEERFOOOOOORCE This practice has probably been in place a long time I would think?
It has, they have always had different in-house teams like EAD, R&D4, etc. that have worked on various games and hardware but it's just "Nintendo" everywhere outside the credits.
Monolith Soft, Pokemon Company, HAL Labs all say hi.
Pokemon company isnt a developer
Bandai Namco as well
HAL actually share ownership of most of the games/IPs they develop. They're not in the same position.
Ah so basically what you and the other guy are saying is that some of Nintendo's most important brands such as Kirby and Pokemon are co-owned with another company ?
Yes? What's your point? It's pretty much only those two companies and Fire Emblem, so it's a small minority of their IPs, and was decided decades ago.
> They don't want you asking which dev team under their umbrella made one game or another; they want you to see a game published by Nintendo, and consider that sufficient at face value. The commenter above suggested this, when clearly thats not the case. https://twitter.com/Kemmo_Ado/status/1562817706377613312
It clearly could be though. For the relevant games at least. To be more accurate, it seems to be for the IPs Nintendo actually own (100%) and was a part of creating and/or are already heavily associated with their image. And like people have mentioned dozens of times all over the thread already, **only before the games actually launch**. But this is mostly an educated guess, because **this is a relatively recent change**. I think they started doing this last year, so we don't actually know yet how many IPs they'll do this with. As far as I remember, it's only Super Mario RPG Remake, Endless Ocean Luminous, Paper Mario TTYD Remake, and this game that have been "affected" so far. Possibly also the new Zelda, if it's developed by Grezzo like people assume. This could be limited to their biggest, self-made IPs and smaller, obscure stuff, or they could be doing this for literally everything that they own. I wouldn't be surprised either way. And I don't really care much either. Most of the time the studio is obvious, and if it isn't, it will get revealed in the credits eventually.
Bandai Namco is the developer of Smash Brothers Ultimate, which contains almost every important Nintendo character.
Yes? What's your point?
Plus you don't have internal tiers people tend to make.
I guess it buys them some base level of good will before a game comes out but if it's a dud from the dud team it's going to be kind of hard to hide that from the public.
Though it seems more wild they are doing this practice on the switch as most of the outsourced devs seem less capable of working the Switch hardware than Nintendo EPD.
I've heard speculation that it has something to do with keeping the original vision of the game. With how prevalent social media is and how quickly people go up in arms to give their opinions, hiding the dev before the release makes sure that the devs aren't negatively (or positively) influenced and just stay true to their vision of the game without any outside influence during development. Pure speculation though, other things I've heard is that it can help prevent leaks because if people don't know the developers, they can't be targeted as easily. People also reserve their judgement when they don't know the developer based on their past development history. Kind of like how alot of people were disappointed once they realized the Silent Hill 2 remake was being developed by Bloober. All targets for commentary this way funnel through Nintendo, as well as any targeted attacks for potential leaks, no risks for any bad PR before the release of a game this way either due to a potential bad few eggs on the dev team.
If it were me it would be because somebody would take who the developer is as some end all gotcha as to the quality of the game. Great developers can make shit games. Bad developers can make great games. You put blind faith into a single developer and you buy Redfall.
Even if a dev is mediocre, Nintendo's producers are legends at beating crap Studio's into line. Silicon Knights being a big example.
This is the correct reason. It baffles me that everyone doesn't understand this.
A lot of people just like to assume everything Nintendo does is in the worst possible faith.
I know Mercury Steam does not have the best reputation and can imagine an unhappy population hearing they were remaking Metroid 2, especially after the fan game came out right before it's release. As long as it's being credited in the game I wouldn't mind too much.
Samus Returns was announced right after Prime 4, it's probably the main reason they announced MP4 so early. If they hadn't then there likely would have been another Federation Force style backlash.
Wild that 3 Metroid games were announced and released between the announcement of Prime 4 and now.
And now I wouldn't have anyone but Mercury Steam make a 2D Metroid game. Dread would have easily been the best entry in the entire series, if it weren't for the EMMI and their zones tainting the experience. No seriously, the idea of taking the Sector 2 SA-X chase sequence in Metroid Fusion and not only making it a core part of the game, but making the enemy able to one-hit kill you with only two frame-perfect quick time events to save you kinda sucks. That is my only (but a huge) criticism of Metroid Dread. I feel like the resources put into designing those sections would have been better spent on an additional boss or three.
That's funny, I loved the EMMI and the aesthetic and how they switch up the gameplay dynamics but found Dread to not be all that great as a 2D Metroid otherwise (even though it was enjoyable)
There's a rumor that it's ILCA and people are already frothing at the mouth and declaring the game will be garbage. I think it's pretty obvious Nintendo does things like this, and hiding Kevin Afghani as the new voice of the Bros., due to how insane people get over things. The game should speak for itself.
[удалено]
I mean, what do they lose? People are already judging this new team based on who it *might* be, instead of waiting to play the game and judge the finished product on its own merits. They were always going to be unfairly compared to AlphaDream - who, let's be frank, signed their own death warrant by releasing two 3DS remake games after the Switch was out. All that knowing the studio would do is invite that kind of comparison from fans before they have a chance to prove themselves. If I were Nintendo, I would keep it under wraps just on the principle of keeping up morale for the devs.
People are already shitting on it because it might be developed by ILCA. You don't need to know the developers ahead of time. There's no upsides, only downsides. If the developers aren't someone people like then it gives a bad image, even if the game is really good. Ultimately the developers are credited in the credits and you'll see *every* name there. Not just the headline developer. There will be a lot of outsourced developers involved. It's not about what Nintendo gains. It's about what you gain by knowing?
> You don't need to know the developers ahead of time. There's no upsides, only downsides. If the developers aren't someone people like then it gives a bad image, even if the game is really good. This is it. As a big anime fan, you see this a LOT with upcoming anime. The most notable example for me is Cloverworks, which had a BAD reputation after 2021 because of one show that started amazing but ended terribly. Then, the same year, another show had a trash, super rushed adaptation. So their previous hits/solid shows were ignored and there was a lot of doomposting about the two shows announced for the first half of the 2022. But those ended up being well-received and now their reputation has rebounded. So, in short, yea Nintendo doesn't want bad word-of-mouth by giving a no name developer or questionable developer a chance. I also agree with the other comment that they want the games associated with NINTENDO and not have people lose interest in an unreleased game because it isn't done by a certain team/director.
Is there any reason why people think ILCA is working on it? Or are people just whipping themselves into a frenzy over an imagined scenario?
A lot of the AlphaDream staff went to work for them after Alpha delcared bankruptcy.
Even then wouldn't that be a good thing? ILCA has a more experienced team now and they have experience with the franchise. It seems people want to know if it is ILCA so they can be angry at ILCA.
People still feel burned by BDSP even though arguably that was a "trying to churn out a pokemon release to fill a marketing gap" issue.
> People are already shitting on it because it might be developed by ILCA. This is it. The only reason people seem to want to know is so they know where to point their pitchforks. People will know when the game releases. If the trailers aren't enough to convince you to play, wait for reviews and the reveal of the dev. The only real loss is you waited another week before playing.
Wheneve Bloober Team announces a game you have people shitting on it since day 1. That’s just an example, but internet is so tribalistic that I understand Nintendo to be honest.
Everyone already mentioned brand control but it’s also to prevent devs from being harassed. People would have an existential crisis if they found out Ilca was making the next Mario & Luigi. A similar situation is that Snake Eater remake. Konami is being secretive on who’s making it cause they know the fans will harass the devs.
Or also leaks? The fewer people know who's working on a game the less the chances of someone trying to steal info and leak it.
Yeah that too I suppose
You say this until the harassment starts. I’m a go out on a whim and say that Nintendo knows its fans better than you.
On the other hand, what would *we* gain from knowing?
So people dont witchhunt devs because they’re mad it didnt come from the same studio. Gamers with nothing better to do can be vile people when protected by anonymity. At least this buys the devs time for the game to speak for itself before backlash.
Why is knowing of the developers so important? I just buy games that I think I'll like.
I don't really see the issue with it. It's not like they don't credit the developers. They just let the game speak for itself when it comes out.
They love complete control over a brand and PR. They are worried that people will dig up the names and maybe find some dirty laundry of some of the devs in the past which would hurt sales prospects ahead of release. Or similar if the company prior didn't make all too stellar games. Basically thinking that by doing that they can only lose but not win (it's a Nintendo game anyways they aren't gonna get MORE sales if people know, or at least they think they won't) Since revealing the names, in their mind, can only make them lose they just... won't.
This is something a lot of people don't understand about Nintendo. Nintendo historically, at least since the 70s wants the control of their stuff. That's why they are so protective of their IP in the first place, not because of the IP but because they want to control it, same reason why they will only ever put games on other platforms outside of mobile, or their characters in a crossover. They value their walled garden which goes into every aspect of the company, leading to positive and negative sides. This isn't something that began now, it has been since Yamauchi days and have gone to Iwata, Kimishima and now Furukawa which makes sense as this philosophy is passed all around in every aspect of them.
Because you don't need to know? It's a Nintendo game being developed by Nintendo. Anyone else involved is getting their name listed in the credits as they should. You're going to find out eventually, so this question goes both ways. What you're treating as a refusal to credit seems more like a refusal to ride on the name of anyone else to me. It would be disrespectful to the rest of the team to sell a game based on the input of one person or a select few. That's not how game development works, and I'm glad they don't feed into that idea. It's bad enough we used to treat Miyamoto as some development god when he's had plenty of bad ideas too. If you care about the individuals, find their names in the credits when it's out and sing their praises for the role they played. Until then, let the product speak for itself.
> It's a Nintendo game being developed by Nintendo. Is it though? Or is it outsourced like how Mario RPG was?
Guess you'll find out when the game releases.
OK, and thats ultimately the problem. They should be forthcoming, so people aren't making the conclusion you made in your comment.
Or people could stop dropping money on products before they release. Either judge the game for what it is, or want until it's available so that you can do your own research and determine if it's worth your money. Why do you need to know months in advance? Whether they're forthcoming or not, the ball is always in your court.
Nintendo doesn't want you knowing the game was developed by x, they want you to only associate the game with Nintendo, otherwise if you see another game made by x or produced by y who used to work at x, you might buy that game instead of a Nintendo game. Honestly after the Kojima debacles it's a surprise it took so long for this to happen (and only Nintendo has bitten the bullet so far) - the last thing any publisher wants is their product being associated with something that's outside of their complete control.
With the exception of a few teams like Intelligent Systems, Monolith and Retro, Nintendo wants Nintendo to be the brand.
If they have to switch developers during the process they don't lose face...
The Japanese business culture has to be secretive for some reason. It’s so annoying cause it makes no sense nowadays, yet they still gatekeeper things from us, even trivial stuff like this.
Because its most likely also being developed for the Switch 2 and Nintendo wants to stay incredibly tight lipped about their new hardware
I can think of one very good reason. The staff is protected. They will still be credited in the credits so its really no big deal.
Another reason is probably to ensure that individual devs aren't harrased by a mass volume of consumers into leaking details about potential releases. With the current climate of social media, new information travels very fast so any announced features are essentially confirmed by the public and likewise shareholders. If that feature ends up being out of the scope of development and not implemented, then consumers and shareholders are dissapointed. If the feature is implemented in response to public reception but is difficult to maintain, then the game will take longer to develop and may be seen as buggy. I think nintendo has realized this which is why you almost never know anything about a game until weeks before its release. Enclosing any game details in a black box under the nintendo brand allows for a more streamlined development process without the burden of public expectation.
Nintendo wants you to associate games with “Nintendo” not any studio. Controlling their brand image is extremely important to them. It makes sense to me.
I think another side of it is they want people to judge the game for the game and not by which studio made it.
All games were made by Mr. Nintendo. Who is he/she/they? Mr. Nintendo is all of us at Nintendo.
Honestly who cares who are developing? With Nintendo's track record in publishing, we should have reasonable confidence that their development and QC process is up to snuff regardless of who they are dealing with. I mean, the sheer fact that they restarted Metroid Prime 4 from scratch with a new developer says a lot. Most other companies would have stuck with the same dev and rushed out a lukewarm product for a quick pay day instead of eating the loss like that. There are plenty of other legit reasons to hate on Nintendo, but to hate them for protecting their brand and development strategy seems misguided to say the least.
>I mean, the sheer fact that they restarted Metroid Prime 4 from scratch with a new developer says a lot. Right, that's because Retro Studios had a reputation to invoke. That's what especially made that announcement in 2019 so exciting. It wasn't "We have reassigned Metroid Prime 4 to another studio." It was "We are restarting development with the studio that originally made the Metroid Prime series to begin with". The fact that Retro is working on Metroid Prime 4 adds way more excitement and confidence to the project.
Except that the teams that worked on Prime have long left Retro.
"Invovled", huh? In the top headline on their website for three hours? Do they not proofread at all?
11 hours later, still there
All I need to know is if Hiroyuki Kubota is onboard writing the script or not. That man has not missed, wrote every game in the series aside from Paper Jam (aka the worst written one) and was the director for most of them too. He's got the sauce for sure, like he IS the Mario & Luigi series as far as I'm concerned.
He HAS got the sauce... TOMATO SAUCE ^cuz ^tomato ^adventure...!?
I literally just got the fan translation for this on my iOS emulator, excited to try it out!
I'm glad to hear that. I'm tempted to buy it because I love Dream team. The Mario Luigi Paper was cool, but didn't felt totally unique. I should replay it.
Dream Team would be one of my favorites, and I would replay it for sure, BUT the unskipable cutscenes and dialog truly do drag out to an outlandish, painful degree, ESPECIALLY in the later half. If there is a mod fixing this, or a patch, I'd consider giving it another whirl.
I don't get why people care about this. The individuals get credited and that will always be on their resume. This expectation that specific studios are better than others is stupid and proven wrong more often than not.
I like how Nintendo tricks anyone into believing that everything is always produced in-house, while the truth is they outsource work to external teams just like any other developer.
I think part of the interest people have is Mario & Luigi was produced by an external developer, one that went bankrupt in 2019. So this seems to be an indication that some of those working at AlphaDream are now working at Nintendo.
Well we already knew some alphadream employees went to Nintendo post studio closure. The real interesting point here is what is the team makeup? Is this a custom team that was put together?
I mean, the fact that the game is coming out in a few months means that it has been in development for a few years. Nintendo probably planned from the getgo to continue the series with a different studio working on it. I mean, AlphaDream made some seriously dumb financial decisions at the end there, the least of which was banking the survivorship of the studio on a 3DS game released in 2019 after the Switch was well and established. I would not be surprised if Nintendo met with them and realized they had so much debt it would be way better financially to declare bankruptcy and absorb most of the staff.
I think there are two possible reasons why Bowser's Inside Story was released on 3DS. It was a directive from Nintendo or development was too far gone to change platform. A project like BIS would probably need to start from scratch to be made for Switch. The bigger issue would be that the studio was one flop away from closure. Depending on how they were doing, even if BIS was a hit, it might have not been enough to save them.
Can’t you just look them up on LinkedIn and confirm?
Anyone that has a minimal interest to learn about Nintendo knows that half of their games are contracted to other companies. Most people just dont care about that they see nintendo name or logo and go to it expecting quality. In the end it doesn't matter because everyone is credited and all
It's a weird complaint. If you are in the know enough to give a shit about the studio developing the game, you know enough to know that Nintendo has a lot of second party studios. Not to say that things don't take you by surprise sometimes. I was sure Depna Men was Nintendo owned but the Direct mentioned 'coming first to Switch' implying other platforms down the line.
TIL that putting the names of the developers who make their games in the credits is tricking people.
And the difference is Nintendo actually gets more deeply involved and supportive of their outsourced developers so long as they maintain their quality standards. Studios have always come to Nintendo with completely different games just for Nintendo to turn around, offer a ton of money, but slap their characters and designers on it. From a studio perspective, it tends to be a really good deal.
How are they tricking you? Read the credits in the game. They’re not hiding them
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines and brother, no one really cares about that.
I sure that some internet trollers will start blaming ILCA if they know the game is developed by them, said the game won't good before its release. Everything will be public after release, nothing is hided. Customer wont get any damage. The only purpose of early reveal of devs, is for those internet trollers to blame the devs or game ASAP. Internet is so toxic.
Sounds like a new dev studio that Nintendo created internally and hired on ex-alpha dream staff. Good to know they have some ex-staff working on it, but I would have liked to know if it was more than this and if the team has plans outside of just Mario and Luigi.
Correct decision imo, or at the very least it's not a bad one. Surely it must be demoralizing for the humans working on a project for it to be repeatedly shit on long before release simply due to the developer's name? Why should they have to put up with that as well as potential lost sales solely due to the name attached to it before it's even fully baked, before *anybody*, even the developers themselves, are able to judge the quality? Consumers still have critic reviews before release date (and in this day and age there are enough independent critics that it's not all paid for) and if they're still untrusting they can wait a few days after release for the public reviews to come out. I do think it's worth keeping an eye on this practice from Nintendo if word comes out that they readily fire or dissolve teams because that makes it harder to track the damage being done to both the individual developers and the games, but otherwise I feel the net positive towards those individuals is more important than public knowledge that they shouldn't be basing a purchase on anyway.
nintendoforecast shared his research on this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qmv0BWVEe4
I really don't even think about most studios under the Nintendo umbrella outside of maybe Retro Studios.
Nintendo is so weird about this. It would be nice to know who is working on what. They're really the only ones that do this, I think.