Topic: Who owns the rights to King K Rool and the Kremlings?

I know this might be a simple answer but what I am looking for is some kind of proof. Yes I know they appeared in some Wii games like Mario Super Sluggers but I thought I read somewhere that Microsoft owns them which is why they aren't in DKCR or DKC:TF. Also I thought that Rare said that they originally created the Kremlings and King K Rool for another game, most thinking Battletoads but at the last moment put them into DKC so from my understanding that would make them Microsoft property since all of Rare's assets are now MS. Or maybe they are owned jointly by Nintendo and MS and one can't use them without the ok from the other?

Anyway I am just wondering if there is something out there that says who owns the rights.

Pretty sure Nintendo does, but it isn't like I have documented proof of that.

And same story for Krystal. Krystal was going to be in a completely original game and would probably be MS-Rare IP, if Nintendo hadn't made Dinosaur Planet a Star Fox game.

I'm pretty certain K. Rool and the Kremlings are owned by Nintendo. All of the Donkey Kong Country and DK64 characters are owned by Nintendo but the coding is owned by Rare? Don't quote me on that last part(hence the question mark) but K. Rool and the Kremlings are owned by Nintendo.

As for why they weren't in DK Country Returns and Tropical Freeze? Probably for the simple fact that they wanted fresh new antagonists in the DK Country games. Retro probably wanted to shake things up a bit by not having K. Rool as the main antagonist anymore which he was in the first 3 Country games. Which is cool because as much as I like K. Rool it's always nice to face off against a new threat.

Because Diddy is a Kong plain and simple. Nintendo owns the Kong name when it pertains to Donkey Kong. We know this because it's been stated that was why Diddy Kong Pilot was changed to Banjo.

This is a bit of a weird one but I'm fairly certain because Nintendo own the Donkey Kong IP and the Kremlings are apart of that Nintendo owns them to unlike the completely original Rare games and the characters in them.

Nintendo does.

Nintendo.

K. Rool was featured as a trophy in Brawl, was in at least one of the Mario Strikers games, and was even the main antagonist of DK: King of Swing (a game made after the departure of Rare).

Also, just look at the title screens for Brawl or Smash Wii U/3DS. On the bottom there is a notice saying that the Sonic, Metal Gear, Mega Man, and Pac-Man IP's belong to SEGA, Konami, Capcom, and Namco Bandai & are used with permission. There is no such notice about the appearance of K. Rool or the Kremlings (the latter who are featured as enemies in Smash Run).

The only reason they aren't featured in DKC:R or DKC:TF is because Retro wanted to leave their own mark on the franchise.

Nintendo has always owned every creative asset in the Donkey Kong IP, and continues to do so.

Yes, Rare did create the kremlings, but then again the only character in Donkey Kong Country that was created by Nintendo was Donkey Kong himself. All the others were created by Rare: Diddy, Dixie, Cranky, Funky, K. Rool, the kremlings, Rambi, Enguarde, Squawks, etc, etc, etc. And a sizeable chunk of them have been used by Retro in their DKC games.

It's different from something like Banjo, Conker or Battletoads; Rare always owned those franchises, so everything about them is owned by Microsoft now.

Rareware owns DKC-DKC3 including the N64 game. That is why Rareware logo is shown in the GBA games along with Microsoft ( I think ). However this makes an good topic for Baseball. Who does own King K-Rool and the Kremlings???

The point is that Rare does own them and is probably why the new DK games do not have them anymore.

Also the "Kremlings" do appear stylistically in the original DK and Jumpman games. Rare used the appearances of various enemies from previous DK games to create the "Kremlings". So the enemies are in fact original even if they are based off the earlier enemies of the original DK games.

It is so sad to see BattleToads the tv-show canceled. It was an nice watch and all but the bottom-line an busty enemy was also the problem but that is RARE as we know.

There is no logical reason why Nintendo wouldn't own these characters. They were made for a game that re-imagined the bad guy from the first Mario game, I think Nintendo would own these characters at any cost. In what reality would Nintendo be like "Hmm, I guess Rare can own the bad guy for one of our more popular games that stars our character"?

Honestly the most confusing thing to me is Diddy Kong Racing DS. In that game, Banjo and Conker were taken out. But Tiptup is still there, a character primarily in the Banjo games. Even though all three characters were first introduced in...Diddy Kong Racing. I'm very confused about that one.

I think this is the reason as to why we don't see them that often.

I agree too, you could even think back to Metroid. Retro could've just made a 2D game like Super Metroid but decided to ignore the fans and create something different (arguably better), Metroid Prime. Now when you think of Metroid in a positive light, Retro and the Prime series always comes to mind (of course the negative light is Other M which Retro wasn't involved in). Retro would've wanted the same thing to happen with the DK series though didn't end up quite that way given people seem to clearly want Metroid Prime 4 instead of DKCR and Tropical Freeze

Retro weren't given the Metroid brand like that, they were working on a FPS and Ninty suggested they turn it into a Metroid game instead.

Nintendo owns them. If you need more proof... well, look at the games that returned to the Virtual Console recently, like Donkey Kong Country 1-3, Donkey Kong 64 and Donkey Kong Land.

Or the Kritters in Super Smash Bros. Or for that matter, the fact Rare pretty much said Nintendo owned them the last time they were asked to comment.

Either way, we'll probably see them back in the new Donkey Kong Country games soon, especially if K Rool gets chosen for Super Smash Bros...

I think it would be cool if the DKC Returns "Trilogy" ended with King K Rool's Return. They should totally do the first fake ending thing again too.

King K. Rool and the Kremlings were last featured (excluding Smash) Mario Super Sluggers as playable characters.
So that should be enough proof that Nintendo does own them.

That doesn't prove anything. Nintendo doesn't own Mega Man or Pac Man, yet they are in Smash.

@Tasuki, there's an easy way to find out.

On the back of the boxes for all the Smash games that feature third party characters (as well as the credits, and possibly title screens), there is a notice in the fine print that says the Sonic, Pac-Man, etc. IP belong to their respective owners, and are used with permission.

However, there is no such notice regarding K. Rool (featured as a trophy in at least Brawl) or the Kremlings (which are featured as enemies in Smash Run, and as trophies in Smash 3DS), leading to the only logical conclusion, that they are wholly owned by Nintendo.

I'd also be willing to bet that no such notice exists on Super Sluggers, DK: King of Swing, Strikers, or any other game that features them after the departure of Rare.

And why would Nintendo use a third party character in a game like Mario Super Sluggers?

It's not exactly Smash Bros, Mario Kart or even Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. Heck, if they were using third parties for that, wouldn't they choose more famous ones?

Seriously though, the proof is pretty overwhelming that Nintendo owns them. I'm pretty sure Rare said so themselves. And this:

http://thewiredfishnetwork.com/2012/07/03/i-stand-on-my-soapb...

It then goes to here:

http://archive.videogamesdaily.com/features/rareware_int.asp

As per Chris Stamper (previously co-founder of Rare):

Chris: Well, the two properties that go back to Nintendo are Donkey Kong and Star Fox. The rest of the IP actually comes back to Rare. We have a very good relationship with Nintendo it all worked out in the end.

Donkey Kong and Star Fox elements are owned by Nintendo. This includes Kremlings, K Rool, Animal Buddies, other elements and elements, and from Star Fox, Krystal and the cast of Star Fox Adventures/Dinosaur Planet. Which brings up an interesting point... why does no one ever ask who owns Krystal? Given that she's basically in the Kremling's situation yet frequently appears in new games... probably cause it utterly destroys their argument.

Add many other games the Kremlings appear in (and clearly as not third party) like DK King of Swing, Jungle Climber, Barrel Blast, the Mario Strikers series, etc, and it's quite clear Nintendo owns them.