Topic: A new look on licenced games

Recently i got a ps3, i decided to go on the PS3 store and noticed they had a ps1 classics section aka their own virtual console. On the list of games i noticed A Bugs Life, a relatively mediocre platformer i rented as a kid. I figured i'd buy it out of curiosity and noticed something about it. In the game you literally unlock movie clips from the movie A Bugs Life within the game. This made me think, if Sony can get a mediocre 3rd party licenced game with no promotional tie in (since there was no sequel or anything like that recently) how hard can it possibly be for Nintendo to get games like the NES Batman when The Dark Knight came out. i've never seen anyone mention this argument on here before and just wonder what you guys think

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. You can't really compare licensed games owned by different holders to each other in terms of rights/release issues. Especially when it comes to something like Batman/DC Comics -- just to give an idea on that front, the producers of Smallvile have been under a prohibition where they can't even mention or use "Batman", and that's a show produced by the same company.

And as far as VC rights-issues in general, i think it tends to be less about if they can get the rights, and more about if it will be (or will be thought to be) profitable to the rights-holder.

Sony, as a company, not gaming company, has much greater ties than Nintendo, an all game company, does.

Simple.

i was just using Batman as an example. But since bugs life is a disney owned game lets use another disney owned game like Aladden or dare i say...Ducktales. I don't see how Sony could get a game from that company and not Nintendo since there is no hostility consider Epic Mickey's on its way

It's not always (and likely, rarely) about the companies' relationship with each other. Especially since with older games, there's often multiple parties involved -- for instance, Batman for the NES was produced by Sunsoft; Ducktales and Aladdin were produced by Capcom -- so it wouldn't just be a decision by DC/Warner or Disney that could necessarily green-light a VC release.

Plus, we don't know the extent of the original marketing agreements -- for instance, to use Bug's Life as an example, the licensing deal with Disney made with Sony when it originally came out may have included future re-release rights as well. Basically, what i'm saying is that these things are often a lot more complicated/intricate than people seem to generally realize.

And again, at the end of the day it will always come down to profit-margins even when there are no rights-issues involved.

It's the same old story: Those four Disney games that were recently released on PSN were all published by Disney, not a third party. Just like Lucasarts releasing Star Wars and Indiana Jones games on VC, it takes no extra agreements to get these games released. It's simply a matter of Disney jumping on board PS1 Classics.

I know you were just using Batman as an example but with that game you would also have royalties paid out to Keaton, Nicholson and Basinger (who's likenesses are all used in the movie and had clauses in their contracts to give them a % of any licensed item from the movie in perpetuity using their character) and probably a % to Burton and Sam Hamm for the story. In the end, there wouldn't be anything left to make it worth their time to do it, that's another aspect of licensed games people don't account for. A Bug's Life was animated so they didn't use anyone's likeness and hidden clips of the movie weren't part of the game and probably considered a trailer/ad.

Yeah it was a sweetheart deal they got, but it was the first Super Hero movie of it's kind in a long time and so they wanted to make sure everyone worked to do their best and cash always talks lol

I think part of the Virtual Console deal (and this is just speculation) is that the game has to be made available so there's no chance of it having to be removed at a future date because of some rights issue. Apparently games on the PS3 and 360 stores get removed from time to time, usually because of a drop in popularity. This doesn't happen on the Virtual Console.

With the licenced games we do have - the rights to everything in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is owned by Mirage Studios, who wont have a problem licencing anything for use. However we probably haven't seen the arcade game or Turtles in Time because it uses material under copyright by Fox (or whoever it was that distributed the cartoon series) such as music and voices. Lucasarts also own Star Wars and Indiana Jones so the licencing there is pretty simple too.

I think it's, basically, so people don't download a game, some rights issue comes up, then they're unable to redownload their purchase in the future.

I think what it comes down to is the terms of the original contracts when the games where originally made. Back than in the NES and Super NES era game multiple release were unheard off once a game came out that was it, more so with the NES than the SNES since Nintendo started the Player's Choice lineup with the SNES. So in other words for them to release a VC version of the game they would have to make new contracts with gaming companies. Some like Capcom may not even have the rights to Disney anymore and right there is a huge brickwall in the way for the VC. Either that or maybe the companies want to much for a to release it and it would make it too expansive for Nintendo to offer it on the VC.

Take tv series for example. Nowadays it seems that every new tv series stuff like Smallville and Dollhouse for example seem to hit DVD months after a they first air on tv while classic popular shows like The Wonder Years still havent made it to DVD. The reason behind that is when the older shows like The Wonder Years were produced and the deals were made there werent too many video releases of tv shows so that wasnt in the original deal. Now it so common for the tv show to come out on DVD that those terms are pretty much there in the contracts. The same probably goes for the VC games.

Just like Lucasarts releasing Star Wars and Indiana Jones games on VC,

Actually, LucasArts has little to do with the development and publishing of the games originally. In VC terms, this is like Disney Interactive publishing Capcom and Sega's plus whoever elses' Disney games. I would imagine its easier for Disney to publish those games for VC than it is for Capcom and Sega to do so. But because Disney doesn't seem to be interested in the VC, we don't get to see those games.

@Bass X0: The important difference here is that JVC Digital Studios is now defunct, and most likely had a contract set up to allow all rights to the games to LucasArts to begin with. The Capcom/Disney games, on the other hand, were split; Disney retained character rights, but Capcom owns the code for the games.

@Tasuki
Well, with The Wonder Years, it's the various music rights that's been the issue. They have to secure new rights deals to include the songs on a different format (home video/DVD), which given the many big names involved has been next to impossible (AKA far too expensive). It's the same reason that the Married with Children dvd releases (with the exception of i think the first or first two seasons) don't have the original theme music.

Nowadays, like you said, TV show licensing deals incorporate the possibility of DVD releases, making it obviously much easier. I'd expect any similar rights issues for games (like with 360 games ultimately seeing digital download releases through the Games On Demand section of XBL Marketplace) are also considered with newer games, while many older games have potentially more headaches to deal with (especially if there are actor/actress likenesses included in the game, like with Batman).

Right and just like making new deals for the music in Wonder Years would ultimately be a whole lot more work and money than it would be worth to put it on DVD the same goes for games on the VC and certain characters likeness and what not. Cause back during the NES era no one when making the deals ever thought of rereleases. So now its probably not worth the time or money to make new deals just for a 5 to 10 dollar game.

Victor Interactive Software (aka JVC) merged with mediocre Japanese publisher Pack-In-Video to form Marvelous. So they're still somewhat alive.
_{fixed your code -- TBD}

@KingMike: Oh, well...the latter part of that sentence still applies. I just don't see LucasArts allowing a developer to retain rights to the code contained in their licenced games. Actually, I find it odd that Disney DID allow that on THEIR games.

Even if, by some odd chance, they DID retain code rights, they were most likely easier to work out a deal with than Capcom due to being a much lesser-known company. It's only by being a bigshot that you would tend to demand unfeasable cuts of the profits.

Sony handles licenses differently than Nintendo. That's why PSN can get more license games and Ninty West can't. However, it should be noted that VC Japan has plenty of licensed games.

VC Japan doesn't have THAT many licensed games: Takeshi's Challenge, Transformers: Mystery of Comvoy, SD Gundam World Scramble Wars, Zoids: Mokushiroku, Hokuto no Ken for Master System (Black Belt) and Genesis (Last Battle).
I don't think most of them were considered good games, either. (maybe Scramble Wars, since they made like 6 of them for Famicom, and considered it important enough to re-release on the GBA.)
For Gunhed for TurboGrafx, they released the US version (Blazing Lazers) to avoid a license.

Takara is the owner of certain franchises and is also a videogame publisher. It only counts as a licensed game if a publisher licenses a series from its owner. It being a cartoon series, movie or whatever doesn't make it a licensed game alone.

I forgot about that. Well, that's one on my list that should be ignored. I think Zoids might be the same case. I'm not sure if SD Gundam is entirely a Bandai franchise or not.