@RoomWithaMoose You say that but it has technically happened. Platinum had to get Nintendo's blessing to self publish Wonderful 101 (and despite what is said, Platinum didn't reacquire the series iirc). The ports of Fatal Frame 4 and 5 to modern systems had to involve Koei Tecmo getting Nintendos permission too as they were the publisher of their original releases (co-developer in the formers case apparently).
I think Dragon Quest XI S might be a similar situation where Nintendo are the publisher and (co-)funded that release so for the PS and Xbox ports would have to require Nintendo approving some of the additional stuff like 2D mode etc to appear. That said, the whole DQ situation is odd because Project Armor own the IP but license it out to Square-Enix exclusively and yet Nintendo have published and handled localisation for Nintendo releases outside of Japan. Another example would be ports of the original Bayonetta would likely be based on the Wii U version so you'd need to get permission from Nintendo as they own certain elements like the JP dub as they funded it.
Anyway, I drifted away from the topic. You're probably thinking 'yeah, but I meant Nintendo actually publishing on other systems ' in which case, you're right but expect any Nintendo published game to be outsourced to another publisher akin to how Sony are with Bandai Namco. Also, don't expect the likes of Zelda or Metroid and think more along the lines of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 or a Square Enix RPG.
Special shout-out to Devils Third which it seems Nintendo lost a lot of faith in when releasing it. So much so they never really promoted it and sold the IP to Nexon soon after
Comments 1
Re: Reaction: Sony's Licensing Strategy May Be the Best Route to Reviving Some of PlayStation's Lost Classics
@RoomWithaMoose You say that but it has technically happened. Platinum had to get Nintendo's blessing to self publish Wonderful 101 (and despite what is said, Platinum didn't reacquire the series iirc). The ports of Fatal Frame 4 and 5 to modern systems had to involve Koei Tecmo getting Nintendos permission too as they were the publisher of their original releases (co-developer in the formers case apparently).
I think Dragon Quest XI S might be a similar situation where Nintendo are the publisher and (co-)funded that release so for the PS and Xbox ports would have to require Nintendo approving some of the additional stuff like 2D mode etc to appear. That said, the whole DQ situation is odd because Project Armor own the IP but license it out to Square-Enix exclusively and yet Nintendo have published and handled localisation for Nintendo releases outside of Japan. Another example would be ports of the original Bayonetta would likely be based on the Wii U version so you'd need to get permission from Nintendo as they own certain elements like the JP dub as they funded it.
Anyway, I drifted away from the topic. You're probably thinking 'yeah, but I meant Nintendo actually publishing on other systems ' in which case, you're right but expect any Nintendo published game to be outsourced to another publisher akin to how Sony are with Bandai Namco. Also, don't expect the likes of Zelda or Metroid and think more along the lines of Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 or a Square Enix RPG.
Special shout-out to Devils Third which it seems Nintendo lost a lot of faith in when releasing it. So much so they never really promoted it and sold the IP to Nexon soon after