• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

News Nintendo acquires Dynamo Pictures, to focus on development of visual content utilizing Nintendo IP (UPDATE: Official Website Open!)

Reader mode
Apparently they used to be called or were part of Studio Dynamo and I swear to god I recognize that name but I can't put my finger on where I would've seen that before.
 
0
Jersh said:
Prime Remake almost certainly won't. We've heard the gameplay itself was only touched up, being left intact where possible.

But the Switch's sensors aren't really at the point where VR would be comfortable, and the screen certainly isn't. I don't expect them to raise the cost of the device that much just to do VR well, and as such I'm not really expecting VR to happen at all.
Click to expand...
Honestly pretty ignorant of the tech level required to do acceptable VR, but the leaked specs of the Drake hardware and a 4K display sound to me like the kind of specs that VR has worked on in the past. We're talking about the new hardware, not the existing Switch.
 
beaglor said:
Honestly pretty ignorant of the tech level required to do acceptable VR, but the leaked specs of the Drake hardware and a 4K display sound to me like the kind of specs that VR has worked on in the past. We're talking about the new hardware, not the existing Switch.
Click to expand...
We expect it to still have 720p screen, so VR doesn’t seem a good idea if that is the case.
 
First I was thinking they were bought for 3D modeling and cgi cutscenes, but I could imagine that they are planing more stuff with the renaming in outright Nintendo Pictures. It is also possible that they are already working on something Nintendo related before the buyout.
 
0
I’ve been patiently waiting for them to announce they’d acquired an animation studio. Glad I wasn’t wrong though no idea how good they are or to what extent they will utilize them. It makes sense to start building more talent in-house and be able to take advantage of their own studio for in-game cutscenes, mo-cap, commercials, shorts, etc.
 
0
Blue Monty said:
We expect it to still have 720p screen, so VR doesn’t seem a good idea if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Really? lol, disregard me then. I guess I saw '4K' and got strange ideas. That'll learn me to offer thoughts well outside my purview.
 
0
Galgavias said:
Well now this is an interesting move. Definitely reaffirms Nintendio's drive into being a multimedia company with a video game focus.

Do we know how big Dynamo Pictures are? Just wondering if this means more promotional animation like the various shorts we've had for Pikmin, Starfox and Kid Icarus (among others), or could they handle something meatier?
Click to expand...
No matter how big they are, i imagine they will be growing right? I mean im not saying cg will be used widespreadly on all nintendo games from now on like with square enix and visualworks buuut...

Cause illumination can handle the mario film by themselves alright.

It says they do a lot of shit like mocap, cgi, visual stuff in general, hopefully it means a very decent increase in production values at certain nintendo games? Maybe too?
 
Mr Doggo said:
No matter how big they are, i imagine they will be growing right? I mean im not saying cg will be used widespreadly on all nintendo games from now on like with square enix and visualworks buuut...

Cause illumination can handle the mario film by themselves alright.
Click to expand...
Nintendo doesn’t buy a studio to keep them small, if the idea is for them to be the de facto studio for Nintendo 1st party GC/Mo-cap etc and to make small Nintendo shorts. They will invest even more into it to make then grow
 
Mr Doggo said:
No matter how big they are, i imagine they will be growing right? I mean im not saying cg will be used widespreadly on all nintendo games from now on like with square enix and visualworks buuut...

Cause illumination can handle the mario film by themselves alright.

It says they do a lot of shit like mocap, cgi, visual stuff in general, hopefully it means a very decent increase in production values at certain nintendo games? Maybe too?
Click to expand...
Nintendo will no doubt be growing them as they're growing their workforce significantly in all areas right now. But the more I think about this, the more I think that this is a move to have a de facto team to handle stuff like cutscenes, animations and mo-cap, which will free up recourses from their main developement teams.

A lot of Nintendo's moves recently have revolved around expanding their dev teams to improve output, and this seems to fit the bill here as well
 
Blue Monty said:
Nintendo doesn’t buy a studio to keep them small, if the idea is for them to be the de facto studio for Nintendo 1st party GC/Mo-cap etc and to make small Nintendo shorts. They will invest even more into it to make then grow
Click to expand...
True.

I imagine making cgi in house is a lot cheaper right?
 
0
Dardan Sandiego said:
Someone should tell Nintendo that Nintendo doesn’t acquire other companies. They keep forgetting.
Click to expand...

I think most people are referring to large, potentially transformative M&A, not these little bolt-ons. Even Nintendo themselves often describes M&A as a last result.

I hope they do more. They have a bunch of cash earning zero. I’d like for them to buy technology, such as Niantic, but even some IP might be okay.

The issue with IP purchases, in my opinion, is negative synergies, when you make the content exclusive. And if you don’t, then why buy it?

I think it’s $MSFT is significantly over paying for $ATVI and destroying shareholder value.
 
Vash_the_Stampede said:
I think most people are referring to large, potentially transformative M&A, not these little bolt-ons. Even Nintendo themselves often describes M&A as a last result.

I hope they do more. They have a bunch of cash earning zero. I’d like for them to buy technology, such as Niantic, but even some IP might be okay.

The issue with IP purchases, in my opinion, is negative synergies, when you make the content exclusive. And if you don’t, then why buy it?

I think it’s $MSFT is significantly over paying for $ATVI and destroying shareholder value.
Click to expand...
Nintendo's problem is different to Microsoft's, in that they have loads of big name IPs but don't have the resources to make games for all of them (Microsofts is - or was - the opposite in that they have the resources but not the IPs). That's why they're not really getting involved in the IP purchasing arms race, and their acquisitions have been made to either preserve their game output (i.e. Next Level Games) or to expand their own output, such as this move here.

Nintendo's internal output this gen has been better than the Wii U era but it still stands to improve, and I imagine COVID exposed a few faultlines they want to fill in. Moves like this are the right call for them as a company and will help improve their output, and consequently the number of games they release.
 
If we can't get new games in the FZero, Star Fox , Golden Sun series maybe we can at least get some animated movies or series
 
0
Galgavias said:
Nintendo's problem is different to Microsoft's, in that they have loads of big name IPs but don't have the resources to make games for all of them (Microsofts is - or was - the opposite in that they have the resources but not the IPs). That's why they're not really getting involved in the IP purchasing arms race, and their acquisitions have been made to either preserve their game output (i.e. Next Level Games) or to expand their own output, such as this move here.

Nintendo's internal output this gen has been better than the Wii U era but it still stands to improve, and I imagine COVID exposed a few faultlines they want to fill in. Moves like this are the right call for them as a company and will help improve their output, and consequently the number of games they release.
Click to expand...

This isn’t the whole story. Gotta run so I don’t have time to spell out the details, but what is important:

-Difference between Microsoft and Nintendo is philosophy not financial capabilities. Nintendo believes they can create IPs while Microsoft believes they need IPs to sell hardware and services. Microsoft has homegrown near-zero IP themselves in 20-years.

- Nintendo believes that the value is in the people, not the IP. It doesn’t have to do with it’d our library of IP.

-Nintendo makes more games than anyone else. And they are ramping R&D and headcount to ramp this further.

-Buying NLG doesn’t increase its output. It’s the same team team, different owner.
 
Vash_the_Stampede said:
This isn’t the whole story. Gotta run so I don’t have time to spell out the details, but what is important:

-Difference between Microsoft and Nintendo is philosophy not financial capabilities. Nintendo believes they can create IPs while Microsoft believes they need IPs to sell hardware and services. They haven’t made near-zero IP themselves.

- Nintendo believes that the value is in the people, not the IP. It doesn’t have to do with it’d our library of IP.

-Nintendo makes more games than anyone else. And they are ramping R&D and headcount to ramp this further.

-Buying NLG doesn’t increase its output. It’s the same team team, different owner.
Click to expand...
Buying NLG does increase the output, one of the reason why they bought NLG other than the owners wanting to sell is that they considered that having NGL as a subsidary would be more benefitial than them being independent for them in part because it allows them to directly invest into them like they have been doing with Retro and Monolith Soft.
 
Blue Monty said:
Buying NLG does increase the output, one of the reason why they bought NLG other than the owners wanting to sell is that they considered that having NGL as a subsidary would be more benefitial than them being independent for them in part because it allows them to directly invest into them like they have been doing with Retro and Monolith Soft.
Click to expand...

They could have done that without a change in ownership by giving NLG the contract to hire more people.
 
Vash_the_Stampede said:
This isn’t the whole story. Gotta run so I don’t have time to spell out the details, but what is important:

-Difference between Microsoft and Nintendo is philosophy not financial capabilities. Nintendo believes they can create IPs while Microsoft believes they need IPs to sell hardware and services. Microsoft has homegrown near-zero IP themselves in 20-years.

- Nintendo believes that the value is in the people, not the IP. It doesn’t have to do with it’d our library of IP.

-Nintendo makes more games than anyone else. And they are ramping R&D and headcount to ramp this further.

-Buying NLG doesn’t increase its output. It’s the same team team, different owner.
Click to expand...
I think the idea that Microsoft have near zero homegrown IP is fairly dismissive to the likes of Halo, Forza, Gears of War, Fable, Crackdown, Age of Empires, Ori and others that are Microsoft IPs and always have been.

I would also say that Nintendo do have a very valuable catalogue of IPs that make pretty much every game publisher jealous. Third parties would love nothing more than to have a franchise of the pedegree and popularity as StarFox, for example, on their books, while Nintendo sits on it waiting for one of their developers to want to take a crack at it.

I do agree that it's good Nintendo generally rely on their developers making the games they want to make as opposed to shoe-horning out games for the same franchises, but it does leave gaps in their output sometimes. And again that's not really the issue we're discussing. What is the problem is Nintendo have experienced some fairly major delays during the Switch Era to their tentpole titles, and they're clearly making moves in the market to stop that happening again.

And as I said, buying NLG was about preserving their output, and it was the right move given they've produced two games in three years for the Switch, which is a rate Nintendo would love all their teams to be achieving if they could.
 
Galgavias said:
I think the idea that Microsoft have near zero homegrown IP is fairly dismissive to the likes of Halo, Forza, Gears of War, Fable, Crackdown, Age of Empires, Ori and others that are Microsoft IPs and always have been.

I would also say that Nintendo do have a very valuable catalogue of IPs that make pretty much every game publisher jealous. Third parties would love nothing more than to have a franchise of the pedegree and popularity as StarFox, for example, on their books, while Nintendo sits on it waiting for one of their developers to want to take a crack at it.

I do agree that it's good Nintendo generally rely on their developers making the games they want to make as opposed to shoe-horning out games for the same franchises, but it does leave gaps in their output sometimes. And again that's not really the issue we're discussing. What is the problem is Nintendo have experienced some fairly major delays during the Switch Era to their tentpole titles, and they're clearly making moves in the market to stop that happening again.

And as I said, buying NLG was about preserving their output, and it was the right move given they've produced two games in three years for the Switch, which is a rate Nintendo would love all their teams to be achieving if they could.
Click to expand...

Halo - Maybe? They acquired it as work began and it seems like the last 3 games aren’t living up to expectations…
Forza - yep, it’s great
Gears - made by Epic, published by Microsoft. So nope imo.
Fable - Acquired and no meaningful new game since 2010?
Age of Empires - yes but never big on console and more than 20-years old
Ori - 3rd party, I think?
Crackdown - never heard of it lol

So I would say that about 2 in 20-years is “near zero”.
 
Vash_the_Stampede said:
Halo - Maybe? They acquired it as work began and it seems like the last 3 games aren’t living up to expectations…
Forza - yep, it’s great
Gears - made by Epic, published by Microsoft. So nope imo.
Fable - Acquired and no meaningful new game since 2010?
Age of Empires - yes but never big on console and more than 20-years old
Ori - 3rd party, I think?
Crackdown - never heard of it lol

So I would say that about 2 in 20-years is “near zero”.
Click to expand...
Microsoft is bring Fable back with their top studio and they own the Ori ip
 
MasterGold said:
Microsoft is bring Fable back with their top studio and they own the Ori ip
Click to expand...

Gotcha. So I’ll credit them for Ori, but my point still stands. Fable is TBD - could suck and it only exists in the nostalgia for many.

They aren’t the guys to bet on to create new IPs. It goes Nintendo > Sony > Microsoft imo.
 
0
Vash_the_Stampede said:
Halo - Maybe? They acquired it as work began and it seems like the last 3 games aren’t living up to expectations…
Forza - yep, it’s great
Gears - made by Epic, published by Microsoft. So nope imo.
Fable - Acquired and no meaningful new game since 2010?
Age of Empires - yes but never big on console and more than 20-years old
Ori - 3rd party, I think?
Crackdown - never heard of it lol

So I would say that about 2 in 20-years is “near zero”.
Click to expand...
That's a highly subjective take on Microsoft's output and again pretty dismissive of some fairly notable and highly regarded IPs that are synomymous with the Xbox brand. Just because you don't like them or because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't count.

And if you want to get into semantics here, you can argue that Pokemon and Fire Emblem shouldn't count as Nintendo IPs because they don't have complete ownership of them. Yet no-one here will argue that, so why should we do the same for games which are Microsoft platform exclusive?
 
Galgavias said:
That's a highly subjective take on Microsoft's output and again pretty dismissive of some fairly notable and highly regarded IPs that are synomymous with the Xbox brand. Just because you don't like them or because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't count.

And if you want to get into semantics here, you can argue that Pokemon and Fire Emblem shouldn't count as Nintendo IPs because they don't have complete ownership of them. Yet no-one here will argue that, so why should we do the same for games which are Microsoft platform exclusive?
Click to expand...

Huh? I “dismissed” one game - Crackdown. Is it a multi-million unit seller?

Just the first link I found:


Fable isn’t out - fact - we don’t know if it will be good.

The other comments were facts too: categorization of acquired IPs.

Like Ori, Nintendo owns the Pokémon IP. I said I think Microsoft deserves to get credit for it since they own it so why would I argue Nintendo shouldn’t get credit for Pokémon under the same logic.

If we slice it objectively, Microsoft has built up like 3 IPs on console organically in 20 years, right? Forza, Halo, and Ori?

Subjectively, I’m calling it near zero.
 
Last edited:
0
Vash_the_Stampede said:
They could have done that without a change in ownership by giving NLG the contract to hire more people.
Click to expand...
given the position NLG was in, they would always be at risk breaking away from Nintendo once the contract is over if the new, non-Nintendo owners felt their purchase could be used elsewhere. buying NLG was definitely a move to keep the studio in their interests first and foremost
 
0
Blue Monty said:
That is a risky move for Nintendo due to not owning them and would still not give Nintendo direct control to how expand NLG which was a part of the reason to buy them
Click to expand...

And yet Nintendo operated with this “risky” move for like 20-years with NLG and 30+ years with studios like HAL? If working with 3rd parties is risky, why aren’t they acquiring more?

I’m not going to respond to this thread anymore.
 
Vash_the_Stampede said:
And yet Nintendo operated with this “risky” move for like 20-years with NLG and 30+ years with studios like HAL? If working with 3rd parties is risky, why aren’t they acquiring more?

I’m not going to respond to this thread anymore.
Click to expand...
Japan has a different corporate culture, which is why Hal and IS is attacted to Nintendo. But nothing stopped them from doing other systems other than they can't use their moneymakers
 
0
Galgavias said:
But the more I think about this, the more I think that this is a move to have a de facto team to handle stuff like cutscenes, animations and mo-cap, which will free up recourses from their main developement teams.
Click to expand...
I agreed that initially those may be the main duty of "Nintendo Pictures". With a name like that, however, they could be tasked to product and direct films, TV, and streaming content but contract out the production to 3rd parties such as, say, Kyoto Animation. In that regard the size of the company matters less.

Vash_the_Stampede said:
I hope they do more. They have a bunch of cash earning zero. I’d like for them to buy technology, such as Niantic, but even some IP might be okay.

The issue with IP purchases, in my opinion, is negative synergies, when you make the content exclusive. And if you don’t, then why buy it?
Click to expand...
Agreed that IP acquisitions don't seem to yield much synergy for game publishing. When we consider the broader media business, IP acquisitions can work (see Disney + Pixar). Just as an example (not saying it's likely), Nintendo acquires Studio Ghibli after Miyazaki truly retires. The combined video and music content of Nintendo, Ghibli, and Pokemon can be launched as a streaming service or at least an add-on to the NSO. The cross-merchandising opportunities would also be numerous. Nintendo could revamp the Ghibli Museum, which needed crowdfunding to survive, as part of their theme park strategy.

Since Nintendo is strongly committed to invest more in the media business ("non-game entertainment"), we may see more deals in the coming years.

zv8y4JL.png
 
Dont forget that Dynamo Pictures have a subsidiary that works in experiencies and VR/AR for amusement parks:



dynapix.jp

ダイナモピクチャーズ

ダイナモピクチャーズは、映画、アニメ、ゲームムービー、CMなどのCG映像制作から、オリジナル立体映像の企画・制作まで、エンターテイメントのビジュアルに関わる事業を行っています。
dynapix.jp dynapix.jp
 
xV_twist said:
You can't just post this and not say anything. Are you telling me these guys are responsible for some of the coolest cinematics in a game ever?
Click to expand...
Yea, I had never seen that before and it was shockingly good for that time period, and for a video game no less (the visuals and cinematography if not the voice acting)
 
0
They have a lot a divisions,real time graphics for games,mocap studio,cgi for films and games,amusement park atractions,vr experiences,graphic technology research

i bet besides short films they will help on in-game cutscenes and graphic engine development
xV_twist said:
You can't just post this and not say anything. Are you telling me these guys are responsible for some of the coolest cinematics in a game ever?
Click to expand...
Yeah,they did them back when their name was Visual Science Laboratory, Inc. and most of the staff still at the company
xsDRSIe.png

Eiji Sumida was the Lead Designer of those cutscenes
 
Blue Monty said:
Funny enough of their latest works was for a big PS5 commercial in Japan in collaboration with one of the biggest artist in Japan:
Click to expand...


Nintendo stealing sony support lol.

On more serious note, this is the acquisation that i believe ninty should have been keep pushing.

Get those companies that can help the multimedia push.

Manga company, Anime/CG companies, merchandise companies, mobile companies.

Thats all should be priorities first. Before we talk on getting other gaming companies.
 
0
Microsoft's best IP is homegrown and longlasting, that being Flight Simulator.

As for Nintendo and acquisitions, they seem to operate on a more personal basis. When their relationship with the studio owners is good they can often come to an agreement with them about exclusive - or mostly exclusive - publishing rights.

Once those owners exit the picture, acquisition is back on the table. This seems to be what happened with Next Level and also in the past with Rare.

For partners not operating primarily in the games industry, this approach is obviously less feasible, as Nintendo cannot offer them the same diversity of business opportunities they can get from serving multiple industries simultaneously. So acquisition may be necessary.
 
0
How gaming news sites have to always make it bigger than it is and are saying that Nintendo buys a Animation Studio / Film Studio.
 
This is Nintendo's smartest buy since Mobiclip.

Vash_the_Stampede said:
Halo - Maybe? They acquired it as work began and it seems like the last 3 games aren’t living up to expectations…
Forza - yep, it’s great
Gears - made by Epic, published by Microsoft. So nope imo.
Fable - Acquired and no meaningful new game since 2010?
Age of Empires - yes but never big on console and more than 20-years old
Ori - 3rd party, I think?
Crackdown - never heard of it lol

So I would say that about 2 in 20-years is “near zero”.
Click to expand...
The only one of those that actually preceded Microsoft's involvement was Halo, which was a Mac game before Bungie was bought.

Gears MS didn't own but they were involved from the start as producer and publisher. They then bought the IP off Epic after Gears 3 (in part to keep it off PlayStation, which Epic had planned to selfpublish ports on). The rest Microsoft owned basically from inception though, even Ori.
 
0
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom