If Sonic was ever sold to another game company...

[Mercina Melancholy]

Ok, fair enough.

Then we've got Harmonix and Rockstar left.

Harmonix have the sense of speed in its blood. There's no question about it. Rockstar have pretty good know-how on atmosphere though. Can bring the stages to life for real.

Tough question there.    

Edited September 17, 2015 by Mercina Melancholy

[azoo]

Here's my thoughts.

Nintendo: Would probably hand it to Retro Studios and probably hire a few of the main people behind the series. A main series game would come out every now and then (once every 2 - 4 years or so I'd think). The games would probably be a bit more safe and nostalgia-hugging than the usual fare, but would probably also have a decent lot of ambition and marketing. Story would probably be nonexistent, but that'd probably be okay if they focused on atmosphere to give a narrative rather than a script. Also, there'd be a high chance it'd play pretty well, whether it sticks to the original formula or not (going by it being Retro Studios, they would most likely just make it a 2.5D classic Sonic styled game.. except maybe without the classic designs).

Sony: Would probably hire the key members behind the series and put them under new management. The franchise would have games with immensely huge budgets, and the games would probably be much more cinematic and "epic" in feel, and also probably feel a decent bit more Western than Japanese, but still probably keep all of it's better traits. Would lead to super ambitious storylines and a much larger focus on narrative, but at the cost of probably losing a bit of it's style. Would probably only get a game every 3 - 5 years thanks to the development costs.

Microsoft: Would either become their official mascot so they can finally come full circle from that whole thing where the original Xbox was really just a beefed up Dreamcast, and be treated pretty decently.... or go the Rare route and be treated extremely poorly, with a game every once in a blue moon with development all botched and the developers left ultimately unhappy. And then the remains of Sonic Team would make a Kickstarter.

Platinum Games: Would either..

A ) Make a game in conjunction with Sega, and make a title that feels like a Sonic game but is ultimately something new and (pretty) exciting. Would probably get a bunch of references to other Sega IPs, and be a pretty intense game for a Sonic title. Expect Naganuma doing the soundtrack too, I wouldn't doubt they'd get him on board.

B ) Make a game without Sega, and it'd be something completely new with the franchise. Expect a total reboot of everything, where the series takes a very playful and self-referential direction, with loads and loads of stylishness and edge galore. Extremely high-octane adrenaline-pumping action and gameplay. They'd also probably throw a combat system in while they're at it. Who cares, they're rewriting the book here.

Ubi-Soft: Just make it a Ubi Art game and change the entire book like Sega did with Boom, but at least it'd be fun and probably appealing in it's own way (unlike Boom). Then if it makes millions, they call Sonic their new mascot and throw Rayman in the dumpster and churn out junk for him forever faster than you can say "Assassin's Creed", or it isn't a success and Sonic is dead just like Rayman is every two or three games. Either way, no one wins (especially Rayman).

Capcom / Konami: They'd never use it. It's not like they like making money anyways.

Namco: It'd be all up in the air really. I imagine it'd have a chance of being good though. (Here's hoping for a Sonic/Klonoa crossover of sorts.)

Bethesda: Implying Bethesda would make games that aren't grimy quasi-realistic first person action-adventure-strategy games.

Activision: Would milk it so hard it wouldn't live to even see the next console generation. Also, probably Soniclanders. Also repeat what I said about Ubi Soft, but replace Rayman with Tony Hawk.

EA: Implying EA wants to make games for more than just money. Either Sonic would be a soulless annual enterprise, or be used once a decade and then is left to die, just like SSX and Mirror's Edge.

Bioware: Repeat Bethesda but replace "first person action-adventure-strategy" with "western action RPG".

And yeah that's just about everything, isn't it?

Out of all of those, I'd say I could probably trust Nintendo or Sony most, but I don't think I'd like the console exclusivity either one would make. Honestly, the best answer is still that Sega / Sonic Team gets their shit together and makes the series better, but sometimes it feels like that's some high-apple-pie-in-the-sky hopes.

 

[PerfectChaos]

This may sound really weird but I personally hope that Bethesda gets control of Sonic, they have healthy production cycles (about 3 years) and since they're one of the few AAA publishers to hand out mod tools these days even if the game ends up sucking the community can just fix it with mods and also make not-shitty looking 3D fan-games.

Then every Sonic game would be Sonic '06 levels of glitchiness

And I wouldn't be willing to give it a free pass for being "ambitious"...

[Wraith]

Why do people constantly ask for studios that have never made a platformer or an action game or anything REMOTELY like Sonic before?

 

Like, Bethesda? The fuck

[Hero of Legend]

I'm in the "Nintendo should buy Sonic" camp, always have been.

Sonic's always been a close ally since the GC-era, and Sonic even has an on-going crossover series with Mario himself, how many franchises get that honor? It's clear to me that Nintendo do truly value Sonic and would hopefully be first in line if the opportunity ever arises, and, Nintendo's worked with all three of his fathers; Hirokazu Yasuhara is at Nintendo's own NST studio, Naoto Ohshima is at Arzest who developed Yoshi's New Island, and Yuji Naka at Prope made Ultimate Angler and Monster Manor on the 3DS Mii Plaza (and both Arzest and Prope made mini-games in Wii Play Motion).

Sonic is unarguably the closest 3rd-party franchise to them aside from having games published by them (like Fatal Frame and Bayo 2).

And need I have to bring up sales numbers yet again?

Edited September 18, 2015 by Hero of Legend

[Kaze no Klonoa]

Can't wait for a open-world first-person RPG about Sonic running fast. Yay.

If you ask me, if you give Platinum Games a lot of freedom over a Sonic project, they'd probably do the craziest shit ever with it, but it'd still be pretty awesome. They make some of the best beat-em-ups around, and even though that's something Sonic isn't well associated with (Unleashed and ROL come to mind), I still think they can pull off something with a decent amount of polish. That still doesn't mean they're good choices or developers that'd even be interested with the Sonic series in the first place, so I do agree that a lot of these companies are far-fetched or probably would do nothing with the series.

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

And need I have to bring up sales number yet again?

Ok this argument needs to fuck off and die already.

Sonic does NOT sell well on Nintendo systems, it sells where the kids are!

When Sonic went multiplatform. Where did it sell best?  PS2. Why?  Huge install base and it's where the majority of kids games where.

Then that demographic changed to the Wii.

Now its shifting again and odds are it's going to eventually be the PS4 with the Xbox 360/PS3 tied for second.

[Sean]

The nice thing about Nintendo is that they essentially treat Sonic as an honorary Nintendo character at this point. It's safe to say he's a staple in Smash Bros. now, and he's received cameos in Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and Super Mario Maker. Mario and Sonic crossovers are a regular thing, and they even approved of Yoshi and Zelda cameos in SLW. It's something I can't really see any other major gaming company doing, and if you squint hard enough it's like they're treating him better than Sega has been. Sonic would be a good fit for Nintendo; not necessarily because Nintendo-based Sonic games are the best ones, but because they do a good job at making him fit in with everyone else.

[NoirSuede]

Well, to know who Sonic is going to be sold to, we have to know what type of Sonic game we really want in the first place.

If I'm sure what this discussion is heading towards, I'd say either Harmonix or Activision would be great choices. Remember, if it's multi-platform we want, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are out of the question here. Rockstar would be great too.

Activision ???? Really ?????? Do you have any idea of their track record ?

[Milo]

Ok this argument needs to fuck off and die already.

Sonic does NOT sell well on Nintendo systems, it sells where the kids are!

When Sonic went multiplatform. Where did it sell best?  PS2. Why?  Huge install base and it's where the majority of kids games where.

Then that demographic changed to the Wii.

Now its shifting again and odds are it's going to eventually be the PS4 with the Xbox 360/PS3 tied for second.

The entire "Sonic selling better on Nintendo" argument does hold a bit of credibility, if only because Nintendo consoles have historically gotten more Sonic games than Xbox and PlayStation consoles combined.

The PS2/PS3 and Xbox/Xbox 360 are on record for getting (counting Sonic-themed ports and major platforming releases): Mega Collection Plus, Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, Sonic 2006, Unleashed (HD and SD), and Generations. That's about six Sonic titles (or seven, if you count the HD and SD versions of Unleashed as separate games). In comparison, the Gamecube/Wii have: SA2: Battle, Sonic Adventure DX: Director's Cut, the original Mega Collection, Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, Secret Rings, Unleashed (SD), Black Knight, and Colors. That's about nine titles.

As for which platform Sonic performed better on during the sixth generation, it's a bit hard to call. From the looks of things, they were about even.

From what I can find, the GameCube exclusively got SA2: Battle and the original Mega Collection, which are both confirmed for selling over a million in the US by The Magic Box. Concerning the PS2, the site says both the PS2 version of Mega Collection Plus and the PS2 version of Heroes sold over a million (again, the US). And while its not listed on the site, Heroes was re-released on Gamecube with the Player's Choice label, which usually means the game sold over a million units on that platform (Wikipedia says the game sold 1.6 million units, while it doesn't have a source; it unfortunately seems whoever added it used VGChartz).

Granted, Heroes sold well enough in the US to hit the budget re-release label on all three platforms (Nintendo's Player's Choice, Sony's Greatest Hits, and Xbox's Platinum Hits). The thing is that unlike Nintendo's Player's Choice, we don't actually know the benchmark for how much a game needs to sell in order to qualify for Greatest Hits or Platinum Hits (this in particular I think is responsible for the claims that Sonic 06 sold a million units despite its quality, simply because it was re-released with the 360's Platinum (Family) Hits label). Not helping matters is that Heroes' sales records are literally all over the place, depending on the source. The Magic Box source confirms the game has at least sold a million units in the US (PS2 ver. alone), it has also been confirmed to sell over a million units in Europe as well via this Gamespy record. But unless you use VGChartz as your source (which says the game has sold five million, with three million on the PS2...lol), there is no concrete source for the cumulative lifetime sales Heroes has.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Gabe

[Badnik Mechanic]

The entire "Sonic selling better on Nintendo" argument does hold a bit of credibility, if only because Nintendo consoles have historically gotten more Sonic games than Xbox and PlayStation consoles combined.

No it doesn't have any credibility, its a strawman argument which is used by Sega PR which sheep constantly follow.

They say "Well Sonic sells better on Nintendo systems" 

I say... "Why?" Don't just leave the argument as 'well it sells better on that' explain why it does, give us reasons, what's the answer?

The answer is bloody obvious, it's where the kids are... It always has been, Sonic is a kids game, it is aimed at kids, it appeals to kids, it's a kids game, they sell better where the kids are. 

Ok well if Sonic sells so well on Nintendo systems, lets release all these Sonic games on the Wii U.... what do you mean they all bombed. What do you mean all third party titles bombed? 

Having a game on Nintendo doesn't mean it's going to sell well, having a game on a system where the target demographic lives does. And it's so blatantly obvious when you look at it, kids get Sonic games, so go after the console which has the most kids on it, now it used to be Nintendo, it sure as hell isn't now.

[Milo]

No it doesn't have any credibility, its a strawman argument which is used by Sega PR which sheep constantly follow.

They say "Well Sonic sells better on Nintendo systems" 

I say... "Why?" Don't just leave the argument as 'well it sells better on that' explain why it does, give us reasons, what's the answer?

Again, I think the answer is Nintendo games typically get more Sonic games than the other platforms; it may not be credible, but I think that's the main reason people claim that is the case. Though that ultimately may be an indicator of Sega's relationship with Nintendo as a whole, more than it being an indicator of where Sonic's demographic sells best; I don't think it's so much a strawman argument than it is a loaded argument (of course Sonic would hypothetically sell more copies on Nintendo systems, given that Nintendo systems are getting the lion's share of Sonic games...).

I still find it a bit interesting how the GC sales and PS2 sales of Sonic games were about even though, despite the PS2 dominating the entire sixth generation.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Gabe

[AshGreninJovan]

I hope that a company that never forgets their own franchises and will take control of Sonic could be Nintendo, Disney, or maybe Sony. Others can be a bad idea because they will forget Sonic if a future Sonic game that will be created by their own is very bad.

[FriendBot]

, Sonic is a kids game

Eh, not really Hoggy.

I mean during 1998 - 2009, it's quite obvious that Sonic was aiming at a more teenage audience, you know like 12 to 15 year olds. It's 2010 onwards, where SEGA decide to aim to kids.

Sonic isn't a kids game. It's too bombastic and intense to be as such. It's a game series that's more appropriately aimed for teenagers, though having Boom aim at kids is also a nice decision.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Sonic is a kids game.

Check Sega's own target demographic. It's boys aged under 12.

[Wraith]

Eh, not really Hoggy.

I mean during 1998 - 2009, it's quite obvious that Sonic was aiming at a more teenage audience, you know like 12 to 15 year olds. It's 2010 onwards, where SEGA decide to aim to kids.

Sonic isn't a kids game. It's too bombastic and intense to be as such. It's a game series that's more appropriately aimed for teenagers, though having Boom aim at kids is also a nice decision.

It sounds to me that you don't really have a clue of what kids actually like.  

Kids have always  enjoyed action and intensity. I don't know how you could actually, seriously say that Sonic is "too bombasic and intense" for the same kids that enjoy Dragon Ball Z or the Marvel movies. The majority of teenagers don't bother with this series either so I'm not sure where that came from. 

Sonic's change of direction doesn't have much of anything to do with aiming at a younger audience. He's literally always been targeted at kids. They've just been chasing different trends now than they did before. 
 

[FriendBot]

Eh, true enough.

But of course, there is a clear difference between Sonic and per say games like, Mario or Kirby. Sonic is the "cooler" platformer and always was so I guess, keep the main series awesome and anime-like while have Boom being more laid-back, campy and silly. With that, the franchise can be more open to its demographic.

 

[Dejimon11]

Sonic is a kids game.

Check Sega's own target demographic. It's boys aged under 12.

and people say that nintendo is mainly for kids.

[LongcrierCat]

What reasons have kids had to want to go to a PS4 or The Bone though? Game sales are going very sour into this console generation overall and the ONLY one I see surviving now is Nintendo. In this smartphone gaming hellscape, the only mainstay Console Dev still kicking that will even survive is Nintendo and that's not just because they're going for smartphone development, even if that's a huge factor. 

They have a game plan. Even with a misstep they'll learn, surely? The Virtual Boy happened and the first real failure since had been the Wii U. What happened afterwards has solidified Nintendo has a gaming staple even in the face of growing adversity. 

How can you be so sure that Sega reversing  the game plan and going PS4 and Bone only would work? I genuinely want to know. 

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, I get the sentiment that Sonic sells where the kids are. But what is the basis of this implication that they're suddenly now concentrated in the PS4 and Xbone versus the Wii U (and if we're going to be really pedantic, mobile devices, because I'd bet money that more kids own mobile devices that can download game apps than any particular console at this point)? Even though Sonic has sold poorly on the Wii U, I don't think the conclusion is that kids suddenly abandoned it or something so much as the console hasn't sold well in general, so even if there's technically a higher concentration of children owning this console than the others the number simply isn't competitive with the adult install bases of the other two consoles.

No it doesn't have any credibility, its a strawman argument which is used by Sega PR which sheep constantly follow.

Also, I don't think a topic of this hypothetical magnitude warrants the attitude. Calm it down.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Wraith]

What reasons have kids had to want to go to a PS4 or The Bone though? Game sales are going very sour into this console generation overall and the ONLY one I see surviving now is Nintendo. In this smartphone gaming hellscape, the only mainstay Console Dev still kicking that will even survive is Nintendo and that's not just because they're going for smartphone development, even if that's a huge factor. 

They have a game plan. Even with a misstep they'll learn, surely? The Virtual Boy happened and the first real failure since had been the Wii U. What happened afterwards has solidified Nintendo has a gaming staple even in the face of growing adversity. 

How can you be so sure that Sega reversing  the game plan and going PS4 and Bone only would work? I genuinely want to know. 

Kids do like violent video games too, you know. 

And even if they didn't it's not like the PS4 and One are completely devoid of colorful kid friendly type stuff. 

The logic is actually sound. Put sonic where the most people will see him and that would naturally attract the most kids. The PS4/ONE are pretty clearly the dominant consoles so it makes the most sense to put their efforts there if we're talking about making Sonic a success on consoles again. 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by Wraith

[Dejimon11]

Correctly me if Im wrong but didn't all stars racing transformed sell the most on wii u on consoles?

[Matthew]

I thought Sonic sold better on Gamecube then it did on PS2, considering how many more people had a PS2 compared to a Gamecube. Can someone actually post a reliable link to Sonic sales across platforms so we can definitively end this debate?

Sonic is a kids game.

Check Sega's own target demographic. It's boys aged under 12.

This also isn't completely true, I'd say Sonic has been marketed towards the older fans more in recent years than in the PS2 era. Sonic 4 wasn't aimed at kids at all, it was aimed directly at us, even though it failed in that regard. Sonic Generations was aimed directly at us. Sure the storyline was pretty dumb and had that demeaning 'kid-friendly' attitude but the whole concept of the game, revisiting past Sonic locales is clearly aimed soley for the old-school fans, albeit with an execution that also looked to incorporate the new kids. Look at Lost World and Runners, they have lots of callbacks to Sonic's history which has obviously been put in there to please us.

Is Sonic marketed mostly for the kids? Yes, it would be ridiculous to not concede that point. Colors and the Boom franchise are obviously aimed for the younger demographic. However, saying outright that Sonic is soley marketed to kids and every other demographic is neglected is just untrue. That's like saying Frozen is aimed only for kids and every other demographic is ignored.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Matthew

[Milo]

I thought Sonic sold better on Gamecube then it did on PS2, considering how many more people had a PS2 compared to a Gamecube. Can someone actually post a reliable link to Sonic sales across platforms so we can definitively end this debate?

The Magic Box and GameSpy sources I posted are pretty credible.

[azoo]

Regardless of the "Sonic sells better on Nintendo consoles" argument being truthful or not (which I don't think it is btw), I don't know what difference that is supposed to make whenever the idea being brought up here is "which company would be more likely to grab them up and how would it turn out", not "which company would Sonic sell best under". Sega's not looking for profits in this discussion, they're looking to sell their franchise to someone that'll take care of it.

And tbh while I see Nintendo or Sony being the best bets to pick him up, I think Nintendo would be way more likely to be there as soon as it leaves Sega's hands. Nintendo seems to care about the series' well being, considering it not only was the greatest competitor to Mario back in the day for it's quality, but also has made such a great bond with their IPs that they'd have to buy him up to make sure he stays in first-party content like Smash, Olympics, etc.

I also couldn't see Nintendo getting rid of some of the key members to Sonic Team, either. I'd honestly expect a good bit of the art team, the musicians at Wave Master, a few programmers, and some of higher management (..including Iizuka as well...) having openings given to them at Nintendo without hesitation, considering the goodwill amongst each other. However, I'd expect Nintendo's new plans to mean that they'd want that team to fit under their standard of game quality.

If you're really worried about sales numbers (which honestly you shouldn't, moreso than... you know, wanting good games..), then don't. Sonic games will sell, and if Nintendo markets a console properly then the consoles will also sell. Sonic fans didn't really flock to the Wii U anyways because they didn't think that Sonic games were Nintendo-exclusive from then on out. I mean, why would they? If that changed, I think that in itself would be enough to sell consoles. Sonic has that kind of power.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Azoo