Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24067999-20131031161854/@comment-679780-20131104052412

Shadowunleashed13 wrote: Mystic Monkey wrote: It's not like Sega has a choice though. They might as well be subsidiary to Nintendo. How so?

LEGOfan2010 wrote: ^ Because, roughly put it as nicely as I can, Sega is Nintendo's 8!7¢#. Sega had to surrender the "console War" after Dreamcast so Nintendo knew the opportunity to profit from Sega's fans by permitting there games on their console. This way Nintendo gets a cut of Sega's profits. Yes Sonic's been on other major consoles (Sonic Unleashed was at it's best for the PS3/Xbox) but Sonic is mostly associated with Nintendo these days. Especially after Sonic Free Riders. Also, Nintendo could easily disagree to have any Sonic game not on there system if they do not approve of the game on their console. Sonic Lost World reminds me so much of Mario because Sega and Nintendo have entered "partnership" (supposedly Sonic on Nintendo consoles since 2001 never counted) and needed the game to leave good impression on Nintendo. The 90's over but Nintendo still needs to remind Sega who won the rivalry.

I know I sound a bit "old school" to hold on the belief the rivalry is still going on, but even since Sega and Nintendo became peachy it just seems Sega still hard on cash despite the success of Sonic and other various games they have. They also make questionable decisions here and there such as Sonic the Werehog and change of controls for Sonic Lost World and I can't help feel that Nintendo have something to do with it. Sega's community cannot know about it of course as it's all a matter of staying in the business. Meanwhile fans have speculated or desired for a major release of Sonic-Mario crossover than just spin-off non-canon game, but I personally would hate it if Nintendo would have that much influence over Sega to do this.