Vena said:
VanceIX said:
Except Namco specifically held out selling all shares in order to keep "involvement" with the company. I see that as a sure sign that Nintendo didn't have complete influence over them.
To each his own though, I'm starting to feel like I'm bashing Nintendo when I'm not. I love Nintendo, and just wanted to point out that the newer franchises don't quite match up to the older (and seeng as that the older ones are so good, I have little problem with it).
|
I don't really care about Nintendo at this point. I am just trying to tell you how this works. If you majority shares own a company, it doesn't matter how much "involvement" the original parent company has. They have a voice on the committee because they own enough shares, yes this is true, but they have no power in the actual decision making because they cannot out majority the majority on anything.
It gives them clout for grandstanding and putting ideas on the table, Nintendo ultimately makes the decision or "yes" or "no".
|
And that was all my point. Nintendo essentially controlled the company, but they didn't have 100% ownership, so not completely first party. Monolith Soft was still a public company when it released Xenoblade Chronicles, not a subsidary as it became in 2011. To each his own though, like I said. My definition for first party is different from yours.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
