Nintendo has made 71 Brand new Franchises Since 2001

[VanceIX]

Vena said:

VanceIX said:

No, 57% means the own the majority, not the entire company. That means that Game Freak is second party. You can research this anywhere, you'll get the same answer. Even the Pokemon wiki acknowledges them as a second party.

I am not talking about parties, when you own majority, you own the company because you make the decisions in the company. There is never really a point to buy out all of a company unless you want to completely fold it into a singularly owned entity. No need to do such with GameFreak since they are majority owned, and Nintendo owns the Pokemon IP. Monolith ended up in a similar position until Namco wanted to sell off the last bits and Nintendo finally bought them out. No real reason for Nintendo to buy the rest of GameFreak, nor does GameFreak have financial issues to need to/offer to be bought out.

See, I am not talking about this from game development standpoints but from business standpoints. For example, when Comcast bought 51% of NBC Universal, NBC Universal became a company under the viacom branch. (They now own 100% of it, but they owned it the moment they got 51% (acquisition of a company occurs at 51%, ie. ownership just not total, or the majority share) of the shares as they became the driving force of the company by, by court definitions of companies as people, being a single 'entity' that owns majority.) Nintendo owns GameFreak. Game development may define them as 2nd party but business wise they are owned by Nintendo.

Its semantics at the end of the day, but I have been and continue to be talking from a business perspective.

And I am talking only from a videogame perspective. Game Freak is second party, not first, end of story. It doesn't matter who has what share, unless Nintendo has 100% of the shares, Game Freak will remain a second party.