By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HoangNhatAnh on 05 January 2018
Edit Thread
EricHiggin said:
RolStoppable said:

Nintendo owns 33% of the Pokémon Company, but the Pokémon Company's purpose is to manage all licenses, the merchandise, the anime etc. All trademarks of the Pokémon IP, however, are owned solely by Nintendo. What this means for your hypothetical case is that Pokémon has a 0% chance to appear on a PS device, because Nintendo's real stake in Pokémon is far higher than 33% as they have full control over all the names involved with the IP.

So if GameFreak decided to develop for non-Nintendo hardware, they'd have to start from scratch while Nintendo would assign development for new Pokémon games to a different studio. It's highly doubtful that GameFreak would give up on their cashcow so easily.

It wasn't my hypothetical thought, I'm just expanding on it.  Considering the thought of Switch failing due to a new PS Portable, was followed by a question directed to me about Pokemon and how it can solve all problems, my reply was simply if Switch fails, what does Pokemon matter? That question was never answered, and so I gave the option that Pokemon could be on PS devices. It also could be held back from PS devices in this case, but that would most certainly hurt the franchise unless Nin came out with totally new hardware that nobody knows about. Since those types of possibilities aren't acceptable in conversations about the future of hardware apparently, only facts about the here and now, I could only assume that putting Pokemon on PS devices made the most sense. What if the other 66% of Pokemon were sold to PS, then what?

HoangNhatAnh said:

Except Nintendo own the game name, trademarks and all Pokemon in the series. GF can make a game for PS if they want but can't name it Pokemon or have any Pokemon in the series or else, they will be sued. History with all Nintendo handheld upgrade models is meaningless , right? And New 3DS is at least 3 times stronger than 3ds, GBC, GBA SP both is 2 times stronger than the original, DSi is ~ 2,5 times stronger than DS. You think Switch won't? Pokemon suffer like GameCube/PS2 era, right? You want a Pokemon on ps, basically that is port begging and show you want Nintendo go third party, isn't it? 

Nin owns 33%, so what if PS were to buy the other 66%? Not sure how history plays into Switch since it's the very first Nin hybrid ever right? I also said a more capable Switch can't exist if a PS Portable couldn't, so if you believe that's not true, then you must agree PS could create a competitor. I never said I wanted Pokemon on PS, I just said in that specific scenario it would be a good idea if not necessary. I never said I want Nin or Switch to fail, but you mentioned Switch failing in a prior post, so what is it that you have against Nin?

You know the other 66% belong to Creatures Inc and Game Freak, Nintendo own 30% of each company, right? Also, Nintendo still own the name of game and all Pokemon. Sony can buy the 66% left but can't use the name  or any Pokemon appeared in the series, unless Nintendo allow to sell it to Sony. You didn't sayyou want Pokemon on PS but you mentioned Pokemon will have no choice but come to PS. And remember, Switch is using the Tegra chip which was provided by Nvidia and Xavier come out this year, smartphone/table always get upgrade model each year with stronger mobile chip. Show me a mobile chip from ADM  that is stronger than X1 and cost only $250 which last 4 - 5 hours or even 10 hours like you said

Last edited by HoangNhatAnh - on 05 January 2018