By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheBraveGallade 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?

 

http://toucharcade.com/2016/07/28/who-owns-pokemon-anyway-its-complicated/

 

You also have to factor in the fact that most of the higher ups are ex nintendo enplotees, and loyalty is a big part of japanese culture. 

 

For one, ninty will notice and tey to block off such attempt to steal one of thier two lifelines, and even if they DO, they probably could convice everyone important to quit and re-join ninty or set up a new company. Ninty can do that, cause trademark ownership, leaving sony with an empty husk. An empty husk wich cost them probably more than thier on hand cash, which could seriously destablize sony's financial situation.