In that case, Nintendo would have no need to buy the rest of the shares in 2011 as they did.

A 20% share is significant enough in influencing aspects of the company. 

Yes, its called politicking in the business room. Why they bought it could have any number of reasons, but that doesn't chnage the fact of how board of directors and shareholding works. Majority shareholding is a very important aspect of business ventures, thats why companies buy out 51% of a company or more, because that is the point at which they gain control of the company and its board of directors. They own the company at that point. The other % make it possible for someone else to possible start buying from other parties and then possibly try to make a deal with the owner. Companies will then buy out 100% to avoid this ever happening.

the list shows a perfect example of quality over quantity.

i said the same thing earlier this year when microsoft and sony would brag about 100s of titles, even 1000 titles in their first year. but really, how many are actually interesting? that number becomes significantly less.

So please stop with the number games regardless of the platform.  It doesnt prove anything

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. 

While I do see your point im curious as to how you view the games insomniac, media molecule and sucker punch made for Sony are labelled. Everyone considers them Sony IPs but the companies were never owned by sony when many of them were made, in fact littlebigplanet was shopped around to Nintendo before Sony gave them the money.

QFT

this list sort of stands as a testament to the fact that people don't buy new IPs and then just like to bitch about how all the new games are rehashes. Maybe if Bitches had bought Eternal Darkness Silicon Knights wouldn't have gone off to die at Microsoft and we would have a sequel by now!

Gamers: "GIVE US NEW IPS! WE'RE TIRED OF THE SAME OLD STUFF!"

*The director of Project S.T.E.A.M. shows off his new IP"

Gamers: "WHERE IS FIRE EMBLEM? WHERE IS ADVANCE WARS??"