Ka-pi96 said: Never ever ever release Pokemon on mobile phones. Home console release would be nice though

As long as it's not garbage like Pokemon Rumble then heck yes!

I didn't say they were owned; majority shares (to which I cannot find my old source, so that may have been bad data way back when) would not mean they are wholly owned, just controlled. But, now that I've gone and checked, let's say we remove GameFreak. Monolith Soft is an example of this when Nintendo bought out majority to control the content, but Bamco still had influence and interest in the studio until they were bought out and the comapny became Nintendo owned.

Nintendo still owns majority of Pokemon as it still owns its own subsidiary, Creatures/APE, with whom and GameFreak, they share the Pokemon Company and the whole of the IP. No one part of the IP can do anything without the other part of the IP; Nintendo owns the brand, GameFreak owns the brand, Creatures owns the brand, and any action with regards to the brand has to be consented upon by all three (really two).

Its 6mil difference you took the highest number and the lowest number bro. So i meant if like 3ds sells 58mil, i expect if pokemon didn't exist 3ds be around 52mil.

Your twisting my words (well numbers) man >_<

Also, why lose faith? Nintendo HH Sales arent all from Pokemon, aside from GBC i guess you can say. Pokemon= Nintendo Biggest HH IP and Biggest System Seller, but its not everything to its HH sales.

Edit: Maybe this will help. If 3DS stop selling today, it would be at what? 44mil right? Pokemon XY sold 12mil (well its over that so lets say 13mil).

44mil-13mil is 31mil users who dont have Pokemon with their 3ds's. Out of the remaining 13mil who bought pokemon (that own a 3ds obviously!) how many of them only bought it for pokemon (just 1 game) or something in a similar fashion? (meaning knew it was coming and bought a 3ds before XY release). 

I bet nowhere near half, bt lets just say half. 6.5mil have already got 3ds's from wanting other games. That leaves the usrbase 44mil vs 37.5mil at the least

This is what i meant, its not like if pokemon wasnt here, Nintendo HHs would decline by potentially half or greater due to it going to mobile!

The other "problem" they face with mobile is that, they couldn't sell it for $40. I have not heard of a single mobile game that has sold well that costs over $1. Why bother if they have to sell it at 99 cents? X-Y have sold what, 12 million copies on 3ds so far? More? They would have to sell 40 times that at $1 on mobile. Anything over the free-99 cent range doesn't work on mobile.

Mincecraft sales on mobile have passed 21 million and it costs $6.99. 

Yes but my point was that there is still a large amount of people that are willing to pay more than a dollar for a mobile game. 

What a crappy article. Considering that it's Polygon, I bet there are a ton of mistranslations. Pokemon is owned by Nintendo. The only way you will see a main Pokemon on another platform is when pigs start flying.

No reason to even put pokemon on there as the whole product, especially as they keep adding mechanics to the thing that don't gel well with a lack of physical inputs. But putting on things like the card game or other small, free, projects to spark interest would greatly spread the brand's name and help popularize the handheld. Nintendo can then also market the fact that kids can't accidentally spend 40,000$ on the app store with their handheld! :P

I'm not twisting your words, Tbone. I pointed out that 3m is too small a difference so even for a prediction the numbers cannot be that close.Of course I took the highest and lowest. If you said it would be 50-55 with pokemon 45-50 without, you'd be suggesting that it is possible that even without pokemon it would not lose a single sale. 

Again, you can't look at the numbers of sold units of a product and deduct that number and assume that that's all the impact it had on a console. The problem with that hypothesis, is that you completely ignore how it affects the perception of the console by the public.

When the vita lost Monster Hunter as an exclusive, it lost much faith in it by the developers. There were doom articles and threads everywhere. The lack of faith in the vita made developers drop projects that could have helped the system tremendously (e.g. Bioshock). And it continues like a snowball. Everyone sees it as an unattractive product to make fun of, not to own. Part of the reason the iphones are successful is that people talk about them all the time. If someone talksabout his 3ds and how he likes catching pokemon, you might check out the system even if you have no interest in pokemon itself.

And here is a very simple example: Tommorow a new oblivion game is announced for vita. The game ends up selling 2m units, yet there's a huge increase of hardware that is way beyond 2m based on how much it's projected to sell at the moment. Why? Because everyone is talking about it. Then more developers make games for it, Sony decides to spend money promoting it, more people are seen on streets using one, and so on. Sure, Oblivion X would not be directly responsible for all those hardware sales, but had it not been for it the vita would be dead. Does that make sense to you?