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

Forums - Nintendo - How did Nintendo win developer of the year at the Game Awards?

darkcreap on 04 January 2015
Troll_Whisperer said:

Not a "let's shit on Nintendo" thread, bear with me.

I just thought about this. Nintendo are a publisher. Within it they have EAD 1, EAD 2, EAD Tokyo, Retro, etc.

Why is Nintendo considered a developer, while for Ubisoft it was just Ubisoft Montreal? I mean, Nintendo and Ubisoft are similar in that sense (let's forget the quality aspect of it...), many internally created developers under one name. If Retro makes a great game, "Nintendo" made it, but if Naughty Dog makes it it's not Sony? I don't get it.

I know I'm late to the party and that I'm trying to find logic in a video game award ceremony, but I found it curious.

I did not see all the comments in the thread, but after seeing like two pages and no one citing sources (although there were certain users that pointed it out correctly) I assumed most people here haven't tried this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Analysis_%26_Development

Basically, Nintendo EAD is a division of Nintendo, not a company owned by Nintendo.  Also, each EAD team is a team inside the EAD division, not another independen studio. That means that speaking of Nintendo EAD and Nintendo is virtually the same, because EAD is an internal division inside the very Nintendo. Ubisoft Montreal, on the other hand, is a company owned by Ubisoft (a subsidiary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Montreal

So technically speaking, it is correct to point out Ubisoft Montreal as a single entity and not making a difference between Nintendo and Nintendo EAD. Another thing would have been if we were talking about Monolith Soft and Retro Studios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_Studios (This article says that it is a division, but then it says that it is a subsidiary on another part, personally, I take the latter due to the fact that Nintendo bought Retro, so it cannot be a division, but a subsidiary. Nintendo EAD is a department consolidated into a division if you read the article I linked above).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith_Soft

So, considering Monolith and Retro as different developers is right, because they are different companies, but Nintendo EAD and Nintendo are the same since Nintendo EAD is an internal division of Nintendo. I guess they valued Nintendo's EAD output. Nevertheless, it could also happen that they do not differentiate between Retro Studios and Nintendo EAD, but I personally doubt so because the people following in the industry is most likely well informed. Ubisoft Montreal is not Ubisoft, because Ubisoft is the core company who owns Ubisoft Montreal as a subsidiary. Despite the fact that both have the Ubisoft name, they are different companies in the same way that Monolith and Retro Studios are different companies from Nintendo.

Plainly speaking, it is a bussiness management issue.

Very interesting thread, it made me do some research.



Around the Network
PwerlvlAmy on 04 January 2015
Ljink96 said:
They don't let crap like this pass any other time. There has to be a good reason for it. A Nintendo bias in a PS and Xbone dominated world, get real.


haha. pretty much this ^



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

KLAMarine on 04 January 2015

Bribe money. Trust me, I'm a doctor.



S.T.A.G.E. on 04 January 2015

Highest rated exclusives of the year, im sure.



Troll_Whisperer on 04 January 2015
darkcreap said:
Troll_Whisperer said:

Not a "let's shit on Nintendo" thread, bear with me.

I just thought about this. Nintendo are a publisher. Within it they have EAD 1, EAD 2, EAD Tokyo, Retro, etc.

Why is Nintendo considered a developer, while for Ubisoft it was just Ubisoft Montreal? I mean, Nintendo and Ubisoft are similar in that sense (let's forget the quality aspect of it...), many internally created developers under one name. If Retro makes a great game, "Nintendo" made it, but if Naughty Dog makes it it's not Sony? I don't get it.

I know I'm late to the party and that I'm trying to find logic in a video game award ceremony, but I found it curious.

I did not see all the comments in the thread, but after seeing like two pages and no one citing sources (although there were certain users that pointed it out correctly) I assumed most people here haven't tried this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_Analysis_%26_Development

Basically, Nintendo EAD is a division of Nintendo, not a company owned by Nintendo.  Also, each EAD team is a team inside the EAD division, not another independen studio. That means that speaking of Nintendo EAD and Nintendo is virtually the same, because EAD is an internal division inside the very Nintendo. Ubisoft Montreal, on the other hand, is a company owned by Ubisoft (a subsidiary):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Montreal

So technically speaking, it is correct to point out Ubisoft Montreal as a single entity and not making a difference between Nintendo and Nintendo EAD. Another thing would have been if we were talking about Monolith Soft and Retro Studios:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_Studios (This article says that it is a division, but then it says that it is a subsidiary on another part, personally, I take the latter due to the fact that Nintendo bought Retro, so it cannot be a division, but a subsidiary. Nintendo EAD is a department consolidated into a division if you read the article I linked above).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith_Soft

So, considering Monolith and Retro as different developers is right, because they are different companies, but Nintendo EAD and Nintendo are the same since Nintendo EAD is an internal division of Nintendo. I guess they valued Nintendo's EAD output. Nevertheless, it could also happen that they do not differentiate between Retro Studios and Nintendo EAD, but I personally doubt so because the people following in the industry is most likely well informed. Ubisoft Montreal is not Ubisoft, because Ubisoft is the core company who owns Ubisoft Montreal as a subsidiary. Despite the fact that both have the Ubisoft name, they are different companies in the same way that Monolith and Retro Studios are different companies from Nintendo.

Plainly speaking, it is a bussiness management issue.

Very interesting thread, it made me do some research.

Thanks, this is a great answer. I still think they should have nominated Nintendo EAD to clarify they're not including Retro.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

Around the Network
Troll_Whisperer on 04 January 2015
atoker said:
Nintendo releases a multiple titles in many different genres, that's why.

Come on, you could at least bother to read the first two lines from the OP before replying...



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

TheGoldenBoy on 04 January 2015
Troll_Whisperer said:
atoker said:
Nintendo releases a multiple titles in many different genres, that's why.

Come on, you could at least bother to read the first two lines from the OP before replying...

You're asking too much



Faxanadu on 04 January 2015
RolStoppable said:
You guys got it the wrong way around. Nominating Nintendo in its entirety isn't preferential treatment, it's the nomination of Ubisoft Montreal instead of Ubisoft as a whole.

Comparing Nintendo and Ubisoft overall would make it an easy contest for Nintendo because there's simply no way anyone could argue with a straight face that the average quality of the games that were developed by Ubisoft beats the average of Nintendo.

Same thing holds true when you replace Ubisoft with any other publisher.

The only good answer and it gets ignored. Too bad.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Ruler on 04 January 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
Ruler said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Idk, heck, Ubisoft (as well as many others) was part of the advisory board so if they disagreed, I am sure it would have been taken into question so who knows... Maybe they think that Nintendo is one big entity in the eyes of most people?

http://thegameawards.com/jury-and-advisors/

very biased jury, almost all americans and only 1 japanese. No other coutnries than first world countries. Poligon should be banned there altogether 

It is mostly a western awards show (it's being done in America and as far as I know they are presenting it only in English) so I can understand the minimal Japanese presence there. As for having only first world countries, that makes perfect sense. They are the biggest markets for gaming, they have the most experience with buying/playing/rating games. Maybe if some other countries could become a really good market for games and have some respected critics they would deserve a place, but as it is now they don't. I can agree on Polygon though


They are not the biggest market, china and south korea are above many of the countries and none of them is represented. China is the second biggest market in fact.

http://www.newzoo.com/free/rankings/top-100-countries-by-game-revenues/

Also they should marketing it as an anglo american panel if they only reprent this view



My online systems: Mac M4 Apple sillicon+16 GB, PC Vega 56+Amd Ryzen+32GB DDR4, Xbox Series X, PS4 Pro, Switch Lite, Playstation Vita TV, PS3, PSP

My retro systems: Wii U, DSi, Xbox, PS2, Dreamcast, N64, PS1, Sega Saturn, Neo Geo AES, SNES, Evercade

collint0101 on 04 January 2015

That's a good question. Nintendo is just a publisher if people really wanted to give credit then the award should go to Nintendo ead1 (Mario kart), ead2 (captain toad), platinum, retro or sora and namco