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

Forums - Nintendo - Third-party games on WiiU - were they worth it?

 

Well, were they?

Definitively. Enough awes... 13 8.50%
 
Yeah. Should have been more, though. 36 23.53%
 
Yes. Very little, but there they are. 31 20.26%
 
I don't really know. 2 1.31%
 
I don't play third-party... 5 3.27%
 
I don't play these, Nint... 5 3.27%
 
No, there were some good ... 35 22.88%
 
No, I can't think of anything good, really. 15 9.80%
 
No, I dislike whatever li... 3 1.96%
 
Would you kindly show me the answers? 8 5.23%
 
Total:153
potato_hamster on 04 August 2016
GhaudePhaede010 said:
potato_hamster said:

Very well reason, solid points made. I agree with you as well that the term "second party" has evolved. That got me thinking about Pokemon. How does that fit into things? To me that's a second party game, how do you see that?

I do not know. I thought Nintendo owned at least partial stock in Gamefreak. Honestly, I never talk about Pokemon other than in Smash so I do not know the business side of things. However, Pokemon may very well be why the term, "second-party" has evolved since nobody could accurately describe the business partnership between Nintendo and Gamefreak.

Admittedly, I just tried to google the situation because I am not versed on the business of Pokemon since I am not a very big Pokemon fan (like I said, other than Smash, Pokemon is not a franchise I play or care about) but I was unable to find out anything other than Nintendo owning a third of Pokemon (the franchise). I was unable to find out anything about their business relationship with Gamefreak. A funny grey area. But today, you would be insane to call Gamefreak and the Pokemon titles anything other than second party so I guess it was beneficial in some ways to evolve the term.

I honestly don't know the entire situation myself, just that Nintendo has a stake in the pokemon franchise as a whole, which is why it's Nintendo exclusive. As far as I know they don't actually own Gamefreak, but do publish the Pokemon games.

Maybe someone else has more insight on the situation?



Around the Network
SanAndreasX on 04 August 2016
potato_hamster said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

I do not know. I thought Nintendo owned at least partial stock in Gamefreak. Honestly, I never talk about Pokemon other than in Smash so I do not know the business side of things. However, Pokemon may very well be why the term, "second-party" has evolved since nobody could accurately describe the business partnership between Nintendo and Gamefreak.

Admittedly, I just tried to google the situation because I am not versed on the business of Pokemon since I am not a very big Pokemon fan (like I said, other than Smash, Pokemon is not a franchise I play or care about) but I was unable to find out anything other than Nintendo owning a third of Pokemon (the franchise). I was unable to find out anything about their business relationship with Gamefreak. A funny grey area. But today, you would be insane to call Gamefreak and the Pokemon titles anything other than second party so I guess it was beneficial in some ways to evolve the term.

I honestly don't know the entire situation myself, just that Nintendo has a stake in the pokemon franchise as a whole, which is why it's Nintendo exclusive. As far as I know they don't actually own Gamefreak, but do publish the Pokemon games.

Maybe someone else has more insight on the situation?

The copyright is split three ways between Nintendo, Gamefreak, and Creatures. Nintendo owns the overall trademark, however. This is from The Pokemon Company's website.



GhaudePhaede010 on 04 August 2016
SanAndreasX said:
potato_hamster said:

I honestly don't know the entire situation myself, just that Nintendo has a stake in the pokemon franchise as a whole, which is why it's Nintendo exclusive. As far as I know they don't actually own Gamefreak, but do publish the Pokemon games.

Maybe someone else has more insight on the situation?

The copyright is split three ways between Nintendo, Gamefreak, and Creatures. Nintendo owns the overall trademark, however. This is from The Pokemon Company's website.

 

That is not where we get confused. We get confused on Nintendo's business relationship (partnership/ownership) with Gamefreak. I could not find anything that explains anything of their business together. Specifically if Nintendo owns any stake in Gamefreak or not.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000