Shit, I wouldn't mind having $1000000000 in revenue and being called a flop by others.

Pokemon is on PC, Android and iOS anyway. (Thanks Emulation!)
And is perfectly legal to play on those platforms. (Legality of which varies between geographical region, thus your mileage may vary.)

It's a shame they don't do a proper release everywhere.
I would imagine it would sell like gangbusters if it was exposed to 100's of millions of extra gamers/wallets if they did a proper Xbox One/Playstation 4/Steam/Android/iOS mainline release.

Well they probably couldn't release main Pokemon game even if they want, Nintendo partly owns Game Freaks and most likely they have some kind of veto.

I've always been curious about the relationship between Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creature, what "The Pokemon Company" is, and wondered who actually owns what. As far as I can recall from past research, the following details are (I believe) accurate:

-The Pokemon Company is owned via a three-way split between Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creature (all at 33%).

-Contrary to what many people seem to believe, though, The Pokemon Company doesn't actually own the Pokemon brand, but rather simply manage it.

-As the Pokemon Company doesn't own the brand, the fact that Nintendo owns less than 50% of it does not in itself mean they are at risk of losing Pokemon should the other two decide to leave, and that's before considering the following point which further binds them together.

-The real reason you won't be seeing Pokemon on any platforms without Nintendo's approval, though, is that Nintendo is the sole owner of all the trademarks relating to Pokemon. That is to say, the name "Pokemon", the name of every Pokemon creature and character that exists to this point, and other items/locations from the games.

-Nintendo owns about half of Game Freak's shares


Basically then, while all three (Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures) own the Pokemon copyright, Nintendo is the majority shareholder of Game Freak and, more importantly, is the only one of the three that owns all of the trademarks associated with Pokemon. This means that, in some weird world where the other two somehow divorced themselves from Nintendo, they'd have to start from scratch without the name "Pokemon", the likeness, the logos, or any of the characters/creatures.

To sum it up in one line, Nintendo owns Pikachu until they decide they don't want him, and that day may never come.

Strangely, that's the part I felt most confident about (I just tacked that last bit on to the end as it really wasn't even relevant as far as Nintendo keeping Pokemon is concerned) but I've been looking for a concrete source for some ten minutes now and can't find anything. I come across plenty of people claiming confidently that Nintendo owns half of Game Freak's shares (or sometimes more specifically 53%), but I'm honestly wondering if this is just some rumor that's been passed around over and over for so long that we all just assume it's true lol

Unfortunately, I can't find a single "primary" source, which makes me suspect it isn't true. Really, it would almost be a waste of money for Nintendo to buy Gamefreak shares: they already own 33% of the Pokemon Company and hold all of the leverage they'd ever need over Gamefreak by owning every trademark involving Pokemon, so it's really not necessary. 

Fixed that for ya. 

"With this gold mine, at least, we feel like it's really important to only mine like 30% of it....cus if we got it all we'd be like way too rich"

Like... does this really surprise anyone?

He should have said 'Pokémon won't appear on any platform where Nintendo doesn't develop any games for'.

Yeah, it was the biggest failure in Nintendo's history