peachbuggy said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Easier said than done. If Tajiri was willing to sell I expect Nintendo would have already done so. If he isn't willing to sell though... there isn't a thing they can do.
Makes total sense to me as well. Far too many game devs are happy to sell out as soon as an offer comes in, I'm glad he's got the desire to remain independent.
|
Afaik, Nintendo used to have a controlling stake in GF but sold some of their shares. I would say it would be a good idea to buy more again so they had the controlling stake again.
|
erhmmm why the emphasis from a few of you about Nintendo buying Gamefreaks stakes? you all do realize that Nintendo owns all of the Pokemon trademarks (i.e. the characters and names themselves), so it's sort of irrelevant if they own Gamefreak or technically the entirety of Pokemon. Gamefreak/Pokemon Company cannot make any Pokemon games or deals without Nintendo (or they'd have to make a game without the name 'Pokemon' or any of the creatures). Unless you're just suggesting that Nintendo tries to fully own Gamefreak so they can be 100% in control of what direction Gamefreak goes with the next few Pokemon games (i.e. pushing them to go 'bigger' with larger steps). But even with that, I'm fairly sure Nintendo already can hypothetically make Gamefreak go along with what they say if they want. Again, Gamefreak can't publish Pokemon games, Nintendo owns the IP as far as names/images. People often seem to be unaware that Nintendo obviously has it's own small division that works soley in relation to the Pokemon Company AND Gamefreak. They are involved with the processes of the games always
as far as the thread in question: I'm torn. Does Nintendo REALLY need to invest in new development teams? I don't know. what's the advantage to that versus just hiring talented second party dev teams? I don't see a huge difference. Maybe in special cases, like possibly going for a medium buy by attempting to acquire an acclaimed development studio that has like none of it's own IPs (maybe like Platinum games?). But beyond that? really small third party dev teams are going to be sort of an unknown quantity and from Nintendo's perspective why would they bother to fully take them in when they can just hire them for oddjobs as needed? and then as far as bigger development teams that are already part of largeish third party studios- you would either have to outright buy the third party company OR pay a handesome amount for one of their talented teams... neither seems like a great option if you can simply continue to just outsource work to them
in the end I guess it depends on your goal. If you think that Nintendo really needs to push hard on developing big Western aimed games, some more adult aimed shooters or adventure games- then it might make sense for them to attempt to acquire another Retro like Western or European studio. But if you're simply saying that Nintendo needs to invest in new dev teams to get more games- that's not necessarily true. They can easily outsource more work if they want to, and frankly with Nintendo's output all going into one system moving forward (from the former being both home and handheld), there's really no reason they shouldn't be able to put out a steady stream of games
I think the discussion at this point should be less about building up a ton of dev teams as much as it should be about potentially acquiring certain IPs. If Capcom doesn't do great with Monster Hunter World, for example, Nintendo might want to consider a bid for the franchise (that's only assuming Capcom is in a bad financial position). Similarly, Konami is basically sitting on a horde of great dead IPs. It would be extremely logical for Nintendo to attempt to buy some of them from Konami (i.e. Contra, Castlevania, Bomberman, Adventure Island, DDR, Zone of the Enders)
Nintendo could probably pretty easily reinvigorate franchises like Contra and Castlevania and they would feel incredibly at home in a Nintendo system library