Should Nintendo buy Game Freak? | |||
| Pika!! (Yes they should) | 20 | 51.28% | |
| Glub glub, Magikarp (They should not) | 19 | 48.72% | |
| Total: | 39 | ||
Nintendo owns all the trademarks to Pokemon, not Gamefreak, so what's the point?
| Ka-pi96 said: Interesting, I never knew they were called Ape before. Although considering they're listed as an associate rather than a subsidiary on their annual financial report that should mean they own less than 50% of them, in which case they still don't have a controlling interest in the Pokemon franchise. |
Not entirely true as seen with WarpStar where Nintendo own 50% of them and they're still associates. It comes down to how they structure some of these companies for their own business for example it's possible Nintendo could fully own Creatures but has set up the situation so stock is own possibly by proxy on top of their own direct ownership in order to safe guard them as an asset to prevent investors and such from prying into the asset and claiming returns from them. Business has a high flexibility to approach after all and the fact that stock details are kept under wraps in some financial smoke screen means some kind of control is being green lit and for everyone who has stake to be fine with it suggests some kind of loop hole of such maybe in play here.
No. Game Freak likes their independence and they have an obviously great relationship with Nintendo. Buying them would be bound to bring bad feelings into the mix somewhere, over something. Best to leave it.
Game Freak wouldn't put it's games on other systems unless it had no other choice financially. Even if you would think that Pokemon would sell well on other systems, it is so synonymous with Nintendo that moving it to a competitor would tarnish that image and actually weaken the brand. It's too risky when things are good.
They absolutely should. Game Freak's lost its touch since moving to the 3DS, and I think being put under the direction of someone new would be good. Perhaps being put under NIntendo's control would mean that they finally expand beyond 100 people and make a sizable game again.
Last edited by RingoGaSuki - on 26 August 2018
I don't see any real benefits in they doing it. All pokemon games already release on Nintendo HW, unless they wanted to force full pokemon on consoles, but Switch already took care of that.
They would better use that money increasing studios, creating new ones or similar.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
There's basically 0 risk in Game Freak taking the franchise to another platform Nintendo doesn't approve of because they can't. No need to spend billions on a developer you've already cultivated a 20 year partnership with.
The trademarks being regestered under Nintendo is a non-issue. Trademarks exist soley to protect from brand confusion and aren't worth anything if you don't control the brand. They are just with Nintendo for convenience.
Ninty owns a third of creatures, gamefreak, AND the Pokemon company itself.
Why? Do you think Gamefreak does not act 100% on Nintendo's bidding?
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
