Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is it really accurate to compare Nintendo to Disney at this point?

KLXVER said:
BasilZero said:

That would be amazing.

If you don't like Nintendo and want them to go away, then sure. Really amazing indeed.

Last edited by BasilZero - on 06 April 2019

    

Basil's YouTube Channel


                    

Around the Network

Nintendo is a little piece io dust on the couch in the Disney HQ reception area. They're not even in the same ballpark.

Comparing the two is like comparing a minor league hockey team to the New York Yankees. They're in a sorta similar business, and maybe the hockey team has a couple guys that have played at the highest level.  But, the Yanks are watched by 3 million people every night, own a TV network, sell a hundred million hotdogs per year, have a giant stadium, etc.  The minor league hockey team plays at the local ice rink during slow times of day, and wishes they could get some coverage on the local cable access channel.    

Nintendo really only has Mario that's on a level that transcends gaming. You can maybe throw in Peach, Luigi, and..... that's really about all.  Beyond that, you have some characters that are significant in the gaming world. But they just don't make it outside of the space.  Disney either owns or controls a significant portion of the rights to a gigantic percentage the most iconic characters in the western world, and a lot of those outside the West.  They're in a whole bunch of tangentially related businesses.  They just much, much bigger.  Disney's second and third tier properties are massively more culturally important than all but the very top couple of Nintendo's.

Last edited by VAMatt - on 06 April 2019

NightlyPoe said:
KLXVER said:

If you don't like Nintendo and want them to go away, then sure. Really amazing indeed.

What do you mean?  Seems to me that Disney has done an incredible job of maintaining the properties they buy or absorb.  Part of Disney's success in all these acquisitions has been that they maintain a distinct brand.

The only example I can think of is, ironically, shuttering LucasArts when they got the rest of Lucasfilm.  But that was just Disney cutting off the crust of their Lucas sandwich.

Disney's success and the reason they seem so big is actually because there's an inherent corporate culture in favor of curation.  Sometimes it breaks down (Direct-to-video glut of the 90s, live-action remakes of today), but Disney's real strength is that they place a value on their IPs and look to make them something special in the long run.  To that end, the companies they acquire tend to maintain their distinctness.  Lasseter remained in charge of Pixar.  Feige took the point with Marvel. Dave Filoni was put in charge of Lucasarts Animation.  Kennedy (for good or ill) was left to oversee Lucasarts.  And so on down the line.  Disney's acquired a lot of properties, but most of them have retained distinct from the Mouse in the years since and have continued to thrive.

Obviously, Disney won't be buying Nintendo.  But if they theoretically did, Nintendo would likely continue to remain a distinct entity and continue with a certain amount of freedom.

Disney doesn't really care about video games. That's why they think EA is doing a great job with the Star Wars license. You think Disney would give a shit about anything except Mario and Pokémon? Maybe Zelda if every game sells 10 million plus. Disney doesn't allow for freedom, that's why Warren Spector had to tone down Epic Mickey and then his studio was shut down shortly after Epic Mickey 2. Its like saying From Software will have their freedom and can make whatever they want if EA or Activision buys them. They would have a chance or two and then be dissolved if they didn't make a huge profit.



Conina said:
Eventually Nintendo will be a part of Disney (in a few decades)

I know you're joking. But just in case somebody thinks you're serious.

Disney is an american company. And Nintendo is part of japanese culture. Even if Disney was willing to whip out the cash, the japanese government would do whatever it takes to make sure an acquisition like this doesn't happen. So, it's very far fetched..



Jumpin said:
The only companies I can see Nintendo ever becoming a part of are Apple or Microsoft. Square Enix or Sony are more likely to become part of Disney.

Oh please no, then they'd have a whole monopoly on nearly every movie and show out there. -_-

Maybe after Super Nintendo World finally opens we can better compare Nintendo to Disney.



Around the Network
Azelover said:
Conina said:
Eventually Nintendo will be a part of Disney (in a few decades)

I know you're joking. But just in case somebody thinks you're serious.

Disney is an american company. And Nintendo is part of japanese culture. Even if Disney was willing to whip out the cash, the japanese government would do whatever it takes to make sure an acquisition like this doesn't happen. So, it's very far fetched..

The Japanese government hadn't done whatever it takes to prevent the aquisition of (Japanese) Sharp by (Taiwanese) Foxconn in 2016.

"There is a common perception that the Japanese takeover market excludes foreign companies. However, this is not because Japanese takeover law has been designed to protect target companies. Comparing Japanese takeover law with the UK Takeover Code and the European Takeover Directive, considered as competitive models, this thematic and content-based investigation reveals that Japan does not have overt anti-takeover legislation. There is no stake-building control to alert a target company; there is no provision against virtual bids; post-bid undertaking is not legally binding on the bidder; the equivalent of the mandatory bid under the UK Takeover Code and the EU Directive is set at a much higher level so making it less costly for a bidder to obtain corporate control; there is no price control to protect minority shareholders."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40804-017-0091-1



Conina said:
Azelover said:

I know you're joking. But just in case somebody thinks you're serious.

Disney is an american company. And Nintendo is part of japanese culture. Even if Disney was willing to whip out the cash, the japanese government would do whatever it takes to make sure an acquisition like this doesn't happen. So, it's very far fetched..

The Japanese government hadn't done whatever it takes to prevent the aquisition of (Japanese) Sharp by (Taiwanese) Foxconn in 2016.

"There is a common perception that the Japanese takeover market excludes foreign companies. However, this is not because Japanese takeover law has been designed to protect target companies. Comparing Japanese takeover law with the UK Takeover Code and the European Takeover Directive, considered as competitive models, this thematic and content-based investigation reveals that Japan does not have overt anti-takeover legislation. There is no stake-building control to alert a target company; there is no provision against virtual bids; post-bid undertaking is not legally binding on the bidder; the equivalent of the mandatory bid under the UK Takeover Code and the EU Directive is set at a much higher level so making it less costly for a bidder to obtain corporate control; there is no price control to protect minority shareholders."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40804-017-0091-1

So what do we do to prevent Disney from acquiring Nintendo, assassinate Mickey?



NightlyPoe said:
KLXVER said:

Disney doesn't really care about video games. That's why they think EA is doing a great job with the Star Wars license. You think Disney would give a shit about anything except Mario and Pokémon? Maybe Zelda if every game sells 10 million plus. Disney doesn't allow for freedom, that's why Warren Spector had to tone down Epic Mickey and then his studio was shut down shortly after Epic Mickey 2. Its like saying From Software will have their freedom and can make whatever they want if EA or Activision buys them. They would have a chance or two and then be dissolved if they didn't make a huge profit.

I'm hesitant to continue this conversation because we're talking about a theoretical that won't happen, however:

You're letting your animosity color your thinking.  The reason that Disney got out of video games is simply that they weren't profitable to them and they were better off selling the rights and pocketing EA's money.

Nintendo would be altogether different.  They are a highly profitable company with a ton of their own assets via a niche in the industry.  Do I think that Disney would care about Mario and Pokemon?  Hell yeah they would care about IPs that take in ridiculous amounts of money every year in merchandise alone.  Disney, they like money.  Disney, they like marketable IPs.  Disney, they like procuring businesses that own their own niche.  If Disney had Nintendo, they would pretty much be doing exactly what Nintendo already does.  Maintain their distinct place in the industry and hold themselves out as something different and special.  That's why Nintendo and Disney are compared so often.  They really are comparable in how their brand image is tied into their corporate decisions.

Disney is like the anti-EA when it comes to acquisitions.  Generally speaking, both brands are strengthened.

Disney do like sure money. That's never a sure thing with video games these days. If they were to buy anyone it would be Sony. They have the rights to Spider-Man after all. I still hope Sony doesn't get acquired by Disney even if they are so dependable as you say.



KLXVER said:
NightlyPoe said:

I'm hesitant to continue this conversation because we're talking about a theoretical that won't happen, however:

You're letting your animosity color your thinking.  The reason that Disney got out of video games is simply that they weren't profitable to them and they were better off selling the rights and pocketing EA's money.

Nintendo would be altogether different.  They are a highly profitable company with a ton of their own assets via a niche in the industry.  Do I think that Disney would care about Mario and Pokemon?  Hell yeah they would care about IPs that take in ridiculous amounts of money every year in merchandise alone.  Disney, they like money.  Disney, they like marketable IPs.  Disney, they like procuring businesses that own their own niche.  If Disney had Nintendo, they would pretty much be doing exactly what Nintendo already does.  Maintain their distinct place in the industry and hold themselves out as something different and special.  That's why Nintendo and Disney are compared so often.  They really are comparable in how their brand image is tied into their corporate decisions.

Disney is like the anti-EA when it comes to acquisitions.  Generally speaking, both brands are strengthened.

Disney do like sure money. That's never a sure thing with video games these days. If they were to buy anyone it would be Sony. They have the rights to Spider-Man after all. I still hope Sony doesn't get acquired by Disney even if they are so dependable as you say.

It'd be more logical to just buy the movie rights back from Sony. Cheaper too.



CaptainExplosion said:
KLXVER said:

Disney do like sure money. That's never a sure thing with video games these days. If they were to buy anyone it would be Sony. They have the rights to Spider-Man after all. I still hope Sony doesn't get acquired by Disney even if they are so dependable as you say.

It'd be more logical to just buy the movie rights back from Sony. Cheaper too.

Sure, but Sony owns other rights as well. Like James Bond. Music by the Beatles and Michael Jackson and the most popular console brand ever.