as for why ninendo doesnt just buy gamefreak ... well im not a business expert or anything so dont take what im saying as fact its all just me guessing >.> but if i had to guess it would probably be because gamefreak doesnt want to be bought out and nintendo probably doesnt feel they need to buy gamefreak. i meen i dont really see any good reason for nintendo to want gamefreak other then maybe ensure those ocasional non pokemon games go to a nintendo console? i guess you could also argue that it be to make sure no one else bought gamefreak but i dont see why gamefreak would accept someone buying them cus they dont really need to be bought. im sure thanks to pokemon gamefreak is doing very well when it comes to their money >.> i cant see them potentialy messing up what they have going by letting someone else buy them. =w= again this is all just me taking guesses though and theres probably more to this then i actually understand
@Sleepingmudkip: But in this case, it makes a lot of sense. Nintendo at first owned 28% of Monolith Soft and most of which was owned by Bandai Namco. Then BN sold the remaining to Nintendo thus owning Monolith Soft.
Also, I don't see how big Gamefreak really is honestly. Certainly not SEGA or Capcom big to think twice about buying.
So is this the same process like Rare where Nintendo owned 20% of games made by Rare and that does not mean that Nintendo owns some of Rare's IP?
Nintendo doesn't own any Rare IPs, Microsoft does that's why games like Battletoads, Banjo-Kazooie, Killer Instinct etc can't come to a Nintendo consoles either as new games or VC. The only reason Nintendo got DKC is because Donkey Kong was their IP to begin with.
RetiredPush Square Moderator and all around retro gamer.
@Artwark: The thing is for nintendo to buy game freak, gamefreak would have to approve the acquisition which was not the case with monolith soft. Gamefreak might be happy just staying independent.
Also nintendo nor rare/microsoft owns the game rights to goldeneye I am sure
Pokémon is owned by three companies; Nintendo, GameFreak & Creatures Inc.. So buying GameFreak alone would still only give them part of the rights to the franchise.
Also, acquiring ownership of those companies seems pretty pointless when Nintendo already owns the IP rights to the names of every Pokémon. Even if Pokémon would get separated from Nintendo at some point, neither GameFreak nor Creatures Inc. has the right to use e.g. the name "Pikachu" or even use the same logo as the current Pokemon titles are famous for. All the famous brand names are Nintendo's property.
Looking forward to: No More Heroes: Travis Strikes Again
3DS Friend Code: 3007-8070-6318 | Nintendo Network ID: 19Robb92
Nintendo doesn't need to buy Game Freak. I don't really understand why people are so obsessed with Nintendo buying other companies to begin with. Anyway, Game Freak isn't going anywhere, every Pokémon game they develop is a massive success, they know very well that their money is in Pokémon.
@randomlypikachu: Pokémon isn't owned by The Pokémon Company, it's owned by Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures Inc.
@Artwark The game falls under the ownership of Rare. Nintendo just published it. The most likely reason why Game Freak and TPC hasn't fused with Nintendo is because they get to keep more money as independent companies rather then being part of one large company. If they were first party Nintendo would take the Lion's share of the money GF and TPC makes from pokemon, because they would be the legal owners. Plus if anything goe's down with Nintendo Gamefreak and TPC would be able to move the brand to another console without too much legal hassle. So unless Nintendo doe's something really, really, really, really, really, REALLY stupid I doubt Gamefreak would leave Nintendo in the dust.
@Tasuki: But what about the ones that were published by Nintendo? Like Goldeneye?
Nope Rare owns the engine and on top of that Nintendo doesn't own the Bond IP, I think it's MGM or. United Artists that own the Bond IP either that or the creator of Bond Ian Fleming.
Who ever owns the IP just licenses it out to game delevelopers to make Bond games. At Goldeneye time it was Rare after Rare, EA had the Bond license and now I believe it's Activision.
Just cause a company produces a game doesn't mean they own the IP it just means they put up the money for the game to be made.
RetiredPush Square Moderator and all around retro gamer.
@Sleepingmudkip: Rare owns the game engine which is why after Bond they made Perfect Dark which is a spiritual secessor to Goldeneye. It's like Mighty Number 9 and Mega Man or Bloodstained and Castlevania for example.
RetiredPush Square Moderator and all around retro gamer.
Everyone should read that NeoGAF post on the first page, it's a beautiful, thorough explanation as to who exactly owns it.
TL;DR:
The copyright is owned jointly by Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures
The trademark is held solely by Nintendo
The Pokemon Company is a board of managers from all three companies that overseas production, maintains brand value, etc
Games are developed by Game Freak
Published by Nintendo
Creatures contributes to development, but is mostly focused on the trading card game
@Artwark To me, it makes little sense for Nintendo to buy Game Freak. They already have sole publishing right to their biggest, most ludicrously profitable property. What would owning Game Freak do for them? It would be a case of buying the cow when you already get the milk for free.
@CaviarMeths: My biggest concern or worry for that matter is that if Nintendo, GameFreak and Creatures break up their business relationship, then Pokemon can't be accessed by Nintendo but rather by GameFreak and Creatures.
Also to note that Nintendo doesn't own HAL as well. So does that mean that Kirby also isn't Nintendo IP? Also if Nintendo owns the Pokemon characters, then how come Pokken Tournament is coming to Arcades in Japan only and not on Nintendo products? Then again.....that Luigi's Mansion arcade happened with Capcom.
Also to note that Nintendo doesn't own HAL as well. So does that mean that Kirby also isn't Nintendo IP?
HAL Laboratories did not create the Kirby IP, they are allowed by Nintendo to develop Kirby games. Nintendo owns the rights to Kirby.
For example, Grezzo developed TLoZ: Ocarina of Time 3D & TLoZ: Majoras Mask 3D for Nintendo. But Nintendo is still the owner of the TLoZ IP, they just allowed Grezzo develop those specific titles.
Also if Nintendo owns the Pokemon characters, then how come Pokken Tournament is coming to Arcades in Japan only and not on Nintendo products?
Probably because that is what they decided upon. Nintendo was the company that filed, and now owns, the "Pokken" trademark, not Namco, GameFreak nor Creatures Inc..
My biggest concern or worry for that matter is that if Nintendo, GameFreak and Creatures break up their business relationship, then Pokemon can't be accessed by Nintendo but rather by GameFreak and Creatures.
Buying GameFreak wouldn't solve that. It may even do more to sour the relationship between Nintendo and the studio. How many times have we seen a big publisher buy a smaller studio, only for most of the key staff to exit? It benefits both Nintendo and GameFreak to operate as separate companies and maintain a healthy working relationship. Owning everything isn't the key and never has been in any industry. How did Sony become market leader? Not by buying everything, but by reaching out and forming strong relationships with publishers, developers, and other partners.
It's a moot discussion anyway because GameFreak is a private company. Nintendo can't just "buy" them like they did Monolith, by becoming a majority shareholder, because GameFreak's stock isn't publicly exchanged.
And I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that a break down in relations between Nintendo, GameFreak, and Creatures would result in everyone except Nintendo having access to the Pokemon brand. That's pretty much the opposite of what would happen.
Also if Nintendo owns the Pokemon characters, then how come Pokken Tournament is coming to Arcades in Japan only and not on Nintendo products?
Because Nintendo was fine with this. They're also fine with mobile apps, trading cards, anime, and toys. Pokemon has been a multimedia franchise since day one. It has never been locked exclusively behind Nintendo products.
At the end of the day, pokemon will always be under nintendo belt regardless of who actually owns the trademarks, rights etc.
Like others have said if something happened between the three companies nintendo being the biggest company would most likely still hold the pokemon rights.
Playing: Wargroove on Switch and Fire Emblem on GBA
Forums
Topic: Does Nintendo own Pokemon?
Posts 21 to 40 of 60
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.