Topic: Does Nintendo own Pokemon?

@Artwark: See, it's funny that you used Pokken coming to arcades only as an example because we actually didn't have any reason to believe that was the case aside from the lack of Wii U announcement and now, not even a day later, it's been announced for Wii U. See, this reminds me of people freaking out about the supposed lavk of games coming next yer. They're gonna feel really silly when Nintendo announces games we had no reason to doubt the existence of.

@UGXwolf: Its odd because Bandai Namco is both the publisher and the developer for Pokken Tournament. So similar to how Meteos ended up being multiplat despite Nintendo publishing the game, this could likely end up being multiplat.......which is really an odd way of supporting Nintendo honestly.

...no it won't be multiplat. Nintendo owns the majority of Pokemon

@Artwark: Nintendo owns the Trademark of Poke'mon. If this goes Multiplat, the other versions won't be Pokken. They'll be something else with stock replacement characters, which is actually pretty funny, so now I wanna see this happen.

Yeah, a publisher doesn't have the power to release wherever it pleases. They may limited by trademarks and copyrights of the owner

Guys, Nintendo owns the trademark. In business lingo, that is as good as saying "I own this". Everything, from the Pokemon logo to the design of the Pokemon is Nintendo's property and they can sue for trademark infringement if someone without permission uses them, plus they are the publishers - they decide what platforms get the game. On top of that, lets put ourselves in a worst case scenario (Business relationships between Nintendo, Gamefreak and Creatures turn sour), do you think Nintendo will let go of one of their most beloved franchises? I bet you that there is a nice contract protecting the company in that case, that gives Gamefreak some kind of benefit (or maybe not).

@Luna_110: You're not wrong. At least not for the most part, but Nintendo DOESN'T own the copyright. Or at least, not completely. I'm sure they've worked something out so they'll keep the IP if things go South, but for now, Poke'mon is 2nd party. Just keep that in mind.

@UGXwolf: See? Its so vague that even when things are understood, its still complicated. I couldn't understand a thing of what the whole thing is really. Nintendo owns the Pokemon characters but the tradmark is owned by creatures but most of that is owned by Gamefreak? Its like a very complicated thing really.

I get that it'd be a waste of money to just buy them both outright and instead maintain the relationship but the problem with that is that its not going to last long. At that time, Nintendo would need to study the IP and here's another problem......since Nintendo doesn't own the copyright, most of it would belong to creatures and gamefreak and it'll only create lawsuits from here on out. Again, Bandai Namco is both the developer and the publisher for the Pokken game. So what does that mean? I thought if any IP that belongs to Nintendo or that Nintendo publishes it, then Nintendo owns the thing? So how come they couldn't downright own the Rare games that were published by Nintendo as well as Meteos?

You worry too much.

You say their good relationship won't last long, but why? It's insanely profitable for all the parties involved.

If Nintendo did go power hungry and tried to claim everything for themselves, now that would ruin everything.

@Artwark: A company can publish something but that doesnt mean it belongs to them out right....Like how nintendo published bayonetta 2 but that doesnt mean that the entire bayonetta IP belongs to them. Same with samurai warriors 3, Nintendo published it in north america & europe for the wii but that doesnt mean that game belongs to nintendo.

Also I am sure nintendo has some sorta deal that makes it that all pokemon games must be nintendo approved because nintendo not dumb enough to not have a plan in case relations go sour.

Also the pokken trademark belongs to nintendo, so it is a nintendo game. They just didnt develop it. On top of that I am sure bandi is publishing it for arcades but when it comes to the wii u it will be nintendo who publishes it.

Luna doesn't say copyright, he/she says trademark, which is a different thing, and Nintendo owns that 100%.

2nd party is a fake term, especially when dealing with actual properties rather than companies. There is no ambiguous ownership of any trademark filed in the world. Either a company owns something or they don't. Pokémon, all characters, likeness, etc is trademarked exclusively by Nintendo.

@Sleepingmudkip: Explain SEGA. They own Gunstar Heroes and this is something that was made by Treasure and not by SEGA. That means SEGA can make a sequel since they own the IP same for Landstalker.

And let's not forget that anything published is basically owned by the one who published it. Golden Sun trilogy is owned by Nintendo. Bayonetta 2 is Owned by Nintendo. The Mario and Sonic series is owned by Nintendo.

@CaviarMeths: Honestly, Second parties are far better than third parties simply because of how loyal they are when the make something that they feel can only work on particular systems like Level-5's Professor Layton Series. While the series is going mobile, the Professor himself won't appear on such devices.

@Artwark: I'm sorry, but do you even read what other people are trying to explain to you? Nintendo published Bayonetta, however they don't own the game nor the franchise, publishing a game doesn't grant you ownership, these are two completely different things.

As for the term ''second party'', it's a made up term used by fans in the gaming industry as CaviarMeths already explained. When talking about ownership the term is useless, because a company either owns a game / franchise (first party) or they don't (third party).

For all intents and purposes and simplifying this mess into one sentence: Nintendo owns Pokemon. It is first party, as second party is incorrect since Nintendo owns a good chunk of it. No, they don't have absolute control over it, but they do have some control.

@Artwark: Bayonetta 2 is right now belongs to nintendo but the entire bayonetta property as a whole belongs to sega. The ONLY reason why beyonetta 2 belongs to nintendo because it was nintendo who funded the game for sega/platinum games, it wasnt because they published it. Funding a game and publishing a game are two very different things.

The Professor himself will appear on any devices Level 5 wants, as he is entirely a 3rd party character owned by a 3rd party company.

2nd party, from what I can understand from pieces of contradictory information invented by fans and media, is a 3rd party company that is a de facto 1st party company, such as Next Level Games, where they have publicly stated that they will only develop for Nintendo systems and have thus far committed to that.

Level 5 would not fit in this category, as they have made no such commitments and have developed for other systems. Their relationship with Nintendo is based entirely on it being the most logical business move for them, low-mid budget products reaching the right demographic for maximum returns. Professor Layton, Yokai Watch, and Inazuma Eleven are all series that probably would not have been very successful on competitor products, and Level 5 knows this.

Keep in mind that Level 5 is very focused on the Japanese market. Some of their self-published games required help from Nintendo to bring overseas. And in Japan as a mid-sized company, they simply make the smart decision to go with the sales leader in their primary market. They focused on PS2, then DS, then 3DS.

Word is they're currently developing a PS4 game.

@CaviarMeths: 2nd party is a confusing term because it's not an official one, but as you pointed out, it does actually mean something. I, for one, refer to games as second party and not companies. A second party game would be one developed by a third party and published by a first part. I would consider Bayonetta 2 2nd party. When this applies to an entire franchise, it's because that's what the rights holder wants to do with the franchise. I'm sure there's some page somewhere calling me an idiot and saying that this isn't how things are, but that page can just keep on saying that. I'm not gonna know until I read it, myself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't publishing and funding the same thing? A developer makes a game but lack the money needed to release the game so a publisher is the one who give the sum. Again, doesn't that mean that the publisher would have the rights of ownership since that publisher basically gave money for the developer in exchange of that ownership and profit? If that is the case, then Gunstar Heroes is owned by SEGA instead of Treasure. That would mean that Golden Sun is owned by Nintendo since they provided the funding for the entire trilogy and they also placed some characters in Smash.

Let's talk about that Dragon Quest game called Dragon Quest IX. Now why is it that there hasn't been a remake of that game after so long? Because it was published by Nintendo which leaves one to puzzle, why couldn't Square Enix just publish it by themselves instead of Nintendo to easily make it multiplat?

@Artwark: No they are not the same thing, I will give an example. Lets say that square was making a new chrono trigger game and published it in japan for the NX and PS4....Nintendo and sony can go ask square for the publishing rights to put that game in america. Publishing really is the right to distribute the game....while funding is paying to have the game made.

typically before the rise of indie, small studios wouldnt have the resources to publish and market their own games so they would go to a company like ubisoft and ask for them to publish the game for them.

also with golden sun case, in 1999 the studio named camelot partnered with nintendo so every game they will make during the partnership, nintendo will have full publishing rights for.

Publishing and funding aren't the same thing, but they do overlap the vast majority of the time. Usually, the funder is also the publisher.

Kickstarter is probably the biggest counter-example. I am a funder of Shenmue III, but I am not a publisher.