Topic: What does Iwata and nintendo mean when they say they're going to license character rights to other companies?

"Iwata added that the team will seek a partner to increase exposure for games and hardware. It will even, gasp, license character rights to other companies. He added in today's Q&A session that the company is already sharing its philosophy with another company and "aligning" with them."

What would be an example of them doing this? thanks!

It could really be anything. Maybe cartoons and that sort of thing?

Hyrule Warriors is an example of this. Nintendo are allowing Tecmo to use Zelda characters in their upcoming game.

I reckon they're going back after EA with the promise of Tiger Woods: Toadstool Tour

Well, we know that Koei is currently developing Hyrule Warriors, but that doesn't in itself suggest that Nintendo licensed the character rights to them. It just means that they commissioned them to produce a game based on Nintendo's IP.

Licensing character rights is kind of a big deal. Marvel Comics did in the 90s. They licensed out (among others) the X-Men to 20th Century Fox and Spider-Man to Sony. Both of those companies still maintain exclusive film rights to those characters. Even now that Marvel has their own film production company and is putting out 2-3 films per year, they are not allowed to use the X-Men, Spider-Man, or their supporting characters in any of their films.

But that could be comparing apples to oranges, who knows. If that's the sort of licensing that Nintendo is talking about, I don't think that they would be talking about video games. More likely, they are doing as Peach64 suggested and shopping around for a studio to produce an animated series or something.

Don't worry he said the Nintendo IP's won't be popping up on any of their competitors consoles. So probably third party devs and other media groups using the characters. Example: Ubisoft making a Zelda spinoff or Pixar making a Super Mario World movie. No Metriod Dread on PS4 or X-Box1.

Isn't that what they been doing with Sega for years, licensing them to use Mario in their mario and sonic olympic games

@ferthepoet
You would be right on that one. Mario & Sonic at the Olympic games is technically an official Olympic game, as well. It counts as a 1st party 3rd party joint title, I think.

I think the term exposure is key here, the same way comics use movies, shows and games to increase the popularity of its characters (Batman was gonna be cancelled as it was an almost dead book till the Adam West show for example) they can make Mario & Zelda etc into pop culture icons imo.

I would love to see this. Nintendo does not, however, need to license their characters into games on other devices. Anyone remember the craptastic CDi? How about craptastic unlicensed Mario clones for ipad? Had the CDi console not been such a commercial flop, games like Hotel Mario could have really ruined Nintendo's reputation. Educational games such as Mario Teaches typing would be cool though (I actually used this title to improve my typing speed when I was in school). Maybe they could license Mario out to the creators of children's tablets, which do not directly compete with game consoles. Children would recognise Mario and eventually want to play his games on the "big boy"/"big girl" consoles produced by Nintendo.

Could be Books, Movies, TV shows, Cartoons, Comics, Third Party Games, Toys... They do a lot of this stuff today anyway. I think his comment means very little in the grand scheme of things. It does not mean you will see Microsoft produce a Zelda game for the Xbox.

The day I see Mario appear on Playstation or Xbox is the day I become a full time retrogamer and stop investing in new tech. I own every Nintendo console from NES to Wii-U, so there's enough backlog of games to keep me entertained for years to come should Nintendo ever go 3rd party or drop out entirely.

do knock offs and pirated emulators count? if so goodbye
_{I'm just joking....}

"To be more precise, we will actively expand our character licensing business, including proactively finding appropriate partners. In fact, we have been actively selling character merchandise for about a year in the U.S.

Also, we will be flexible about forming licensing relationships in areas we did not license in the past, such as digital fields, provided we are not in direct competition and we can form win-win relationships.

By moving forward with such activities globally, we aim to increase consumer exposure to Nintendo characters by making them appear in places other than on video game platforms."

Yeah, it really doesn't sound like this licensing is referring to video games at all.

I think along the lines of hyrule warriors which is made by omega force

Funny you mentioned that because in places like India(which is where I live) I used to play SNES games on emulators since we didn't have Snes and Nes back then. But that was a long time ago and I no longer do that sort from GBA onwards.

That is a brilliant idea. But why stop at Mario? Just give out everything Nintendo has to offer.

That would be cool. They should test the waters with Ice Climbers. License it out to a third party for a reboot. It's a big enough IP to get interest but not big enough to be a complete disaster if it goes wrong.

Something like Bowser in Wreck-it Ralph

I would not mind Disney making some Nintendo films:

1. Pixar makes Zelda film, Star Fox, and Wonderful 101 film
2. Lucas Films makes Metroid movie
3. Maybe a Kirby & Mario cartoon for younger audience
4. Marvel Entertainment makes a Kid Icarus animated series

Although I doubt Nintendo will take it this far.