Feature: Shining A Light On Ikegami Tsushinki, The Company That Developed Donkey Kong

Been a long time since I heard something new regarding DKs history, but I can honestly say I've never heard of any of this company or the controversy.

So who is the most important in Donkey Kong‘s history? Ikegami, Nintendo or Rare?

"According to the GDRI, between 8,000 and 20,000 printed circuit boards were made by Ikegami and sold to Nintendo, but it is believed that Nintendo copied an additional 80,000 boards without permission. No formal contract appears to have existed between the two companies for this job, so Ikegami retained the source code for Donkey Kong – it was never handed over to Nintendo."

Nintendo, the king of piracy.

I seem to remember Miyamoto talking about how the hardware dictated the way Mario looked. His clothing, and such. So I imagined he was right there involved with the creation. A little confused.

I read about this story some time ago, and there is something I don't understand. If there was a settlement, which must have included permission to Nintendo to do whatever they wanted with DK, why is the original arcade Donkey Kong's ROM yet to be emulated on any system, especially the Switch, which has a list of previously-never -released-outside-the-arcade games under the Arcade Archives seal?

And if Ikegami Tsushinki doesn't even mention DK in their website, I understand it even less.

@NinjaAceTrainer Honestly, I think Nintendo plays the least important role in Donkey Kong's History when all things are considered.

I know Miyamoto came up with the idea of Donkey Kong and the first three games, but Donkey Kong faded to irrelevance until 1994 when Rare revived the Donkey Kong franchise with Donkey Kong Country(A game that Miyamoto famously slammed in an interview)

It was Rare's work that revived Donkey Kong in the 90's and was responsible for turning the tide of the 16-Bit console wars in Nintendo's favor(Sega finished the job themselves by focusing more on the Saturn and asine add-ons)

After the DKC games ran their course, and Rare went to Microsoft, Donkey Kong floundered around in half-hearted spin-offs and being in the Mario vs Donkey Kong games as the main villain.

It was Retro who finally brought the ape back with Donkey Kong Country Returns.

In my opinion, Nintendo themselves have done little for DK's legacy in gaming outside of the first three arcade games. It was Rare, and later Retro who have made a much bigger impact on the DK franchise, and helped turn it into one of Nintendo's biggest IPs, even to this day.

It was also Rare and Retro that ensured Donkey Kong never faded away like so many old-school arcade icons, a fate that even Pac-Man to a degree has never avoided.

Well, there goes any hope of seeing Donkey Kong arcade released as part of Nintendo's arcade classics lineup. Tarnashian!

@Caryslan I never heard that before, what did Miyamoto say about Donkey Kong country?

@Caryslan Thanks for the summary. You seem to be right about that. Atleast Rare made something new out of DK, and didn’t just plaugerise Ikegami’s work like Nintendo.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE You should change that to the king of Pirates.

@Dev You could play all four levels of the original in Donkey Kong 94 for Game Boy. No, it wasn't exactly the same, but it was all four levels. The lack of the "Pie" level in the NES game had to do with the NES's limitations, not this lawsuit.

@SimplyCinnamon53 Miyamoto did not like the graphics of the DKC game. He purposefully made Yoshi's Island on SNES to look hand-drawn as a counterpoint.

@j-life I'm under the distinct impression that it was DESIGNED in-house by Miyamoto and team, then just out-sourced to Igekami Tsushinki for actual coding.

@BanjoPickles Since the companies have settled and we don't know the terms of the settlement, that's not for certain.

I'm not sure that I agree here... "Without Ikegami there would be no Donkey Kong, and without Donkey Kong, Nintendo – and video games in general – would have been very different today." If the overall design was that of Shigeru Miyamoto working for Nintendo, then Donkey Kong would belong to Nintendo. Now since there wasn't a contract between the two companies (stupid even for the early 80's) I could see where Ikegami would have the rights to the code, but Nintendo could have brought their designs to one of hundreds of other companies that could have done the coding. If Nintendo believed in the Donkey Kong design, they would just have had someone else code it. Maybe the game would have been slightly different, but no one will ever know to what degree.

@Caryslan Miyamoto since said that "slamming" wasn't true.

"Without Ikegami there would be no Donkey Kong, and without Donkey Kong, Nintendo – and video games in general – would have been very different today."

Despite being a poetic line for the article, it's not likely factually accurate at all. Since Nintendo did all the scenario design, the coding job could have been alternatively outsourced to ANYONE. Had that been so, the only likely significant difference would be that Nintendo would be able to release it as an Arcade Archives title today.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE Oh how the tables have turned for Nintendo

I think Ikegami should at least acknowledge their past work contributed to the game's creation. True, this may not be, due to out-of-court settlements. I also think Nintendo should release the original rom on their services. I've known about Ikegami. I've always been under the impression that Nintendo can't release the original, & that Ikegami coding the original was why the Nes DK was not like the arcade. The arcade DK probably could have been replicated, mostly at least, on the Nes.

Funny that one of the arcade games Nintendo published in Japan was Sheriff, originally made by Exidy, a company that went on to produce unlicensed NES games, including Chiller, one of if not the goriest 8-bit game I've seen.

@Moroboshi876 the original ROM was emulated in DK64 on the N64, which in turn was emulated on the Wii U. Unless I’m wrong, and that’s not the original Arcade version, as it labelled in-game. Noticeably this is several years after the lawsuit.

Was the DK one of the many full NES games included in Animal Crossing on GC?

I feel like it’s kinda like saying that a Frank Lloyd Wright house wouldn’t be possible without the construction contractor that built it. It’s still a Frank Lloyd Wright house.

@VinylCreep Exactly this. Even if the underlying code wasn't done by Nintendo, the game design was and that's what really counts.

I guess that has something to do with why Nintendo has never produced an accurate home version of the full game, even after the home systems became more capable than the arcade hardware.

And of course the vertical screen. Namco museum on Switch finds a way to deal with that issue, of course. There's also no reason at this point that a release couldn't have both an accurate "pillar-boxed" version and a reconfigured horizontal one.

Either way, it was still a cop out to release that same NES version on the 3DS. I get the idea of nostalgia for an NES "classic", but are people nostalgic about classic cases of getting short-changed? They could have at least whipped up a version of the missing level for that.

@gaga64 Yes, I'm aware of that version, but I read somewhere that it also was a reverse engineering thing and not the original ROM. So if this is a matter of Nintendo not being legally able to use that ROM as it was, I think is kinda stupid at this point, and having reached an agreement with Ikegami so many years ago.

Anyway, if they were able to use that ROM it most certainly would be one of the games that are due to launch on the Arcade Archive series. And it's not.

@Jimsbo The NES version of Donkey Kong released on the Wii VC was actually hacked to include the missing level. I believe it’s not been re-released anywhere else since, although it might be possible to get it on the Wii U via the Wii mode.

This is opinion, but I always liked the arcade version, more than the Nes, especially the sound. Edit: The best way to own the Nes port of DK, is in the combo cart with DK Jr. Obviously, for collector purposes, owning a DK only cart, too.

@andykara2003 @VinylCreep @thatawesomedude @Amsterdamsters

Woah, way to totally belittle the input of a company which has pretty much been forgotten by everyone anyway!

Let's mull this over a little. While it's certainly true that Miyamoto was the brains behind the design, it's not as simple as saying Ikegami just took his instruction and turned it into a game; the studio certainly should take some credit for its success, and therefore the resultant success of Nintendo itself.

Ikegami's team turned around Donkey Kong in the space of just three months, and - lest we forget - the project was very much a "rescue mission" for NoA following the failure of Radar Scope. Nintendo couldn't have given the job to one of "hundreds of other companies" because this was the early '80s - there weren't hundreds of companies doing this kind of thing back then. Nintendo picked Ikegami, presumably for the company's talents (as did Sega), and there's no assurance that any other firm could have done the job as well or as quickly.

Say Nintendo went with another firm, which supplied code which was sloppier and took longer to create... just a few small differences and history could have been totally different. Donkey Kong might have come too late to save NoA's bacon, and could have shipped with issues that prevented it from being as playable. DK might have missed its "sweet spot" and the rest of the Nintendo story - which relies on DK being such a game-changer - would have been re-written.

Miyamoto might have a genius design, but actually turning that idea into a playable game isn't as simple as some of you make out.

@Damo Not at all - in fact you're inferring a lot from people's comments here. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I've noticed that your attitude on here can be a little abrasive and dogmatic rather than engaging in reasonable, friendly discussion. It depends on how much input was given by Miyamoto/Nintendo on the specifics of the design and gameplay. Miyamoto is credited on many Nintendo games but he wasn't necessarily programming the core code. He would fine tune the game by constantly suggesting changes to the nuances in gameplay and design but the programmers would do the donkey work. If Miyamoto/Nintendo had very little or no design/gameplay input then you're right. If they contributed the bulk of the input regarding design and gameplay then you aren't. I think more granular detail is needed before we make that call.

@andykara2003 I have no doubt whatsoever that Miyamoto was very much in the driving seat with this, and I think it's unlikely that Ikegami had much input into the design of Donkey Kong. My point is that people are assuming that the process of coding such a game would have been so simple that any other studio could have done it - if that were true, then why didn't Nintendo do it in-house?

Even today, developing a game (even if you're not the designer) takes a lot of talent, but back then there would have been less people in the Japanese industry with the expertise and knowledge to get the most out of the arcade hardware. Ikegami was selected by Nintendo specifically to work on arcade games, so the company clearly valued its talent.

A few of the original comments were like "they could have gotten anyone to do it and it would have been the same result", which is rather like saying every single coffee shop in the world creates the same quality coffee, so why pick a favourite one?

And if we can accept that not all developers are created equal, it stands to reason that, had DK been handed to another studio, the end result could have been different. Sluggish controls, poor visuals, bad collision detection, bugs, etc - these are all things that could creep into a game developed by a less talented group of people. So you can't say Ikegami had no impact on Nintendo's success, because history will note that the studio developed Nintendo's first smash hit.

That was my point.

@Damo Possible, but highly unlikely. Worst case scenario probably would have delayed it a few months. Besides, multiple revisional versions of Ikegami's build exist anyway. Glitches can always be revised. The actual core game design is what's the most important and that's all Nintendo. There's a reason companies like these don't take credit, they're just private contractors paid to carryout menial tasks.

@thatawesomedude Thing is, you're thinking about this like the Nintendo of 1981 is the Nintendo of today. Back then, the company hadn't had a single international success in the video game arena and was seriously considering pulling out of the US arcade market after a string of flops. DK was requested by NoA as a means of solving the problem of unsold Radar Scope inventory, inventory that could have potentially sunk that side of the operation. Had another company been used for development, who is to say the game would have shipped in a satisfactory state? Who is to say that even an extra month wouldn't have made all the difference in terms of cash flow (or lack thereof) in NoA's case?

You're assuming Nintendo would have had the experience to know how to deal with such a situation, and that's a MASSIVE assumption - heck, even Miyamoto himself was considered to be wet behind the ears in 1981. This is not the same company that conquered the games market just a few years later; it was still learning the ropes, hence the fact that it outsourced development to Ikegami. In fact, had Ikegami not been on the scene, we could have had a situation where NCL simply told NoA that it was tough, and that Radar Scope was the end of the road. For all we know, the fact that NCL had relied so much on Ikegami up to this point may have been the sole reason Yamauchi was willing to take the risk with Miyamoto's idea, in the capable hands of Ikegami.

My point is, just like I can't say categorically that history would have been different had Ikegami not been involved, you can't sit there a confidently claim that had another company done the coding, things would be exactly as they are now.

Changes in history - no matter how small - can ripple through the decades.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE They download ROMS of the internet for Virtual Console.
@KingMike No, Sheriff was originally by Nintendo, but I believe it was distributed in the U.S. by Exidy.

@gaga64 Actually, I'm pretty sure DK64 did indeed include the arcade version. Remember, the issue isn't that Nintendo can't ever re-release it-- they can, they just have to pay licensing fees to Ikegami. Entering a deal 20 years ago to pay a few extra bucks to include it for a major release that originally retailed for $60 was probably deemed justified. However licensing today it to sell as a stand alone Arcade Archive title would result in an inflated the price that wouldn't be worth it.

@thatawesomedude The arcade Donkey Kong game in DK64 was recreated from scratch. It uses no part of Ikegami's original code.

I know it's mentioned in the article but it seems like people are kind of skimming over the fact that Ikegami was responsible for the coding/development of EVERY single one of Nintendo's arcade video games up until DK Jr. in 1982. NCL could make electro-mechanical style games thanks to Yokoi, but they had nobody in house with the required coding skills (eventually leading them to hire Iwata for his abilities to port arcade games to the NES hardware), so Nintendo absolutely needed Ikegami at that point in time.

If Donkey Kong wasn't a hit, there might not have been a lawsuit and Nintendo might still own the DK code, but Nintendo of America would have probably been forced to close up shop.

@Caryslan Whilst I agree completely that Rare reinvented Donkey Kong and made the character relevant again for most people, I don't think Nintendo had forgotten him in any way. Of course, he was in the original Mario Kart, and the 1994 Super Gameboy conversion was a near flawless attempt to modernise the original game and expand and improve in it in nearly every way possible - the 100 or so levels, plethora of new moves for Mario, and using it as the flagship "killer app" for the Super Gameboy launch must have taken significant revenue and effort from Nintendo. This was released before DKC and used the old design of the character (last game to do so, potentially?)

@SimplyCinnamon53 In addition to what others have said, Miyamoto was directly quoted by several magazines in 94/5 saying that he believed that the success of DKC was due to people being blinded by the graphics and that the gameplay did not hold up. When pushed for more he described the level design as being very linear and non-interesting. Years later he backtracked a little and added that although the levels were simple, the game was satsfying to play and controlled well. He never said he was misquoted, just that he hadn't meant to sound overly critical and translation had misrepresented the spirit of his remarks. As a separate issue, when asked by Nintendo staff to make the Super Mario World sequel have 3d rendered sprites like DKC and Mario RPG (which was in development) he stated that he didn't like the style and wanted something less clinical and more whimsical.

Info is probably hard to find because it would be seen as bad press and thus was deliberately buried.

No wonder it's not among the upcoming Arcade Archives batch of Nintendo titles.

@BulkSlash There was a version of the NES game on the 3DS with the cement level and intermissions. It was only available as a download code for buying . . . something or other. I don’t remember, but I have it.

Edit: There was a slate of games that netted you DK: The Original Edition. I got it by buying Sticker Star.

@Ras I just did some googling and you’re right it did get a US-only release on 3DS too. It’s a pity we didn’t get a UK release as I would have bought it!

@Ogre Exactly!

Look, guys, in this thread they discuss about the Donkey Kong 64 version of DK arcade. In short: as I recalled, it's not the actual rom, but a port with differences.

[url=http://donkeykongforum.com/index.php?topic=1475.0][/url]

So, the original Donkey Kong as it was has never been playable on any Nintendo console. And it must have to do with that settlement, but seems absurd if Ikegami Tsushinki doesn't even acknowledge their gaming history.

And if there isn't a "no Donkey Kong arcade" clause in that settlement, then I don't understand why it hasn't been re-released and why it's not one of the flagship games of this slowly releasing Arcade Archives line. It should be a best-seller.

What is really missing here is true context. The digital arcade/video game business atmosphere, much like any new startup category, was not clearly defined by the players yet. Certainly there were standouts but nearly all of the well known video game companies used contracts to allow faster turn around times for game concepts to compete with the older established legacy companies that started with electro mechanical machines.

There is also a huge cultural divide between the Japanese and The US market. Nintendo, like many of the early Japanese companies, was trying to reinvent themselves in a market they were unfamiliar with. What they did was leverage the culture of honorable dealings in their home market to help them recoup possibly lost assets. The fact that they had no contract is not unusual but would be considered careless in todays world.
Ikegami, I am sure acted in good faith as they expected Nintendo to. Nintendo's position is, actually quite common in the industry even now, the concept and the idea are the true assets and the coding is a function of production not the origination. Nintendo simply lacked the skills and the knowledge to and felt they owned the concept. Ikegami most likely felt they were shortchanged on the deal since Nintendo circumvented the process in violation or spirit of the agreement. The settlement really reflects the change in the business for both companies and especially for Ikegami as they continued to diversify their product line.

I'm guessing the "terms" that these companies came to is an agreement to a stalemate-- Nintendo would never be able collect further royalties from the arcade DK ROM, but neither would Ikegami, so essentially, the original ROM would just fall into code purgatory, never to be profited from again. Just my observation based on the info we do know, and the lack thereof. Whelp... there goes my hopes for an Arcade Archives DK, and possibly DKJr. arcade since it was reverse engineered. Guess that leaves Arcade Archives DK3, lol.

This story fascinates me and I come back from time to time to read it again, and I'm glad to say both DK and DK Jr. were released finally in Arcade Archives series.

But a single word about Ikegami or how did Hamster manage it has arisen up to now, which makes those releases mysterious. As @MeloMan said the agreement probably included a stalemate because of which not Nintendo nor Ikegami would further benefit from that ROM, but now it has changed. And maybe this clause never existed, so why didn't those 2 games get released until 37 years later?

@Moroboshi876 Looking back at this... wow how things have changed lol. I don't know if it was an agreement that Hamster would divy up profits by 1/3 for Hamster, Nintendo, and Ikegami, or Nintendo and Ikegami allow Hamster 100% profits, or Nintendo and Ikegami squashed their differences, etc.... The world may never know, and I'd love to her it from Hamster themselves how they pulled this off. I'm STILL in shock that I am playing DK and DK Jr., RIGHT NOW, on my Switch...

@MeloMan Same here. A year ago I wouldn't have believed it LOL