keltickennedy
Member
I've heard people complain about EA making too many Assassin's Creed games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Franchises commonly associated with the wrong companies?
- Thread starter Alphahawk
- Start date
Nerdkiller
Membeur
Okay, they didn't outright own Rare, but they did have a 49% stake ownership in it.
miller.skippins
Banned
People thinking Bloodborne has a chance on Xbox and PC and PS4 only got a 2 year exclusivity since 'All souls games come to Xbox and PC'.....clearly those people didn't see the trademark (or don't know about Demon's Souls)
evil monkey
Member
I believe Nintendo also owns all the buildings where TPC, Game Freak, Creatures, Genius Sorority, etc, work. They have full control of the Pokemon IP in all but name.
This is true, sort of. Back when they were Rareware, Nintendo owned another company called Rare, which owned all the IPs that Rareware produced. It was either dissolved or merged with the present day Rare when MS bought them.
This is true, sort of. Back when they were Rareware, Nintendo owned another company called Rare, which owned all the IPs that Rareware produced. It was either dissolved or merged with the present day Rare when MS bought them.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
People thinking Bloodborne has a chance on Xbox and PC and PS4 only got a 2 year exclusivity since 'All souls games come to Xbox and PC'.....clearly those people didn't see the trademark (or don't know about Demon's Souls)
Wait people actually think that?
Nintendo stopped owning Rare IPs after 1997. This is why Perfect Dark, Banjo and Conker all speared on Microsofy platforms as Rare is the sole owner of these.
Not sure now but it was rampant back when the trailer leaked
Edit: I also remembered when Sony sold off their PC games division some people thought Bloodborne could come to PC
Some people still do and hold out hope for a PC version, as well as refuse to buy a sequel to BB unless it's multi-plat.
Misguided and misinformed.
evil monkey
Member
I was under the impression that Nintendo owned everything up to the sale, until the Stamper Bros bought back Nintendo's 49% share of the company for $100 mil (on credit) and negotiated a deal where Nintendo got to keep everything Donkey Kong, while Rare got to keep the rest. Admittedly it's been a while since I looked into this.
I actually recall the info I stated from when BK was first coming out. I'm pretty sure it was the first property Rare owned outright. I could be mistaken though.
I read Rare actually owned the rights to the characters introduced in DK64 (and ONLY those characters in the entire DKC property) until the buyout (where there was an amicable agreement to have Nintendo retain the DK64 and Star Fox Adventures characters), but I was never able to find a solid source for that claim.
Eolz
Member
Less than the number of people who believe that Bayonetta 2 will get a port on a non-Nintendo console but yeah.
On that note, it's amazing how many people here think Platinum owns any IP.
Yep. All through different publishers.
-Sega
-Konami
-Nintendo
-Square Enix
-Activision
-Cygames
-Microsoft if Scalebound wasn't cancelled.
CaviarMeths
Member
http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/fire-emblem-echoes-shadows-of-valentia-3ds
NLG is a 3rd party indie developer, but Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon is not a 3rd party indie game.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Demon's Souls and Atlus. That was America only. In Europe Namco was publisher
Barrel Cannon
Member
Chrono Trigger associated with SquareEnix when it was really the old square(the majority if which aren't part of SquareEnix anymore)
All Rare games after Free Radical formation associated to the Rare of old. Rare doesn't even have staff from their 90's heydays the last I checked.
All Rare games after Free Radical formation associated to the Rare of old. Rare doesn't even have staff from their 90's heydays the last I checked.
Doesn't really work here, because SE does own everything related to Chrono.
And while, yes, it was Square who originally made Chrono Trigger, it was partly notable because it was a collaboration with a bunch of the main people behind Dragon Quest, which was Enix's flagship series. So even at the time there was a lot of Enix flavoring in there, albeit not officially.
It's both.
SomedayTheFire
Member
tbh i read that sega thread and said to myself "I hope they release a new megaman game"
That's why I put it into this thread, because it isn't. Koei Tecmo can choose to make the next game for PS4.
All you need to do is point out the good design, well written characters, and lack of repetitive gameplay to know it's not Ubisoft.
CaviarMeths
Member
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding:
The Pokemon Company is owned 33% each by Nintendo, GameFreak, and Creatures. I believe the remaining 1% is held by TPC itself. TPC is the copyright owner of Pokemon and basically a brand management firm staffed by executives from all three parent companies.
GameFreak is completely independent. Nintendo is a majority owner of Creatures. Therefore, Nintendo probably controls more than 50% but less than 66% of the Pokemon copyright.
The trademark, which is separate from the copyright, is owned 100% by Nintendo. That includes the names, designs, and branding of all Pokemon related materials.
It's literally one the first things that popup if you google fatal frame.
And it's fake news. It's not true. Check your sources and their veracity. If you did your job, you'll see that those reports are inaccurate.
coughlanio
Member
Ultra is Konami though..
Iriscomeback
Member
I never knew until recently that the studio that made Xenoblade is owned by Nintendo.
nkarafo
Member
I feel i'm missing something. Is that a meme or a reference?
Nintendo owning Pokémoneven shareholders fell for it!
Do you mean Pokemon Go in particular? Because Ninty does own about a third of the franchise, but Pokemon Go was also developed with Niantic who, iirc were going to see a good chunk of Go's profits which limited what Nintendo would see.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Nintendo owning Pokémon
That was only towards Pokémon Go.
Leyasu
Banned
Lol , like what the fuck is that post? And what thread did you think that you was replying too?
FutureLarking
Member
They're independent. They're not an indie developer. Two different things.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
hmm seems like I misunderstood then, FE is owned by Nintendo, but IS is not
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
It's the same exact thing.
Chairmanchuck
Member
Crash - Sony.
CaviarMeths
Member
Yeah there's a lot of Nintendo partners that would fit perfectly in a thread of "studios commonly associated with the wrong companies."
IntSys
HAL
GameFreak
NLG
Monster
Grezzo
Ganbarion
All companies that develop almost exclusively for Nintendo platforms (with a few exceptions), but none are owned by Nintendo.
RoombaDance
Member
The general public tends to think that Nintendo makes any games appearing on Nintendo consoles. Which given their track record with third-party support is kinda half-true.
Nintendo has a whole ecosystem of "second-party" developers which produce games (nearly) exclusively for their platforms, often using Nintendo IP, but are not owned by Nintendo. For instance, Intelligent Systems, which is responsible for the Fire Emblem and Paper Mario franchises, is not owned by Nintendo despite at times sharing office buildings. Contrast this to Monolith Soft which is majority owned by Nintendo.
While the Pokemon trademark is owned by Nintendo it is managed by the Pokemon Company which is a joint venture shared with Game Freak and Creatures Inc. So Pokemon Go would have been created out of a deal between the Pokemon Company and Niantic. It's unclear how much of the profit would go to Nintendo.
Nintendo has a whole ecosystem of "second-party" developers which produce games (nearly) exclusively for their platforms, often using Nintendo IP, but are not owned by Nintendo. For instance, Intelligent Systems, which is responsible for the Fire Emblem and Paper Mario franchises, is not owned by Nintendo despite at times sharing office buildings. Contrast this to Monolith Soft which is majority owned by Nintendo.
While the Pokemon trademark is owned by Nintendo it is managed by the Pokemon Company which is a joint venture shared with Game Freak and Creatures Inc. So Pokemon Go would have been created out of a deal between the Pokemon Company and Niantic. It's unclear how much of the profit would go to Nintendo.
purseowner
Member
Youkai Watch and Professor Layton as Nintendo first-party developed titles.
The Horror the horror
Banned
A lot of people now wish they did.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
you'll wake up the ghost of a muppet
Similar threads
- Poll