FutureLarking
Member
Erm, no.
Indie developers develop indie games. Next Level Games is a video game developer whom is independent. All of their games are publisher financed. Not a single indie game in the list.
-
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
Erm, no.
Indie developers develop indie games. Next Level Games is a video game developer whom is independent. All of their games are publisher financed. Not a single indie game in the list.
Yep. All explained here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1008721
Though Nintendo isn't a majority owner of Creatures as far as I am aware.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
That's moving the goalpost and you know it. The unsourced definition you quoted does not support what you said.
NLG is an indie developer.
Their games are not indie games.
There's a difference. What you claimed is that an independent developer is different from an indie developer, and that's not true, it's exactly the same.
Nitpicker_Red
Member
Isn't PacMan Namco's creation and property? Or am I missing another "playing dumb" joke like saying Castlevania is not from Konami?
I think that (and my CoD example) stem from the idea that everything bad that happens is EA's fault.
Hippopuncher12
Member
People seemed to confuse Konami and Capcom a lot back in the day....not so much anymore.
Schopenhauerian
Member
QuantumSquid
Member
I always thought Nier was developed by Platinum until someone corrected me recently.
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Ultra is Venom Konami.
FutureLarking
Member
Like, read defintion of indie developer anywhere, there's no moving goalposts. Just one of us is wrong, and it's not me
Google "indie game developer".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_video_game_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indie_game_developers
Indie develoeprs make indie games. It's in the name! NLG are only independent in that fact they're owned by themselves / not beholden to some other company (although Nintendo should just buy them, they need some more dev studios in the West). They don't make indie games, so they're not an indie developer.
daTRUballin
Member
I've noticed that there's a certain group of individuals (not just from GAF, but the internet in general) that mistakenly believe that Star Fox 64 was developed by Rare. This always seemed very odd to me and never made sense. Is it because Rare made Star Fox Adventures and some people just assume they've made the other games in the series? Is it because of the anthropomorphic animal characters? What's the reason for this exactly?
Noisepurge
Member
fix this shit Guerrilla!
Scrooge McDuck
Member
Note that I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I am wondering what's the point of having such a distinction. What if a company made 99 indie games and 1 publisher-backed game? What if it's the other way around? What if it's 50-50? Which cases qualify a developer to be called an "indie developer"? If there's an indie developer that has created nothing but indie games but then got bought by a publisher, would they still be an indie developer during that time frame before they release any game under that publisher?
Wouldn't a special term for "a developer that is not beholden to some other company" more useful and concrete than a term for "a developer who have created a certain percentage of indie games during a certain time."
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I mean, what about Snipperclips? It was made back as an indie game but Nintendo bought it upon completion. So it's not an indie game anymore?
JayBabay
Member
Wow, what a coincidence. My cousin, who is an avid gamer, kept thinking this same exact thing and I couldn't for the life of me understand how or why.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
That's certainly taking those events entirely out of context.
Next Level Games is an independent company that rarely ever produces their own original IP (only 2 out of their whole catalog) and work mainly on commercial licensed games and stuff from major publishers to do things like Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon on Wii, or stuff from Nintendo.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
Final Fantasy X-2 and post-merger Square Enix
petran79
Banned
Most familiar case is Wonderboy,which was developed by Westone instead of Sega.
Mace the Dark Age was developed by Atari. Midway just handled the N64 port. Midway did only develop MK4, hence the confusion.
Same for Gauntlet Legends.
SF EX was developed by ARIKA,not Capcom.
Also some Neo Geo games were mistakingly thought to be developed by SNK. Samurai Shodown V, Waku Waku 7, Kabuki Clash, Breakers etc
Tales of Monkey Island and Sam and Max were produced by Telltale,not Lucasarts.
Jaleco was only the publisher of NES Maniac Mansion,not the developer.
Epic did not take part in the development of GBA Jazz Jackrabbit.
Mace the Dark Age was developed by Atari. Midway just handled the N64 port. Midway did only develop MK4, hence the confusion.
Same for Gauntlet Legends.
SF EX was developed by ARIKA,not Capcom.
Also some Neo Geo games were mistakingly thought to be developed by SNK. Samurai Shodown V, Waku Waku 7, Kabuki Clash, Breakers etc
Tales of Monkey Island and Sam and Max were produced by Telltale,not Lucasarts.
Jaleco was only the publisher of NES Maniac Mansion,not the developer.
Epic did not take part in the development of GBA Jazz Jackrabbit.
Charles Brandon
Member
This is my understanding (although, unless Japan has some wacky laws, I don't think company can own it's own shares in any meaningful sense).
Nintendo is the ultimate legal owner of Pokemon through its direct holding in TPC and its indirect holding in TPC through Creatures Inc and its ownership of the trademarks.
Ultimately, Nintendo controls the franchise and what Nintendo says with regard to Pokemon, goes. And that's all there is to it.
ehhhhhhhh.
Not true.
Just look at the copyright:
BK on N64:
BK on Xbox 360:
Before the Stamper bros sold Rare to Microsoft for a huge sum of money they bought back Nintendo shares for about $100 million and settle with Nintendo how the IPs would have been split between the two companies.
The deal was that Nintendo retained the IPs already owned by Nintendo before Rare worked on them (everything related to Donkey Kong and Starfox) while Rare would keep the rest.
Looking at Rare games sales under Nintendo (in relation of the new IPs Rare/Microsoft now fully owns) it is easy to spot why Nintendo was favourable to such IPs split.
In fact the IPs bought by Microsoft with the acquisition of Rare composed less than 25% of Rare total sales.
EDIT:
FE rights are cross joined between Nintendo and Intelligent System which isn't owned by Nintendo.
Same for Kirby and HAL or Pokémon and Game Freak.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
Again moving goalposts.Like, read defintion of indie developer anywhere, there's no moving goalposts. Just one of us is wrong, and it's not me
Google "indie game developer".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_video_game_development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indie_game_developers
Indie develoeprs make indie games. It's in the name! NLG are only independent in that fact they're owned by themselves / not beholden to some other company (although Nintendo should just buy them, they need some more dev studios in the West). They don't make indie games, so they're not an indie developer.
The first article talks about indie game development, not developers, so it's nothing new and not what we are talking about, except that you insist to mix indie developer with indie development.
The second article has an inaccurate definition of indie developers and then lists developers, many that haven't even made indie games, like Hello Games that made NMS, with the backing of a big publisher, the basic rule of an indie game broken right there, thus breaking the definition of the same article, they are an indie developer that made a non indie game.
Indie developer = independent developer = developer that isn't part of a bigger company.
Indie game = videogame developed without the backing of a publisher.
It's not that hard, the size of the company doesn't matter, the games they develop don't matter.
What if Nintendo payed Thomas Happ games to develop a new 2D Metroid game?
Would that game be an indie? No.
Would Thomas Happ games stop being an indie developer? No.
Would the game be awesome? Hell yeah!
Pac Man made it's mark in the pre-NES era so for a while the most common home version were on Atari machines
Honestly, you find it happens with a lot of pre-NES games. I bet if you asked most people who made Space Invaders they'd say Atari.
openrob
Member
I may be wrong but...
The Pokémon franchise is owned by Game Freak, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. 1 third each.
Nintendo and Gamefreak jointly own The Pokemon Company.
Nintendo owns the rights to the characters.
I think...
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Creatures also is part of TPC.
No one ever thinks about the fact that Space Invaders, Darius, Arkanoid, and Bubble Bobble are all owned by Square-Enix.
I have made this mistake in the past, even regarding original DMC as a nice evolution of Catlevania in 3D.
D.Lo
Member
Square-Enix themselves being a bastard merger company.
Could be worse I guess. Could be Alex Kidd and Sonic, owned by a pachinko company. Or Bomberman and Bonk, owned by a fitness club/slot machine company.
Similar threads
- Poll