This is fucking amazing. Top tier fanboy hysterics, would read again.
-
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.
Nintendo Shares Plunge 17% After Saying Pokemon Gos Impact Is Limited
- Thread starter hongcha
- Start date
This is fucking amazing. Top tier fanboy hysterics, would read again.
Or because that was pretty much all that they could take, given the number of hands in the pot.
Erf...
It's like there's only one actor in a deal involving more than 3 partners and a mega cross IP in the real world.
"They should have bought this, they should have sold that, they should have..."
The likely scenario is everyone is ok with the situation because it was dealt that way, not because a fight between these entities. It's the understanding of a mutual interest: Niantic does what it wanted, TPC and the PK owners have their killer app, Google is pushing its AR strategic investment and keeping Niantic close. Everybody is taking a cut. Everybody is winning.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Was Niantic for sale? They were an internal startup within Google before being spun off. They don't strike me as some small mom and pop startup that needed to be desperate for any influx of cash. Mind you, I'm not an expert in Silicon Valley venture capitalism. However, I just don't know if I see this as a situation where Nintendo was necessarily in a position to just buy them up even if they were more aggressive about mobile.
You do realise I've been the one that has been informing and correcting people about their involvement of late, right?
You're implying Nintendo hates themselves for being less invested and so forth. You have a lack of understanding in the Pokémon franchise ownership
That's not entirely true. They co-own Pokémon. All trademarks are under Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures Inc, not The Pokémon Company. They still own the franchise. The Pokémon Company has ownership rights, but that does not mean they own the franchise. They manage the franchise. You essentially have it a bit backwards
There have been numerous Pokémon apps, many of which got shut down within a year because they weren't profitable. Pokémon Comaster, a game that came out on iOS and Android in April, has only just hit a million downloads. Pokémon doesn't guarantee success.
Papacheeks
Banned
I take it you didn't watch the video in the link on this thread? It explains in simple terms Nintendo's stake in Pokemon. I already know about the other co-owners. What makes me a little iffed is you think my response was not talking about that? ANd my response doesn't discredit or disregard that information. I just simplified it for the person who was asking. If what i was saying was wrong then say I'm wrong.
But the video on bloomberg link literally simplifies Joe's thread in 2 minutes on what NINTENDO's involvement in the brand means and actually how much they will see from the app % wise.
Nothing I said discredits the info.
This is correct, of course. It's just using something irrelevant (correct contextual usage of prefix ftw) when the standard word makes more sense and will provide more effectiveness to your intent.
Grammar!
Papacheeks
Banned
According to Bloomberg they do not own the characters.
ANd your info literally says who owns Pokemon and it's characters which is Pokemon CO. Not Nintendo, and bloomberg video even says that.
Bloomberg are wrong. Nintendo own the characters. I monitor trademarks routinely and the registrar is always Nintendo Japan
According to Nintendo, they own the characters.
Papacheeks
Banned
If they fully did where are they getting 13% from?
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
Wrong.
Psh, English, a language that literally changes when people literally can't wrap their heads around a word's meaning.
Dreamwriter
Member
Because there's a lot more to Pokemon than just the characters, and a lot more to making a game than owning the characters. Unlike the Pokemon handheld games, Nintendo didn't even publish this game, The Pokemon Company did.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I'm not sure Nintendo is really OK with this.
Probably because this went clearly in a direction they didn't expected.
I guess the harder part was to deal with the part Google owned, but they could have easily got most of the ownership. I mean Ingress wasn't really a very successful product they could shove to the face of potential buyers.
And Nintendo has the money and the IP's to become a very attractive buyer for every mobile startup out there.
One thing is for sure, Niantic cost now WAY more with Pokemon GO that with Ingress 2 years ago.
well considering, they DIDNT develop it, they DIDNT published it, andthey DONT own the platforms where the app launched, 13% it's pretty good, lol
Hope you showed them the majestic beauty that is Stunfisk to make them see the error of their ways.
Wow.
Google....man...Google. Think they are thinking about what ifs now?
Off topic, but Google has come such a long way from being just a search engine. An amazing success story there.
Nintendo owns Pokémon and co-founded TPC. They have the final say in what happens to the franchise.
Papacheeks
Banned
But not this game correct?
Nintendo didn't publish the game plus they only own part of The Pokemon Company and an even smaller part of Niantic. 13% may not be the precise figure but it's probably somewhere in that ballpark.
Eeeeerf² ???
Business fiction right here: You Know Nothing, Jon Muscle.
I mean, it's probably the opposite you know? They're happy because that's the deal they made, that's was the goal of the deal...?
This. Most people are nostalgia fueled or jumping on the latest fad.
Well they didn't publish it unlike the mainline Pokemon games so I guess no.
You may need to check the prices of the "real" games before and after Pokemon Go, or the last UK data for various Pokemon games
I'm guessing the 13% figure can be pretty credible assuming 50/50 split between Niantic and TPC. 100%-30%(Google/Apples cut)=70% of the revenue generated. 50/50 means 35% of the initial revenue is given to each of the remaining entities. TPC is made of Nintendo and two other private entities. Split that up near equally and you get close to the 13% of the initial revenue.
Overall its a pretty fair split for everyone. It just seems that nintendo gets the shaft, but its not really the case.
Overall its a pretty fair split for everyone. It just seems that nintendo gets the shaft, but its not really the case.
They don't publish any Pokémon games outside of their own hardware.
That includes Pokémon Shuffle, which they published on 3DS, but are not mentioned in the mobile release.
They green-lit and funded the game. They have a say, but they're letting Niantic do their own thing because they're experienced in this type of game.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
The deal is one thing, what result you get of one deal is another.
I don't think is fanfiction to say that Nintendo didn't expected this outcome, because if you add Nintendo comments on mobile gaming, and Pokemon GO specifically you can see clearly that it was indeed the case.
If TPC get 30% Nintendo get 10% of the (monetization) pie.
I would bet all my amiibo their stake in all the other companies involved (Creatures, Gamefreaks, Niantic, ) account for more than 3% of the (monetization) pie.
Nintendo invested in Niantic for this game.
Nintendo also are developing Pokémon GO Plus.
The concept was developed by Iwata with Ishihara and Hanke
It's erroneous to say Nintendo have little to do here. It wouldn't have happened without Nintendo okaying it
Which is not bad given that they barely did any work on the game. The problem here is that Pokemon Go is more popular now than Pokemon itself is and Nintendo doesn't have much that can leverage that popularity.
vinnygambini
Why are strippers at the U.N. bad when they're great at strip clubs???
It is.
Nintendo is involved and was involved from the inception of the project with TPC. Why spend company resources and acquire a partial stake in its developer if you believe Pokemon GO was going to be a fluke?
You're taking what you hope/want to see as facts, I mean there's nothing supporting your kind of logic. It's like "they didn't expect to be so successful, their plan failed". Doomed?
Sure but financial wise there not the ones reaping most of the benefits and that's the key here.
That wasn't the point I was responding to, however.
Yeah, my anecdotes are like yours.
My friends and I were all up in Pokemon during the Red/Blue/Yellow days and Pokemon Go has been a nice nostalgic trip. But we aren't going back to the core games.
My girlfriend is generally a non-gamer (im converting her slowly) but she is obsessed with Pokemon Go. She asked to see what the normal games are like and i showed her videos and they didn't interest her. The draw for her with Pokemon Go is its streamlined search, capture, train and evolve routine, with the gym battles being a bonus. The mainline games add a depth that she isn't interested in.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I didn't say the expected a fluke.
Just that they didn't expected an incredible social phenomenon that is registering records in revenue in the mobile space.
Then I think I can say the same for you assertions, then?
And who's talking about "doomed" here? Only you crearly.
Nintendo might only get ~10% directly from the app (+ 1/3 of what TPC makes as a whole), but they are benefitting from increased brand awareness of their IP. Sales of 3DS Pokémon games have gone up since Pokémon Go launched.
GalacticSushiman
Member
First time I see a company releasing a PR statement with the objective to decrease its value. Humility gone too far? 
Sales have very clearly gone up for mainline Pokémon games. Not everyone is interested, but no one expected that to happen anyway.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Re: What does this mean for Sun & Moon?
I don't necessarily see any reason to go crazy in one direction or the other just yet. I know this isn't bold of me to say so, but I prefer just to wait and see. Honestly, I do think that this raises a ton of awareness for the franchise that can only mean good things for the mainline games. However, I do understand wanting to err on the side of being conservative in terms of whether or not Go players would want to pick up the traditional core games.
Basically, I'm just saying that I trust neither the "none of my friends give a shit about the handheld games" anecdotes nor the "everyone I know went out and bought a 3DS and preordered both Sun AND Moon because of Go" anecdotes.
I don't necessarily see any reason to go crazy in one direction or the other just yet. I know this isn't bold of me to say so, but I prefer just to wait and see. Honestly, I do think that this raises a ton of awareness for the franchise that can only mean good things for the mainline games. However, I do understand wanting to err on the side of being conservative in terms of whether or not Go players would want to pick up the traditional core games.
Basically, I'm just saying that I trust neither the "none of my friends give a shit about the handheld games" anecdotes nor the "everyone I know went out and bought a 3DS and preordered both Sun AND Moon because of Go" anecdotes.
Wishmaster92
Member
Wow that was quicker than i excpected.
First time I see a company releasing a PR statement with the objective to decrease its value. Humility gone too far?
The only people that benefit from a stock thats hyper over valued are the ones that would stand to gain from popping the bubble. Nintendo bursting it now means less people can take advantage of it, which is ultimately good for the company and the long term shareholders.
Wich one? That the app is super successful? That Nintendo get probably more than 13% of the micro-transactions pie?
vpance
Member
First time I see a company releasing a PR statement with the objective to decrease its value. Humility gone too far?
The drop might have regardless due to profit taking and being overbought.
For as dumb and irrational as the market can be, the true value is eventually made known.