Support NeoGAF

[maxiell]

Even if they aren't directly reaping the benefits from the app, there already seems to be carryover to other parts of their business.

The real problem is that with this success in mind, they are still almost a year from launching their new hardware, they have announced absolutely nothing for it or about it, and they don't seem to be in a position to capitalize on what they have created here.

 

[Chaos17]

Doing some reading I see Google still is involved with Niantic in some ways.

Smart move to not be completely removed from them.

Found this

SAN FRANCISCO—Oct. 15, 2015— Real world games maker Niantic, Inc. has raised their Series A financing round from The Pokémon Company Group, Google and Nintendo. The companies are investing up to $30 million in Niantic, Inc., which includes an initial $20 million upfront and an additional $10 million conditioned upon achieving certain milestones. Niantic, Inc. will leverage the funding and strategic relationships to continue work on Pokémon GO, support its thriving global Ingress community, scale its platform and bring new games to market.

http://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-n...he-pokemon-company-group-google-and-nintendo/

 

[N.Grim]

Sales of 3DS Pokémon games have gone up since Pokémon Go launched.

But my granma don't want to buy the real games so this is false.

Logic of some people

 

[Asd202]

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.

Pretty much I don't expect a huge spike in sales for Sun/Moon. Go is a totally different beast.

 

[Elchele]

Why didn't Nintendo develope the game themselves?

Just because they want to make people believe they still just develop for their own consoles? Seems very childish if that's the case.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Wich one? That the app is super successful? That Nintendo get probably more than 13% of the micro-transactions pie?

That Nintendo is looking at the contract they signed with Niantic, then look at the money at the table they are losing, not being fully in control of the development of an incredible successful product so they can change it, add new things on their own and say:"Yeah, I'm fine with this".

If you say my opinion on the matter is fueled by my "hopes" (whatever these are..), I can say that your opinion is also fueled by your hopes. I would bet your amiibo stash on it.

 

[Busaiku]

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.

The latter has been occurring though.
Maybe not quite to that extent, but it's been positive for the franchise at large.

Sales of the games are up in UK (as well as merchandise amd hardware sales here) and Japan.
Pokémon sales were also up in Gamestop.

 

[N.Grim]

Why didn't Nintendo develope the game themselves?

Just because they want to make people believe they still just develop for their own consoles? Seems very childish if that's the case.

This is Pokemon, they don't even develop the mainline games, other mobile title are developed directly by Nintendo

 

[GalacticSushiman]

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.

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.

100% aligned with you guys, it's just asking politely for the correction to happen while it's not too late (which could have catastrophic impact on the company as a whole). It's just that in a world where PR departments are working hard to mask / stretch / change reality to ensure the maximum short term value, doing the opposite feel bold/courageous but also crazy

 

[BGBW]

Why didn't Nintendo develope the game themselves?

Just because they want to make people believe they still just develop for their own consoles? Seems very childish if that's the case.

Is this the first game that Nintendo has had another developer make that you've learnt of?

 

[DrWong]

That Nintendo is looking at the contract they signed with Niantic, then look at the money at the table they are losing, not being fully in control of the development of an incredible successful product so they can change it, add new things on their own and say:"Yeah, I'm fine with this".

If you say my opinion on the matter is fueled by my "hopes" (whatever these are..), I can say that your opinion is also fueled by your hopes. I would bet your amiibo stash on it.

But they already knew all of that and it's why the deal was done the way it was.

Do you think they made the deal hoping it'd be marginally successful? Do you move with you biggest IP, injecting money in another company directly (and indirectly through TPC investment in Niantic), okeying a 27millions $ dollar trailer, doing a press conference with Niantic, planning an additional product ww (the pkgoplus)... but only expect a not too great success?

 

[Zalman]

Why didn't Nintendo develope the game themselves?

Just because they want to make people believe they still just develop for their own consoles? Seems very childish if that's the case.

Why don't Nintendo develop Kirby games themselves? What about Fire Emblem?

 

[vinnygambini]

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.

Outside of software sales & trademark licensing revenues, Nintendo does not directly receive any income generated from the Pokemon IP, TPC does.

As per usual, TPC involved Nintendo in developing Pokemon GO (through hardware) and a ownership stake was negotiated with Niantic for them to benefit and maintain a certain control on their IP (TPC licensed Pokemon IP to Niantic & helped development).

This is a textbook example of how TPC & Nintendo operate when it comes to the Pokemon IP (Genius Sonority)

Would TPC & Nintendo have wanted a bigger stake? Of course. But that's not what was on the table with the founders of Niantic & Google - they invested in talent.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

But they already knew all of that and it's why the deal was done the it was.

Do you think they made the deal hoping it'd be marginally successful? Do you move with you biggest IP, injecting money in another company directly (and indirectly through TPC investment in Ninatic), okeying a 27millions $ dollar trailer, doing a press conference with Niantic, planning an additional product ww (the pkgoplus)... but only expect a "reasonable" success?

Yes?

Is not like we are talking about GTA $100 million marketing, not even way less succesful mobile games marketing efforts here...

 

[JoeM86]

Why didn't Nintendo develope the game themselves?

Just because they want to make people believe they still just develop for their own consoles? Seems very childish if that's the case.

Nintendo rarely develop Pokémon games themselves. However, like this, they give advice, support, engines and design peripherals in conjunction with the developers

 

[DrWong]

Yes?

Is not like we are talking about GTA $100 million marketing, not even way less succesful mobile games marketing efforts here...

"Yes"?

Ok then.

 

[InsaneTiger]

I thought Nintendo owned all of Pokemon, didn't know it was only about a third and Game Freaks and Creatures own the rest. After Apple and Google take their cut, Nintendo is not left with a lot of money from the MT.

 

[LordRaptor]

Would TPC & Nintendo have wanted a bigger stake? Of course. But that's not what was on the table with the founders of Niantic & Google - they invested in talent.

Nobody actually knows what stake Nintendo got do they?
I would imagine they received a higher stake than as just cash investors, given they had executives from Nintendo working directly with Niantic, and the pokemon IP itself has had a significant contribution to the success of the product.

Seems like the sort of deal where you would give more equity to an active participating partner contributing something of value than to a sleeping cash investment.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Outside of software sales & trademark licensing revenues, Nintendo does not directly receive any income generated from the Pokemon IP, TPC does.

As per usual, TPC involved Nintendo in developing Pokemon GO (through hardware) and a ownership stake was negotiated with Niantic for them to benefit and maintain a certain control on their IP (TPC licensed Pokemon IP to Niantic & helped development).

This is a textbook example of how TPC & Nintendo operate when it comes to the Pokemon IP.

Would TPC & Nintendo have wanted a bigger stake? Of course. But that's not what was on the table with the founders of Niantic & Google - they invested in talent.

That wasn't on the table because it wasn't pursued at all. That's the point.

Niantic and Google had a failed experiment named Ingress, is hard to believe they wouldn't have even looked at the chance to be bought by Nintendo. Specially Google, because having Nintendo way more involved in mobile is even better for them at long term.

 

[4Tran]

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.

Sun and Moon should see a spike from Go, but it probably won't be a huge one. There are two main reason - the first is that Pokemon is already a very well known quantity, so the heightened awareness won't do much for its main fanbase. The second is that the regular Pokemon games don't have a lot of the selling points that people find appealing in Pokemon Go. The primary of these is that it can't be played on their cellphones, but there are a ton of other ones as well. And really, for all of these new fans, the old 3DS games are as much of a new Pokemon experience as Sun and Moon will be. I think that what will happen is that some lapsed fans of the older games will come back into the fold and they will account for most of the spike.

 

[Milly Osworth]

That wasn't on the table because it wasn't pursued at all. That's the point.

Niantic and Google had a failed experiment named Ingress, is hard to believe they wouldn't have even looked at the chance to be bought by Nintendo. Specially Google, because having Nintendo way more involved in mobile is even better for them at long term.

Yep, seems like Nintendo got the short end of the stick all in all.

 

[Chaos17]

I thought Nintendo owned all of Pokemon, didn't know it was only about a third and Game Freaks and Creatures own the rest. After Apple and Google take their cut, Nintendo is not left with a lot of money from the MT.

Well, owning the characters kinda mean everything without their accord Pokemon Go would've been never born. That's the part that Iwata played the biggest since he was the CEO and was really strich with candidates.

 

[vinnygambini]

Nobody actually knows what stake Nintendo got do they?

Nobody does sadly - the analysts are estimating an "effective economic stake" 13 percent in the app. That tells me nothing concrete and they could be wrong, and have been wrong, especially when it comes to Pokemon ownership.

That wasn't on the table because it wasn't pursued at all. That's the point.

Niantic and Google had a failed experiment named Ingress, is hard to believe they wouldn't have even looked at the chance to be bought by Nintendo. Specially Google, because having Nintendo way more involved in mobile is even better for them at long term.

We don't even know what % of ownership Nintendo has in Niantic. $30M funding round with a failed game and Nintendo leaving with 13% only does not make sense either. What's TPC's stake in it too? We don't know shit. 13% is based on an analyst estimate and they could be wrong, and when it comes to Pokemon and Nintendo, they are mostly always wrong.

 

[4Tran]

That wasn't on the table because it wasn't pursued at all. That's the point.

Niantic and Google had a failed experiment named Ingress, is hard to believe they wouldn't have even looked at the chance to be bought by Nintendo. Specially Google, because having Nintendo way more involved in mobile is even better for them at long term.

There's no way that Niantic would have said no if Nintendo was willing to put say $200M on the table. To be fair to Nintendo though, they weren't in a position to offer that kind of money, and they probably didn't have any institutional willingness to make that kind of investment. It must burn though that Niantic is probably making more money off of Pokemon than Nintendo is right now.

We don't even know what % of ownership Nintendo has in Niantic. $30M funding round with a failed game and Nintendo leaving with 13% only does not make sense either. What's TPC's stake in it too? We don't know shit.

It's obvious that their ownership stake is pretty small. Around 10% seems to be pretty typical in this kind of arrangement.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

"Yes"?

Ok then.

Game of War had also a Super Bowl ad, does that mean that Machine Zone expected to break revenue records on mobile gaming surpassing supercell or that being in the Top 10 app charts does bring a considerable amount of money without needing to become a phenomenon that even creates headlines on mainstream journaslism media?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

That wasn't on the table because it wasn't pursued at all. That's the point.

Niantic and Google had a failed experiment named Ingress, is hard to believe they wouldn't have even looked at the chance to be bought by Nintendo. Specially Google, because having Nintendo way more involved in mobile is even better for them at long term.

I sort of feel like Nintendo aggressively Niantic and Niantic/Google welcoming this only becomes an obvious arrangement if you simultaneously assume that Niantic was sheepish on Pokemon Go because of Ingress and Nintendo surmises that it's obviously going to blow up to the extent that it did. I mean, sure, in hindsight maybe Nintendo wishes that they had a bigger share of Niantic. But who knows? I don't really agree with this "Nintendo really screwed up here" analysis at all. It's based on way too many 20/20 hindsight assumptions.

 

[Teletraan1]

While Nintendo is being so truthy, please tell us what the fuck the NX is!

 

[domlolz]

This is fucking amazing. Top tier fanboy hysterics, would read again.

too spicey for you?

edit:not really fanboy hysterics either, its not isolated to nintendo, i wouldnt want any good developer taking mobile seriously. im just very anti mobile gaming.

 

[vinnygambini]

It's obvious that their ownership stake is pretty small. Around 10% seems to be pretty typical in this kind of arrangement.

No it doesn't.

Nintendo & TPC usually get controlling stakes when it comes to the Pokemon IP - they act as one unit.

We need ownership details of both

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Okay, in retrospect, seeing how much money was lost, was it actually a wise decision to say this? I know the value would have gone down eventually, but on the outside this appears to be one hell of a hit.

 

[4Tran]

No it doesn't.

Nintendo & TPC usually get controlling stakes when it comes to the Pokemon IP - they act as one unit.

We need ownership details of both

If Nintendo had a larger stake in Niantic they wouldn't have felt the need to release this PR and this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I sort of feel like Nintendo aggressively Niantic and Niantic/Google welcoming this only becomes an obvious arrangement if you simultaneously assume that Niantic was sheepish on Pokemon Go because of Ingress and Nintendo surmises that it's obviously going to blow up to the extent that it did. I mean, sure, in hindsight maybe Nintendo wishes that they had a bigger share of Niantic. But who knows? I don't really agree with this "Nintendo really screwed up here" analysis at all. It's based on way too many 20/20 hindsight assumptions.

If Nintendo had a proper strategy for mobile, I don't believe they would have bought Niantic only in the case of believing that the game would had become an extreme success. Considering the capabilities of Niantic are in areas Nintendo dosn't have much expertize, it would have been a proper acquisition as a first foothold in the market. And they clearly believed that is some capacity, thus the acquisition of part of the company.

I don't believe Nintendo really screwed here, other than getting much less money of the deal as they could have, in fact, is not like their entire mobile business depended of this move. But it goes to show how limited is their vision and strategy of the mobile market.

 

[GregLombardi]

Okay, in retrospect, seeing how much money was lost, was it actually a wise decision to say this? I know the value would have gone down eventually, but on the outside this appears to be one hell of a hit.

No. Nintendo are idiots.

Unless they are intending to buy more shares of themselves at a lower price. But that would be considered illegal by the SEC, to try to bring your own share price down so you could buy shares.

Not only did they issue a statement saying they dont benefit when that clearly isnt the case ( since they own TPC) but now they are letting the 13% rumor go unanswered yet again.

I see why they did what they did but it literally makes no sense why they chose to release that dumbass statement now.

 

[vinnygambini]

If Nintendo had a larger stake in Niantic they wouldn't have felt the need to release this PR and this thread wouldn't exist.

Wut?

They released the press details to provide ownership information of the Pokemon IP because many publications associate Pokemon to Nintendo directly.

Side note, Nintendo has never disclosed publicly what their equity stake in Creatures Inc is, and once again analyst peg it at 10%, but that could be wrong. It's par of the course for Nintendo.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Time to buy stock in anticipation for mobile animal crossing craze

 

[Papacheeks]

That wasn't the point I was responding to, however.

It was actually my entire point. And iwata's involvement when it was in the works was little to mostly talks with Niantic, Tsunekazu Ishihara. Miyamoto's involvement was with teh bluetooth watch that is 100% from Nintendo.

It's also worth noting that Nintendo, along with The Pokémon Company and Google, invested $20-30m in Niantic last year.

Eurogamer Article

 

[~Cross~]

No. Nintendo are idiots.

Unless they are intending to buy more shares of themselves at a lower price. But that would be considered illegal by the SEC, to try to bring your own share price down so you could buy shares.

Not only did they issue a statement saying they dont benefit when that clearly isnt the case ( since they own TPC) but now they are letting the 13% rumor go unanswered yet again.

I see why they did what they did but it literally makes no sense why they chose to release that dumbass statement now.

What the fuck. None of this is true.

The only benefit they would have had as a company was to sell more stock at the inflated price knowing full well the company was over valued on faulty expectations. It would have been borderline criminal to do something like that.

 

[LordRaptor]

Not only did they issue a statement saying they dont benefit when that clearly isnt the case ( since they own TPC) but now they are letting the 13% rumor go unanswered yet again.

People who take Professional analysts public - unpaid - statements at face value and invest accordingly are the idiots, not Nintendo for not doing analysts jobs for them.

A professional analysts insight is worth money.
That's why they do it as a job.
They don't give out hot investment tips for free for shits and giggles, and if they do you should ask yourself what benefit they will receive by doing so.

This applies to all analysts giving out public analysis for free.

e:
For example, if one of that analysts clients were short selling Nintendo stock, it would be super useful to put out an earnings estimate implying Nintendos ownership (and therefore rate of return) is at the very bottom band of conceivable earnings.

 

[Vena]

If Nintendo had a larger stake in Niantic they wouldn't have felt the need to release this PR and this thread wouldn't exist.

Its not the stake in Niantic. Its the stake in this project, and I find 13% to be downright unbelievable and an analyst lowball (do not listen to public analyst opinion). Nintendo has a trademark cut that will generally come off of the top of the earnings along with Google/Apple's 30% cut off of the storefront. There is no way I find "13%" as a believable figure.

They have 33%-base ownership in TPC directly, an unknown ownership in Creatures Inc. (its not 10%, that is a made up analyst guess, it has never been disclosed), and a Trademark ownership cut for the characters and Pokemon property. There is a further a large investment from both Google and Nintendo in Niantic directly, and we have no idea how this is being handled whether its shares of the company (as it is private) or funding directly into the project with kick-backs from Niantic's earnings.

There is next to zero chance that Niantic is somehow making more money than Nintendo in this deal. However, if they follow operation as they normally do with external Pokemon projects, the earnings here will not be directly on their own projections but in equity accounting on the side through TPC. Due to this nature of reporting, TPC gains or Pokemon gains on project not directly tied to the mainline games that Nintendo publishes (which will go back to Nintendo) do not show up on the earning sheet directly under Nintendo's own earnings. If the only thing Nintendo is going to factor in to their direct reporting from this app are a trademark cut, then... ya, its not going to amount to much relative to the rest of their business and isn't going to magically swing their reports to some stratospheric highs.

 

[domlolz]

Time to buy stock in anticipation for mobile animal crossing craze

animal crossing is nowhere near as big as pokemon

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

The biggest thing Nintendo has ever done is not even developed or published by Nintendo

They really should have fully embraced mobile

 

[ChrisMahoney]

Nintendo's stock is still up over 61% since the release of Pokemon Go. That context should be in the OP

 

[Savitar]

Can't lie, I expected more than "limited" myself.

 

[4Tran]

Its not the stake in Niantic. Its the stake in this project, and I find 13% to be downright unbelievable and an analyst lowball (do not listen to public analyst opinion). Nintendo has a trademark cut that will generally come off of the top of the earnings along with Google/Apple's 30% cut off of the storefront. There is no way I find "13%" as a believable figure.

You can choose to disbelieve the PR if you want to, but it probably makes more sense to take it at face value.

 

[Plinko]

The biggest thing Nintendo has ever done is not even developed or published by Nintendo

They really should have fully embraced mobile

They are. They have 5 mobile games scheduled for release in the next 6 months.

 

[AgeEighty]

It's a joke. Forget the 14-page thread posted last week?

Didn't see it. I don't read every thread.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

They are. They have 5 mobile games scheduled for release in the next 6 months.

Unless Mario is part of that release of mobile games, they're not fully embracing mobile

 

[Vena]

You can choose to disbelieve the PR if you want to, but it probably makes more sense to take it at face value.

What? I have already stated that the market reactions were overblown to begin with, this was never sustainable, but the fact that people continue to misunderstand Nintendo's role and earnings here is another matter (and was what I was talking about).

 

[The Boat]

You can choose to disbelieve the PR if you want to, but it probably makes more sense to take it at face value.

What PR?
As a rule of thumb, taking things at face value is a bad idea.

 

[JoeM86]

The biggest thing Nintendo has ever done is not even developed or published by Nintendo

They really should have fully embraced mobile

Why?

I fail to see this logic. You do realise there are many Pokémon apps that have already been released to little success

Also there are 5 Nintendo Mobile games coming. They've embraced it