Support NeoGAF

[MrCunningham]

Visually the game looks... kind of cool. It has a bit of a Viewtiful Joe vibe , but with an elephant. But I am still a bit sad that it isn't a Pulseman sequel.

It is still weird that Game Freak isn't targeting the Wii-U with this one.But I guess there is a reason why they created the Pokemon Company... so the Game Freak name can stay independent.

 

[Quadraphonic]

Game Freak created it. They made a deal where ownership is split. The Pokémon Company was created to deal with the franchise away from the games. Ownership is split nearly equally between Game Freak, Nintendo and Creatures Inc.

Pokémon was never owned entirely by Nintendo. This is a large part of why Pokémon was conspicuously absent from NintendoLand and Mario Kart 8 amiibo functionality

It's amazing how often this needs to be repeated. Of course, it seems to be happening more and more often lately, like with the Pokemon apps on iOS/Android or the Amiibo things.

 

[Zubz]

On the one hand, that "it didn't look good on a mock-up poster" malarky is single-handedly the weakest excuse for not putting a game on a Nintendo console yet. It may not be as devious as EA releasing ME3 on the Wii U within a week of literally every other viable platform getting the entire trilogy at the same price, but it's Game Freak and Sega; throw in Namco, Yacht Club, WayForward, & Platinum Games and you have every 3rd Party that legitimately tried with the Wii U. You'd think if anyone'd give an eShop release a shot, it'd be those two.

On the other hand, I love GameFreak's non-Pokemon games. The fact that Drill Dozer hasn't gotten a sequel should be considered a crime. This game definitely looks like HarmoKnight, too, but the gameplay seems fun, in a goofy sort of way. The title's pretty cool as well. It's kinda early to tell for sure, but I think I'll be picking this up on Steam when it comes out!

 

[JoeM86]

It's amazing how often this needs to be repeated. Of course, it seems to be happening more and more often lately, like with the Pokemon apps on iOS/Android or the Amiibo things.

Many are pushing for me to post an article detailing this (among other parts of Pokémon's factual history) on my site. Thought it was overkill until recently.

Going to write a brief for it this weekend and get started.

 

[2+2=5]

When i saw at the thumbs i thought it was a bad game, but then i saw the trailer and man it's amazing!
Ironically(because the main character is an elephant) it reminds me of Sonic.

 

[SmithnCo]

I know the whole Game Freak deal, but not even on a Nintendo system really is shocking. Damn. Feels kinda bad, like they betrayed Nintendo or something lol.

Them exercising some independence is a good thing.

Game kinda looks like the Rambi sections of DKC.

 

[Sendou]

Why is your new game not coming out for Wii U?

When I was writing the presentation documents for this game, I drew a mockup poster, and I put the Steam, PlayStation, and Xbox logos at the bottom. It seemed to fit, and it happened to stick that way.

How can you not laugh at that? Just be honest.

 

[Sterok]

Oh Gamefreak. At least try and give a decent explanation of why you're skipping Wii U. Yeah it's probably Sega's call, but still. Anyway I liked Harmoknight, so I might get this.

 

[1337]

Trailer looks really cool. Might have to pick this one up!

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Looks alright.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

whoa this looks good. shocked at Game Freak as well.

 

[StevieP]

Looks pretty great, but there's really no need for yet another 2D platformer, so I unfortunately wouldn't buy it anytime soon.
Gotta appreciate how these two companies in particular are trolling Nintendo here though, lol.

Colour me surprised

Of course it's legit, other than stuff like Just Dance and Skylanders, multiplat games do terribly on Wii U... like unimaginably poorly.

This is a platformer. Those tend to do better than on the other platforms outside of 3ds/pc/mobile, which also has a healthy market for platformers

 

[VanWinkle]

Looks so much like DKC from the trailer. Which really excites me.

 

[Dicer]

Dat Wii U excuse...

 

[antibolo]

The irony of a Game Freak game being released on every home platform except Wii U is pretty fucking brutal.

At this point 3rd parties are just deliberately being dicks to the Wii U. Even Sega!

 

[Weiner Whistle]

Game Freak created it. They made a deal where ownership is split. The Pokémon Company was created to deal with the franchise away from the games. Ownership is split nearly equally between Game Freak, Nintendo and Creatures Inc.

Pokémon was never owned entirely by Nintendo. This is a large part of why Pokémon was conspicuously absent from NintendoLand and Mario Kart 8 amiibo functionality

But isn't Creatures Inc. owned by Nintendo as well? Wouldn't that mean they actually own two-thirds of the rights to the property?

 

[Stilton Disco]

Even if this didn't look brilliantly fun (which it does), I'd be there day one just to support the weirdness of Game Freak making a game for everyone but Nintendo.

And now I quietly hope this somehow opens the path to a full 3D Pokemon game on PS4!

 

[JoeM86]

But isn't Creatures Inc. owned by Nintendo as well? Wouldn't that mean they actually own two-thirds of the rights to the property?

People say so based on Creatures Inc.'s wikipedia page, but it never shows up in Nintendo's financials lists of subsidiaries while The Pokémon Company does. They might, but there's no evidence to support it except that Creatures Inc's predecessor, Ape Inc., was owned by them.

Even if this didn't look brilliantly fun (which it does), I'd be there day one just to support the weirdness of Game Freak making a game for everyone but Nintendo.

And now I quietly hope this somehow opens the path to a full 3D Pokemon game on PS4!

Impossible. Nintendo still owns a good chunk of Pokémon trademarks, as well as co-owning the IP.

 

[philion]

Looks so much like DKC from the trailer. Which really excites me.

Same banana collecting sound fx's too.

 

[evilromero]

Many are pushing for me to post an article detailing this (among other parts of Pokémon's factual history) on my site. Thought it was overkill until recently.

Going to write a brief for it this weekend and get started.

I don't believe it's an even split as you say, since the details of the Pokemon IP have to be outlined to fully understand proper ownership. From what I understand, and I can't recall where I read this, Nintendo owns the Pokemon creature names, character names, Pokemon logo and other elements similar to that. It's why at the end of the cartoon in the 90s it would simply say "Copyright Nintendo" and nothing else, which changed in 2001 to Pokemon.

I mean, if we're saying the Pokemon IP is evenly split between the three companies then you raise the issue of Nintendo's partial ownership of Creatures, which changes the ownership stake of TPC and Pokemon.

Also, prior to TPC, Nintendo did in fact manage everything Pokemon. It would be foolish to think that it doesn't benefit Nintendo to have TPC operating as an independent entity, which most likely includes a significant tax incentive to have two billion dollar enterprises separate. At the end of the day Nintendo invested the capital to launch the franchise, which includes way more than the core games- but a plethora of Pokemon-branded software titles.

 

[El Pescado]

Game Freak created it. They made a deal where ownership is split. The Pokémon Company was created to deal with the franchise away from the games. Ownership is split nearly equally between Game Freak, Nintendo and Creatures Inc.

Pokémon was never owned entirely by Nintendo. This is a large part of why Pokémon was conspicuously absent from NintendoLand and Mario Kart 8 amiibo functionality

Ok, wait, so is it actually possible for a mainline Pokemon title to go multi platform?

 

[JoeM86]

I don't believe it's an even split as you say, since the details of the Pokemon IP have to be outlined to fully understand proper ownership. From what I understand, and I can't recall where I read this, Nintendo owns the Pokemon creature names, character names, Pokemon logo and other elements similar to that. It's why at the end of the cartoon in the 90s it would simply say "Copyright Nintendo" and nothing else, which changed in 2001 to Pokemon.

I mean, if we're saying the Pokemon IP is evenly split between the three companies then you raise the issue of Nintendo's partial ownership of Creatures, which changes the ownership stake of TPC and Pokemon.

Also, prior to TPC, Nintendo did in fact manage everything Pokemon. It would be foolish to think that it doesn't benefit Nintendo to have TPC operating as an independent entity, which most likely includes a significant tax incentive to have two billion dollar enterprises separate. At the end of the day Nintendo invested the capital to launch the franchise, which includes way more than the core games- but a plethora of Pokemon-branded software titles.

Well yeah, it is a bit more complicated than I am portraying it here, but getting full into trademarks etc. would just confuse people, when I'm trying to make it simple to understand

We still have no evidence/information of Nintendo's alleged ownership of Creatures Inc., however.

Ok, wait, so is it actually possible for a mainline Pokemon title to go multi platform?

Not a chance in hell, no. Only way it could happen is for Nintendo to go multiplatform, and that's not happening.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

Not releasing this on Wii U is absolutely crazy. Not only is it Game Freak....it's a 2D platformer! A Nintendo console is basically the best place for a game like this to do well.

Not that it personally matters all that much to me. My XB1 is ready, as this looks great!

 

[El Odio]

Rambo? More like Rambi with all those DKC vibes this gives off. That peanut pick up SFX sounds like a slightly modified banana one.

 

[Danthrax]

This looks really fun and funny. I'm in for one on Steam.

 

[El Pescado]

Not a chance in hell, no. Only way it could happen is for Nintendo to go multiplatform, and that's not happening.

Ok

What did all of this have to do with Pokemon not being in Nintendoland and Amiibo functionality in Mario Kart though? Just Nintendo not 100% owning the property?

 

[JoeM86]

Ok

What did all of this have to do with Pokemon not being in Nintendoland and Amiibo functionality in Mario Kart though? Just Nintendo not 100% owning the property?

Pretty much, yeah. As Nintendo don't own the whole IP, it makes things complicated.

 

[MaLDo]

More like awesome decision. The hit-pause gives the combat a sense of impact. I loved it in Wind Waker and from the looks of it I'll love it here.

What the real fuuu... '

 

[Ridley327]

Ok

What did all of this have to do with Pokemon not being in Nintendoland and Amiibo functionality in Mario Kart though? Just Nintendo not 100% owning the property?

That's on The Pokemon Company. If they say they don't want that that representation in those games, then there won't be.

 

[Shiggy]

We still have no evidence/information of Nintendo's alleged ownership of Creatures Inc., however.

If they were owned by Nintendo, such information would need to be published in the annual report, right?

 

[labaronx]

Looks cool

 

[evilromero]

Well yeah, it is a bit more complicated than I am portraying it here, but getting full into trademarks etc. would just confuse people, when I'm trying to make it simple to understand

We still have no evidence/information of Nintendo's alleged ownership of Creatures Inc., however.



Not a chance in hell, no. Only way it could happen is for Nintendo to go multiplatform, and that's not happening.

At the moment my main evidence is Wikipedia, which through a search recognizes Creatures as a subsidiary and additionally listing Nintendo as the parent company. This is also how I've always known it, similar to how despite Retro being a subsidiary is still recognized at the beginning of games and as a developer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatures_(company) though no citation is listed.

Also of note about the president Hip Tanaka, famous for his Metroid and Kid Icarus soundtracks among others:

At the advice of EarthBound (1994) co-worker Tsunekazu Ishihara, Tanaka would join Creatures as a guest composer, where he would end up composing multiple songs for the first Japanese Pokémon anime.[3] Despite the fact that his themes were not used in the West, they inspired best-selling singles and albums in Japan due to their popularity there. Tanaka was eventually forbidden by Nintendo to continue to write more songs for the anime due to their policy of not allowing employees to work for other companies, so he resigned at Nintendo and joined Creatures full-time in 1999.[3]

I'm sure that Nintendo would have to list Creatures as a subsidiary for legal reasons in Japan, but I could be wrong. And they may be the parent company but choose to not have them listed in their quarterly financials.

 

[evilromero]

That's on The Pokemon Company. If they say they don't want that that representation in those games, then there won't be.

That's not entirely true, since TPC licenses the characters and name with Nintendo along with Creatures and GF. http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2006/061026e.pdf#page=2

You have to remember that before TPC Nintendo managed the Pokemon brand.

 

[Nocturnowl]

Gosh darn, it's like a game of Rambi the Rhino destruction goodness, that and I like Turner's art style, I'm on board.
Those are some fine inspirations for this title.

 

[MrSaturn99]

That's, uh, random.

Count me in.

 

[Nillansan]

It looks like a ton of fun.

 

[Maintenance]

And now I quietly hope this somehow opens the path to a full 3D Pokemon game on PS4!

Bwahaha.

 

[Hot Coldman]

That sure looks like a James Turner joint

 

[Ramenman]

Glad someone is still making a silly game likes this for PC and Consoles.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

Kind of reminds me of Viewtiful Joe without the combat.

 

[JoeM86]

If they were owned by Nintendo, such information would need to be published in the annual report, right?

Pretty much, yeah. At the very least, it'd appear in their list of subsidiaries that comes up every year or so

 

[Kouriozan]

Looks interesting.
Still hoping for an HarmoKnight sequel too, someday.

Kinda funny that most people thought it would be a mobile endless runner.

 

[vinnygambini]

People didn't read what I wrote on the Pokemon franchise and ownership ;.;

Edit:

Nintendo own the publishing rights to the Pokemon franchise in the video game space.

The money generated through software sales pass through Nintendo's financials firstly, and are then re-distributed to The Pokemon Company as they are co-publishers. Thus, the bulk of the money goes to Nintendo, and then a small percentage is given to TPC.

Nintendo holds certain trademarks pertaining to the Pokemon franchise, such as the Pokemon logo, and Pokemon character names among others.

In addition, Nintendo holds a 32% interest in The Pokemon Company, and a small percentage in Creatures Inc (sadly Nintendo does not want to disclose the amount/percentage).

 

[JoeM86]

People don't read what I wrote on the Pokemon franchise and ownership ;.;

Welcome to my life

 

[Chao]

That does look a bit too much like Viewtiful Joe!

 

[evilromero]

If they were owned by Nintendo, such information would need to be published in the annual report, right?

One thing that I'm not clear on is whether Nintendo is legally obligated by Japanese commerce law to shows financials for all subsidiaries and what they define as a subsidiary. It may be they certainly do own a part of Creatures, Inc but that it is not considered a subsidiary. I don't know.

And make no mistake, having Pokemon apps on mobile devices is not a hit to Nintendo. It's a boon. Anytime the Pokemon brand succeeds, Nintendo benefits. Do you really think the maker of Pulseman just had an IP that blew up over night? That's not how business works. It was carefully orchestrated with a multifaceted marketing strategy to reach as many kids as possible. A small development studio does not do these kinds of things.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

People say so based on Creatures Inc.'s wikipedia page, but it never shows up in Nintendo's financials lists of subsidiaries while The Pokémon Company does. They might, but there's no evidence to support it except that Creatures Inc's predecessor, Ape Inc., was owned by them.

It's not owned by Nintendo. If we're going by Wikipedia pages, then the Japanese one claims that Nintendo has only a 10% investment in it.

If you go by their website, they play up their relationship with The Pokémon Company and don't really mention Nintendo. I'm sure this is due largely in part to Tsunekazu Ishihara, CEO of The Pokémon Company, being the founder and previous CEO of Creatures and residing as the chairman even today.

 

[vinnygambini]

It's not owned by Nintendo. If we're going by Wikipedia pages, then the Japanese one claims that Nintendo has only a 10% investment in it.

If you go by their website, they play up their relationship with The Pokémon Company and don't really mention Nintendo. I'm sure this is due largely in part to Tsunekazu Ishihara, CEO of The Pokémon Company, being the founder and previous CEO of Creatures and residing as the chairman even today.

I spoke with Nintendo IR recently and these are the questions I asked & the answers that came with them:

1. What is the percentage ownership of Creatures Inc and GameFreak respectively?

(Response)
We are not disclosing the percentage of ownership of Creatures Inc. and
GAME FREAK inc. I ask for your kind understanding.

2. Do Nintendo own a stake in those companies?

(Response)
Nintendo has a stake in Creatures Inc. but we are not disclosing the
ownership ratio.
Nintendo does not have a stake in GAME FREAK inc.

As you can see, a very Nintendo-esque answer. Please understand.

 

[JoeM86]

I spoke with Nintendo IR recently and these are the questions I asked & the answers that came with them:



As you can see, a very Nintendo-esque answer. Please understand.

That's what I wanted to hear. Thanks

 

[Shiggy]

One thing that I'm not clear on is whether Nintendo is legally obligated by Japanese commerce law to shows financials for all subsidiaries and what they define as a subsidiary. It may be they certainly do own a part of Creatures, Inc but that it is not considered a subsidiary. I don't know.

And make no mistake, having Pokemon apps on mobile devices is not a hit to Nintendo. It's a boon. Anytime the Pokemon brand succeeds, Nintendo benefits. Do you really think the maker of Pulseman just had an IP that blew up over night? That's not how business works. It was carefully orchestrated with a multifaceted marketing strategy to reach as many kids as possible. A small development studio does not do these kinds of things.

It could potentially be that Nintendo does own a small stake in Creatures which would be represented under "Minority interests" in the balance sheet. I think, there we also find Nintendo's stake in Genius Sonority (25%?). If the firm was a subsidiary or associate, it would be represented just like Retro Studios or Silicon Knights.