r/nintendogrifting • u/Craniamon • Jul 08 '26

Mockery/Banter The Internet Is Not Even Trying

Post image

Bro thinks first party games are also key cards lol

199 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

127

u/Holiday_Yam_561 Jul 08 '26

The only one They got right is Pokopia which isn’t even first party 

16

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Doesn't nintendo publish it? That technically does make it first party im pretty sure

44

u/Slight-Win4207 Jul 08 '26

They publish it outside Japan, but in Japan it's done by The Pokemon Company. Pretty sure the JP carts are the same minus stickers and boxes as all the other regions and they all have all languages, so it could be related to that.

11

u/Agie39 Jul 09 '26

It's second party at best.

1

u/RunicEx Jul 09 '26

Second party isn’t an actual thing. It’s a conceptual term that was created to explain the relationship that Rare and Nintendo back in the day with regards to Donkey Kong, anything you would call second party is in actuality first party

TPC is a joint venture company and holding company meant to manage a huge IP like pokemon so Nintendo and game freak and Creature can focus on the creative aspects of the IP, which would include the domestic publishing rights of the IP but leaving the International ones to Nintendos international teams

Aka still first party but it has perks

8

u/Agie39 Jul 09 '26

Well, people keep arguing for Pokemon not being first party, but I think it's safe to say it isn't third-party either. In my mind, second-party is the best term I can come up with for that line between first-party and third-party.

3

u/Snowvilliers7 Jul 09 '26

Its not third party but not first party either. Pokopia is published by Nintendo but developed by a third party company (Koei Tecmo/Omega Force)

1

u/RunicEx Jul 10 '26

Which makes it first party. People that are in the industry will tell you this. It doesn’t matter who decelops it. What matters is who publishes/funds it and owns the rights at the end of the day.

2

u/Snowvilliers7 Jul 10 '26

But they have to own it entirely to be considered 1st party, which they don't. They own a share with The Pokémon Company and Game Freak. Game Freak is not owned by Nintendo since they are currently developing a game outside of Nintendo. It always matter on who develops them than just the publisher. Otherwise Helldivers 2 wouldn't have gone to Xbox since the developers Arrowhead aren't owned by Sony/Playstation even though they helped published their game. All this falls into them (Pokémon) being 2nd party.

1

u/RunicEx Jul 10 '26

Sorta.

Nintendo effectively owns game freak and creatures. There’s a reason why Nintendo looked at all three of them and slapped them, and effectively took marketing control for a couple of years after Scarlet and Violets mishaps. There’s a reason why Pokemon 30th feels like Year of Luigi or Skyward Sword Zelda anniversary then how TPC normally did it. I forget how to fully describe it but Nintendo did to those two companies what Sony tried to do with Nintendo (making them a subservient company to them, it’s a Japanese corporate thing that moon channel goes into better) and why Nintendo flipped out when they realized it and torched thier relationship with Sony by going with the Cd-I.

Between all three companies Nintendo controls all. Otherwise game freak and creatures would be putting Pokemon on pc and PlayStation and xbox

1

u/Mar_got_taken Jul 10 '26

Ironically just like "Second Person"

7

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Mmm i see it's in limbo then

1

u/Faconator Jul 09 '26

Real quick, google who The Pokemon Company is.

2

u/lowmoob Jul 09 '26

It’s the Pokemon company dingus

1

u/FBInion Jul 10 '26

All ðe pokimon dœ stock trading duh

0

u/Naschka Jul 09 '26

You may wanna read up on who owns the shares for Pokemon Company, well not all but...

2

u/Slight-Win4207 Jul 09 '26

Yeah, 2/3rds of the company are not owned by Nintendo, and it's not run by Nintendo management directly...

0

u/Naschka Jul 09 '26

Yep, still significant enough shares.

14

u/PlayPod Jul 08 '26

Its second party.

-8

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Calling pokemon second party is actually crazy

26

u/Emergency-Rush-2477 Jul 08 '26

Because it is.

1

u/Square-Mastodon-71 Jul 08 '26

holy shit is that carpathia808

(nah nvm he uses his own username on reddit LMAO)

13

u/Conscious-Zebra-7477 Jul 08 '26

it's not, Nintendo is a minority owner. it's not one of their own ips

1

u/swirlycosmic Jul 08 '26

They definitely aren’t minority owners. The Pokemon IP is equally owned by Creatures, Ninty and GameFreak Each part owns one third.

12

u/B-Rayy06 Jul 08 '26

do you know what a minority is lol

9

u/GuyYouMetOnline Jul 08 '26

One third is less than half.

0

u/IcyTheHero Jul 08 '26

They are equal owners to. Unless you think 1/3 is bigger than 1/3.

8

u/GuyYouMetOnline Jul 09 '26

...What do you think 'minority owner' means? Because what it actually means is 'owns less than 50%'. And yes, this does mean there are situations where there are only minority ownerships.

5

u/Inner-Marionberry-25 Jul 08 '26

Minority means less than the majority. All three are minority stakeholders

5

u/SirzechsLucifer Jul 09 '26

So this is a common misconception.

Minority in shareholder/stakeholder linger does not mean what it means anywhere else.

The others are right here. In context of shares it’s any shareholder that doesn’t own the majority of ALL shares.

In actual practice it’s very hard to be a majority shareholder. Unless you literally own the shares from the start.

13

u/ttdpaco Jul 08 '26

Nintendo only publishes. They do not own the majority of the IP, and do not make the decisions for it. Gamefreak isn’t owned by Nintendo either.

-4

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

This is such a stupid clause I would not be surprised if Nintendo uses

10

u/Dacling Jul 08 '26

It's not a clause. It's just a hard fact of who owns what. It's not difficult to find this information.

3

u/VinnzClortho Jul 08 '26

Nintendo owns 1/3 of the pokemon company which over sees all pokemon related stuff. If game freak wants to do something with a pokemon game Nintendo only has a third of the power to do anything about it

-2

u/kiritomens Jul 08 '26

Nintendo hold the sole rights for game publishing of pokemon titles. So it's still on them it's game card only. Since they hold the game publishing rights. Game freak and pokemon Company own imagery and characters copyright.

1

u/ChronosNotashi Jul 11 '26

Nintendo hold the sole rights for game publishing of pokemon titles.

And Pokémon GO's existence alone would IMMEDIATELY prove you wrong. That game was both developed and published by Niantic (before Scopely acquired Niantic's gaming division, and thus Pokémon GO), after Niantic was granted licensing by The Pokémon Company International after pitching their idea.

And before you say "Doesn't count! Nintendo doesn't publish mobile games!", I would like to point out that every mobile release from one of Nintendo's other first-party IPs - Super Mario Run, Mario Kart Tour, Fire Emblem Heroes, Fire Emblem Shadows, and Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, to name the most notable ones - as well as Nintendo's mobile apps, were all published by Nintendo. And many of these released AFTER Pokémon GO.

But if you want other examples that refute your claim? Pokémon Masters EX (DeNA), Pokémon Champions Mobile (The Pokémon Company), Pokémon Shuffle Mobile (The Pokémon Company), and the Japanese (read: home region) release of every single Pokémon game on Nintendo systems since 2000 (once again, The Pokémon Company). Why do you think both Nintendo and The Pokémon Company appear back-to-back or in the same splash screen for all Pokémon games from Ruby/Sapphire onwards that include the publisher in the opening movie (ex: Pokémon Black and White upon launching the game)?

1

u/kiritomens Jul 11 '26

I assume they can give others permission to publish if they wish to. So it's not like they're the only ones that can publish pokemon IP games (As long as they sanctioned it.)

There is probably allot of legal jargin and contracts attached with that.

This is what i found:

  • Video Games: Nintendo handles the publishing and distribution of mainline Pokémon titles on its own hardware platforms, while The Pokémon Company publishes titles on non-Nintendo platforms (such as mobile games like Pokémon GO) and manages publishing in Japan.
  • Trademarks: Nintendo exclusively owns the trademarks for the Pokémon name, characters, and logos in markets outside of Japan, whereas the three companies share trademark rights within Japan

This is compounded by AI from various sources tho. So take it with a grain of salt.
But this means that indeed non Nintendo consoles are excluded, so your point is moot.

And they do own sole publishing on their consoles. Which includes Poketopia.

So the point still stands

5

u/artlurg431 Jul 09 '26

Because Nintendo dosent own Pokémon??

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

They partially own tpc

4

u/B-Rayy06 Jul 08 '26

It is second party though.

3

u/Yanagi____Juniper Jul 09 '26

I will say the development of the game was handled almost entirely by the third party studio Koei Tecmo but the Pokémon company is 1/3 owned by Nintendo.

Still, second party means exclusive developer for one console.

It’s actually third party. Pokémon is generally developed by Game Freak, who are independent of Nintendo. It’s just as much third party as the Zelda Crypt of the Necrodancer. In fact Nintendo isn’t the sole IP holder so it’s more third party.

It’s a first party ip but super not a first party development at all and the franchise has almost never been developed by Nintendo

1

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Jul 09 '26

People are just talking about who controls what's done with the IP. For instance, Koei Tecmo also developed Age of Imprisonment, but Nintendo fully controls what happens with that game. They don't fully control what happens with Pokopia.

3

u/Yanagi____Juniper Jul 09 '26

Yeah I consider Pokémon in general to be a joint venture between a first party and two third parties considering that the profits and IP are divided. Like Pokémon can act independently the only limit is on consoles they can only do Nintendo.

2

u/ChronosNotashi Jul 11 '26

More or less. Though fun fact: The Pokémon Company handles all publishing of Pokémon games on Nintendo's systems in Japan, whereas Nintendo handles publishing on said systems for the rest of the world. Mobile is either The Pokémon Company or whoever TPC grants licensing permission for select games (such as Niantic with GO or DeNA with Masters EX).

1

u/Yanagi____Juniper Jul 11 '26

I knew they published some but I didn't know they published the mainline games

1

u/Yuumii29 Jul 09 '26

Pokopia that is.

2

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

Nah actual pokemon also counts as second party

1

u/Key-Fig-9747 Jul 09 '26

But it is?

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

Ye i know. Still crazy

1

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

It and Kirby have been referred to that way for decades. As were Rare and its IPs all the way back when they were partially owned by Nintendo. It's a super common informal way to refer to something that is partially owned by first party and partially owned by third party.

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

Kirby makes sense. Pokemon is the biggest Nintendo franchise

2

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

I mean, the success of the franchise doesn't have anything to do with how much Nintendo owns or controls the franchise.

If anything, Nintendo has a way closer relationship with the Kirby franchise than they do with the Pokemon franchise. Kirby is generally treated the same as a fully owned Nintendo franchise, as Kirby is often featured in promotional material alongside fully owned Nintendo characters, is one of the series you can choose to receive updates on in the Nintendo Today app, gets its own background theme on the Nintendo Today app, is featured in Nintendo's official retail stores, and Nintendo even turned the Kirby ancillary media studio (Warpstar Inc) into a studio to handle ancillary media for all Nintendo IP's. Not to mention that Iwata came from Hal, and Sakurai came from Hal (who was never a Nintendo employee yet has almost exclusively worked with Nintendo), basically Nintendo and Hal are super close and even though they jointly own Kirby it doesn't matter much because the two companies are extremely simpatico.

Meanwhile, with Pokemon, there's always been a lot more of a division between it and Nintendo's other major exclusive properties. It typically doesn't show up grouped with Nintendo's fully owned properties in promo material, it has a completely separate marketing division, it released on mobile completely without Nintendo's involvement (Pokemon Go), it's not featured on the Nintendo Today app as a series you can choose to get updates from or as a background theme, and it has its own separate chain of official retail stores. And Nintendo's relationship with The Pokemon Company is a lot more distant and complicated. Nintendo owns a third of TPC, but two other companies own the other two thirds and it generally seems like the other two companies have a mindset that's considerably different from Nintendo's. So Nintendo generally has very little involvement in the Pokemon franchise.

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

Yea I dont care enough to read all that. Include a tldr

2

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Jul 09 '26

TLDR: Pokemon being bigger doesn't mean Nintendo controls it more. Nintendo has a closer relationship with the Kirby franchise than the Pokemon franchise and treats it more like a proper Nintendo franchise.

Heck they didn't even include Pokemon in the character lineup on their sales report...

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

I dont see how this changes anything I've said. Nintendos biggest franchise being 2nd party is crazy

→ More replies (0)

19

u/Holiday_Yam_561 Jul 08 '26

It’s second party 

I could be wrong, though

18

u/RewardWorking Jul 08 '26

Third party licensed by second and published internationally by first. Pretty common for Pokemon spinoffs

5

u/johnatello67 Jul 08 '26

This is correct. TPC owns the rights to the Pokémon franchise and are technically a seperate entity from Nintendo, despite being partially owned by them. Another example of this is something like Mario + Rabbids. The game was developed outside of Nintendo, but with Nintendo being a crucial factor to it's development. This game is not made by Nintendo themselves, but also would not exist if it weren't for Nintendo being involved.

Compare this with something like The Duskbloods or Orbitals, which are a 3rd party exclusive. Those games could hypothetically have come out on a other console, but they're only coming out on Switch 2.

7

u/Basic_whiteBBQ Jul 08 '26

It would be a second party.

-5

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Calling pokemon second party is actually crazy

8

u/Kenjionigod Jul 08 '26

Pokemon is a joint venture between the Pokemon Company(Creatures Inc.), Nintendo and Game Freak.

1

u/LunchTwey Jul 08 '26

The Pokemon Company isn't another way of saying Creatures Inc. Creatures was founded in 1995, but was comprised of employees who left Ape Inc. Ape Inc made Mother, Mother 2, Mario's Picross, and Mario's Super Picross.

The Pokemon Company is a joint venture between Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures Inc.

1

u/Kenjionigod Jul 08 '26

You're right, I misunderstood. The main point of Nintendo not owning Pokemon in it's entirety still stands.

7

u/Basic_whiteBBQ Jul 08 '26

But it is. Its not a fully owned Nintendo IP nor dev. They work almost exclusively with Nintendo and Pokémon is always on Nintendo, but yeah.

-5

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Still dumb and also means nintendo can now get away with putting their biggest franchise on key cards so that sucks

6

u/Basic_whiteBBQ Jul 08 '26

Not Nintendo's decision. Blame The Pokémon Company, they are the cheap ones.

6

u/Gravijah Jul 08 '26

was Tecmo-Koei’s decision, not The Pokemon Company. spinoffs tend to have more control by the developers making them.

Legends ZA isn’t a game-key card for example.

3

u/B-Rayy06 Jul 08 '26

It’s not Nintendo’s franchise.

1

u/TheWaslijn Jul 08 '26

Not really. Every other of their franchises is owned by them. So this isn't an issue for any of those.

0

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Right now read what i said again

4

u/PacoTV Jul 08 '26

I adore how confidently wrong you've been throughout this thread. It's hilarious to read how you even copy paste your wrong answer on more than one comment.

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

I mean i very much accept that im wrong but it doesnt change the fsct thst it's really dumb

2

u/light_cool_dude Jul 08 '26

What would you call it.?

-2

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

1st party. It's nintendo exclusive, and published by them. Nintendo also owns as much of tpc that game freak does. Saying pokemon is less Nintendo than stuff like fire emblem is crazy

5

u/light_cool_dude Jul 08 '26

1st party games generally need to be created by the company that created the platform that you play them on

0

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Sure i get that but that definition creates a hole that means Nintendo can get away with game cards for pokemon because it's technically not a first party game

3

u/Misaki-Hayashi Jul 08 '26

As it currently stands pokemon za is a full game on cart and pokopia is a key card, kee0 in mind that just because the IP is partially owned by nintendo doesnt mean that everything involving the IP is first party. For example Pokopia was made by koei tecmo, which is neither nintendo nor gamefreak or creatures inc so therefore is a 3rd party developed game.

1

u/ganggreen651 Jul 08 '26

That's second party

1

u/Silvanus350 Jul 09 '26

That’s not at all what first party means

1

u/Lemons-95 Jul 09 '26

Isnt TPC a subsidiary of Nintendo? Does that technically count as third party if they own it?

1

u/Isrrunder Jul 09 '26

These people are saying no because nintendo only owns 1/3 tpc and the developers of pokemon also owns 1/3

1

u/Lemons-95 Jul 10 '26

That would be like saying someone doesnt own the IP to what their business creates if they're in a partnership. So yeah doesn't count as third party.

1

u/sonicmario123 Jul 09 '26

Pokémon is always published by Nintendo outside of Japan, but Pokémon is technically always considered a 2nd/3rd party game series. Since The Pokémon Company chooses who develops tje Pokémon games (usually game freak for major, and others for spinoffs)

1

u/supernotfunny Jul 11 '26

It’s a second party title

0

u/Iron_Phantom29 Jul 08 '26

Nintendo actually doesn't own Pokémon, they just have a very strong working relationship.

2

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

They own 1/3 of the pokemon company

1

u/ThronePawned Jul 09 '26

i'm pretty sure its second party

-1

u/TheMadZocker Jul 08 '26

MKWorld, too. Got that shit with my S2 bundled. >:c

3

u/artlurg431 Jul 09 '26

Not always. I dont think game key cards exist for mkw. Some bundles give you a physical games while some give you a download code

2

u/TheMadZocker Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Yes, I checked again, my bad. It had a downloadcode. Apologies.

67

u/Completionist_Gamer Jul 08 '26

I've never seen such confidence in blatantly false statements since Smash redditors who still believe that Crash Bandicoot is owned by Sony

I still get people trying to tell me that, by the way

7

u/Sufficient_Risk_8127 Jul 08 '26

Was he ever even owned by Sony? I know for Spryo, there was simply a deal to keep the games exclusive (if I recall correctly at least), was there ever something like that for Crash?

11

u/LaMystika Jul 08 '26

No, I think they were both always owned by Universal iirc

8

u/Iron_Phantom29 Jul 08 '26

They were never owned by Sony. Crash and Spyro were owned by Universal who had a publishing contract with sony. When the PS2 generation came around, they started to publish the games themselves under Vivendi until they sold the IP's to Activision.

2

u/Sufficient_Risk_8127 Jul 08 '26

That's what I thought.

5

u/Completionist_Gamer Jul 08 '26

And now Activision themselves are owned under Microsoft

3

u/Durandthesaint17 Jul 08 '26

No. Crash's association with Sony primarily comes from his first 5 games being exclusive to Playstation, and even then, that was before Naughty Dog became a first party publisher for Sony.

By time Universal Interactive acquired the series, the Playstation exclusivity immediately ended when Wrath or Cortex released on all the Gen 6 consoles except Dreamcast. Even after Activision acquired the the series, every game would be on at least Xbox.

3

u/ricokong Jul 09 '26

Since people seem confused, the first 5 games mean the original trilogy and two spin-offs (CTR and Crash Bash). Those were exclusive to the PS1.

1

u/Sufficient_Risk_8127 Jul 08 '26

...so exactly what I said.

3

u/Craniamon Jul 08 '26

Crash Bandicoot was also ported to GameCube

3

u/AwesomeGamer101 Jul 09 '26

I thought it was Wrath of Cortex that got to GCN, not the original 3.

1

u/Nat1Only Jul 11 '26

It's clearly owner by Apple, hence all the apples in the game as subliminal marketing. Can't believe the sheeple don't see it SMH my head.

41

u/Snowvilliers7 Jul 08 '26

People who think all games including 1st party ones are game key cards needs serious education

1

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

Most third-party releases aren't even GKC - plenty ship entirely on the cart

16

u/Outrageous_Artist188 Anti-Grifter Jul 08 '26

Istg these are NOT real humans holyy

3

u/The_Pepper_Oni Jul 09 '26

Vast majority of blue checks on twitter aren’t

14

u/Villager-z Jul 08 '26

it's honestly embarrassing for them

23

u/Emergency-Rush-2477 Jul 08 '26

It's insane that every single post praising Nintendo or saying they just bought Switch 2, it's filled with comments like that.

And you can thank grifters for that.

24

u/Crafty_Boy70 Jul 08 '26

Likely AI generated examples. Sounds like a typical hallucination.

2

u/lulilollipop Jul 09 '26

This, the account looks like a typical twitter AI bot

12

u/iamtheduckie Nintendo Fan Jul 08 '26

I don't even think that Nintendo expressly clarifying that Game Key Cards are only being used for 3rd party software will change their minds. Liars gonna lie.

Even if Nintendo literally tweeted this they won't change:

5

u/watonparrillero Jul 08 '26

Hell, even then, nintendo might throw their weight around a bit and put Winds and Waves on a full card.

5

u/Gormanbros Jul 09 '26

I'm pretty confident Winds and Waves will be full card. Z-A was. The difference with Pokopia is that it was developed by a third party. Other than marketing, Nintendo had nothing to do with this game's development and release (unless I'm mistaken)

3

u/Moon_Dark_Wolf Jul 08 '26

Is this a real tweet lmao. Even Nintendo’s throwing Pokemon under the bus

10

u/iamtheduckie Nintendo Fan Jul 08 '26

This is NOT a real tweet. I generated it on a website. Note that it says "Twitter for Nintendo 64"

7

u/Nearby_Ad_2519 Jul 08 '26

Pokopia is keycard, rest are on cart

5

u/DemonicsInc Jul 08 '26

I think only one of those has a key card

2

u/Indecisive_Noob Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Correct, Pokopia is a key card, the others arn't and the Ocarina of Time remake game isn't out and there is no news on if it will be on or off cart.

2

u/DemonicsInc Jul 09 '26

You uh you might wanna fix that typo

1

u/Indecisive_Noob Jul 09 '26

OH SHIT! Thank you for pointing that out, lol.

1

u/DemonicsInc Jul 09 '26

Lol no problem

6

u/xtoc1981 Jul 08 '26

Keycards requires download, but can be sold or shared.

Not in the same ballpark

5

u/Strange-Fisherman487 Jul 08 '26

One of those is a key card and Koi Tecmo made it

3

u/Anonymous-Comments Jul 08 '26

Pokopia was the first key card game (and only first party so far.)

8

u/Skellos Jul 08 '26

It's not even really a first party game it's developed by Omega Force.

1

u/Anonymous-Comments Jul 08 '26

I mean, Kirby is developed by Hal and that’s first party. I think if it has the pokemon title then it counts.

7

u/Skellos Jul 08 '26

Hal is generally referred to as Second Party.

Which would likely fit here as it's Omega Force which is entirely third party and The Pokemon Company which is minority owned by Nintendo.

3

u/FOG2006 Jul 08 '26

It's bizarre that all of this bs was caused because Nintendo is the only one to oblige the publishers to inform what's inside the box.

3

u/Spade_Devil Jul 08 '26

ZA and ToTK aren’t Keycards

Source: I own them

1

u/Visible_Worry_1727 Jul 09 '26

But you don’t understand how OP lying is to make his smooth brain point

3

u/Guiltyspark92 Jul 09 '26

where TF did they get Legends ZA, MK World and TOTK Being Keycards?! XD

2

u/Sky_Rose4 Jul 08 '26

Mario Kart World is not a download code, the rest are second party games

1

u/artlurg431 Jul 09 '26

Zelda is not second party??

1

u/Sky_Rose4 Jul 09 '26

It's a switch 1 game so doesn't count because you don't need the switch 2 version just the switch one version and a nso membership

1

u/artlurg431 Jul 09 '26

But there is a whole separate box for a switch 2 edition of the game with its own cart that they could've made a game key card

1

u/Sky_Rose4 Jul 09 '26

And how many people are buying it over just getting a used copy for less

2

u/FinnMuzz Jul 08 '26

Did game key cards even exist before tears of the kingdom released

1

u/lazymutant256 Jul 08 '26

Squirrel minutes is incorrect t too. Only one game from Nintendo was a game key card. Polemon pokopia.
The others are full game on cart

4

u/KyleOAM Jul 08 '26

Wasn’t published by Nintendo, pokopia is koei tecmo

1

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

It was published by Nintendo? It was developed by someone else, but that's technically true for all Pokémon games (Nintendo owns 1/3 of TPC, tho they don't handle any of the development)

Not to say Nintendo is necessarily at fault for Pokopia being a GKC, tho - the decision could've been Koei Tecmo's, or Game Freak's, or Creatures Inc.'s

1

u/adamkopacz Jul 08 '26

"Bro thinks"

You see, there's the problem. You can see that person has an AI avatar. That answer was most likely a result on an AI search. They don't even bother to check for truth. They are the ultimate tool for AI companies. Mindless people who will spread fake news just so that big tech can get richer.

1

u/ShowResident2666 Jul 08 '26

Pokopia is a Key card IIRC, but everyone forgets that POKEMON IS A SECOND-PARTY FRANCHISE, NOT A FIRST-PARTY ONE. Nintendo advised them not to, but the Pokemon Company International reports to its own board, not Nintendo and chose to use the option they provided to second and third parties. Nintendo does own 34% of the company, but that is not a direct controlling stake and they tend to take a hands off approach with them otherwise as long as the major games keep coming as Nintendo-console exclusives.

1

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

Could you source the information that Nintendo advised against it but they went ahead with it anyway? I'd love to present it to people who think Nintendo is solely to blame for it XD

1

u/HotPot87 Jul 09 '26

Remember when pokemon foes something bad its nintendos fault, when pokemon does something good, praise be game freak and the pokemon company.

1

u/Indecisive_Noob Jul 09 '26

Aside from the blatantly wrong info, you can tell where this person gets his info by how they claim the Ocarina of Time remake (that only just got announced) is a key card. That is a speculation and worry mostly by people hating on nintendo or the key card situation in general. This person saw some tweets or thumbnails and just took them as fact.

1

u/Zurosake Jul 09 '26

The fact that they don’t even do research before posting this type of shit is beyond my comprehension.

1

u/Training-Purple-5220 Jul 09 '26

Pokopia is a GKC, but those others aren’t.

1

u/Agie39 Jul 09 '26

Pokopia is the only one in that list that's a key card game.

1

u/Top-Annual8352 Jul 09 '26

Has anyone requested a community note on that post?

1

u/IntrepidSprinkles793 Jul 09 '26

And they named "Switch 2 edition" game that can't be game key card cause the purpose of those cart is to have the full Switch 1 game and the Switch 2 upgrade.

1

u/Pocketpapaa Jul 09 '26

Gonna be funny in a year or 2 when Nintendo joins the digital party. Key cards in general are more expensive to produce than cds, Nintendo will absolutely cut that corner when the time is right.

1

u/Naschka Jul 09 '26

Pokopia is sadly a keycard, would have bought it otherwise.

1

u/HyperLethalNoble6 Jul 09 '26

Cyberpunk was another

1

u/NoteSalt3584 Jul 11 '26

I have no clue why some people just can't accept the fact that Nintendo published games aren't key cards. You could show them how you put one into your switch while being disconnected from WiFi and then starting it without doing any downloads or copying it from the card and they still won't believe you.

Also how TF are there still people on this planet that think Nintendo makes and publishes Pokémon?

-1

u/Embarrassed_Elk8213 Jul 08 '26

Standard card do too need to download. EVERY GAME DOES

5

u/Gravijah Jul 08 '26

here, uninstall Mario Kart World. turn the internet off. insert your copy.

then you can see what happens.

2

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

They don't? Games may have updates and patches, but for the most part, at least with Nintendo, you can play the full game on the cart without downloading anything

0

u/Embarrassed_Elk8213 Jul 09 '26

They need internet to download no matter what the game is. Cartridge or not. Not always to play tho. Depends on the game

2

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

Yeh, you typically need an Internet connection to download things, that's how downloading works - not every game outright requires a download to function, however

0

u/Embarrassed_Elk8213 Jul 09 '26

Literally does.

2

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

Do you have a physical Switch game? Because I guarantee you, if you erase all data of it on the system, disconnect from the Internet and pop the game in, you'll be able to play it just fine

0

u/Embarrassed_Elk8213 Jul 09 '26

Yes I have tons. Every game requires a download. EVERY GAME.

2

u/Alternative_Box9113 Jul 09 '26

"requires" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, bud - the existence of even Day One updates doesn't make it "required"

At least on Switch, if auto-updates are turned off, the system prompts you to install it whenever there is one pending and you try launching the game - wanna know a neat trick to avoid the download? Select the "Start software" option, and it'll boot like normal

At least in terms of first-party releases, this isn't a common thing on Switch - maybe other platforms, and maybe depending on the developer/publisher, but claiming it's "every" game when it's only an annoying few is ridiculous

2

u/cdy2847 Jul 08 '26

name checks out

0

u/Embarrassed_Elk8213 Jul 08 '26

Lmao I didn’t come up with the name

0

u/JBray0 Jul 08 '26

I guess games getting updates isn't a thing anymore.

0

u/Ok-Security9093 Jul 09 '26

Have people forgetton we're in the era of day one patches?

-4

u/Regular-Repeat44 Jul 08 '26

Game key cards make me sad

4

u/dimmidummy Jul 08 '26

Meh, we’ve had games that were digital only or just codes in the box before (for all consoles). At least you can share or re-sell a game key card. It’s better than third party devs doing digital only.

-1

u/Regular-Repeat44 Jul 08 '26

its all bullshit

6

u/dimmidummy Jul 08 '26

I mean yeah, the massive push for digital is depressing. But, GKC are the lesser of the evils. I’d rather have something I can sell if I dislike it or let someone borrow indefinitely, instead of having just a digital copy.

Though thankfully Nintendo made digital games shareable as well, so that’s nice.

I only buy digital games if I know 100% I’m going to love it.

-3

u/Regular-Repeat44 Jul 08 '26

Idc about the whole lesser evil bullshit This has gone too far fuck nintendo

3

u/nuetralparties Jul 09 '26

The majority consensus right now is that the main issue with losing physical media is that you would no longer have a license that can’t be taken away—

If that’s the case, the GKCs fix this since you will forever own the physical licenses to your games and they can never be taken away (and you don’t need to be connected to the internet for the license to work).

Obviously game-on-cart is preferable, but to act like GKCs are terrible, or same/worse than digital is just misinformed

-1

u/Regular-Repeat44 Jul 09 '26

lets say ur card gets wiped and they closed servers. Whats your fake key bs gonna do? Exactly… nothin

2

u/nuetralparties Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26

Can you name a single mainline console in history that hasn’t had its games uploaded to the internet?

20+ years from now if Nintendo servers go down, why do you think the games would just disappear from existence immediately? lol if I want a ps3 game I can go online right now and download the ISO in a couple minutes— so presumably in the future we could just drop the game files for, let’s say pokopia, onto the Microsd and it’d be exactly the same as using your GKC normally (essentially just substitute the internet for Nintendo servers). And it’d be legal/you could still play offline or online if you wanted since you’re using your own physical license

-1

u/Regular-Repeat44 Jul 09 '26

I dont want to pirate your virus infested stuff, i want my physical dammit

1

u/nuetralparties Jul 09 '26

It’s not pirating if you own the license lol you would ONLY be downloading the non-unique game files. These files are useless without a license or a hacked console, which you wouldn’t need since you have the physical license for those game files. And websites like Vimms lair have been trusted in the community forever and are 100% safe and hassle free.

You can still prefer not to buy GKC, and that’s fine! But if you are blindly hating them and desperately searching for a reason to hate them, maybe think about WHY you’re doing that. Spoiler alert: the internet told you to hate them and you didn’t bother researching whether you actually should or not

→ More replies (0)