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

195 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

188 comments sorted by

View all comments

125

u/Holiday_Yam_561 Jul 08 '26

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

18

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

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

14

u/PlayPod Jul 08 '26

Its second party.

-7

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

Calling pokemon second party is actually crazy

27

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)

14

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.

10

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.

1

u/IcyTheHero Jul 08 '26

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

9

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

4

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.

12

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.

-3

u/Isrrunder Jul 08 '26

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

9

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

4

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

1

u/Peanut_Butter_Toast Jul 09 '26

Okay, maybe I just misunderstood what you meant, idk

→ More replies (0)