Jump to content
IGNORED

Nintendo Switch

Not Thread Owner

By Not Thread Owner
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

gone fishin

gone fishin

Posted
Posted

im not saying they earn the most profit, but they earn some... 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/google-apple-nintendo-who-s-really-making-money-out-of-pokemon-go-a7136906.html

 

Early estimates from Sensor Tower, the app store optimisation firm, put the game’s revenue at $1.6 million per day. 

Profits are set to be split up between several company and Nintendo could stand to make the least amount of money out of the worldwide phenomenon.  

The game was jointly developed by Niantic, the Pokémon Company and Nintendo.

Nintendo is not directly involved in developing Pokémon Go but it owns a third of the Pokémon company which in turn holds the Pokémon franchise.

Nintendo is also the part owner of Niantic which developed the published of the game.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cyhwuhx

Cyhwuhx

Posted
Posted

I can see NX being compatible with their smartphone games though. Super Mario Run cross-save with NX/iOS/Android via NNID. Also makes the NX an Amiibo gateway of getting that data into your smartphone. Want Toad in Super Mario Run? Swipe Amiibo on NX, play on iPhone. Let non-NXers pay for it through microtransactions. 

 

This would allow Nintendo to operate freely into mobile and let it function as a gateway to their more eleborate experiences on dedicated hardware. Allows them to grow their digital library quicker with f2p games and paid AAA titles. 

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarlaccfood

Sarlaccfood

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

You literally had to go back weeks before they put out a statement saying "we don't get a profit share" to find that.

 

Yours: 14th July

Nintendo: 25th July

 

Network carriers providing free mobile data for NX? Get your head out of the clouds man.

Hang on now.

 

They don't say they don't get a profit share, just that it's more limited than people initially thought and as such won't be altering their financial forecast. 

 

Saying they make nothing from it is an exaggeration.

9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
boxoctosis

boxoctosis

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Sarlaccfood said:

Hang on now.

 

They don't say they don't get a profit share, just that it's more limited than people initially thought and as such won't be altering their financial forecast. 

 

Saying they make nothing from it is an exaggeration.

 

I'm wondering what RubberJohnny read from that statement myself. 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeNeo

DeNeo

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, mushashi said:

If you take the rumours of the hardware as factually accurate, then the exact opposite will occur. PS to PS2 was easy as they kept the actual key hardware to enable easy hardware-based BC, PS2 to PS3 was initially easy(ish) due to similar reasons until they removed the PS2 bits. PS3 to PS4 was a no-go because they completely changed the hardware, which is the situation the NX is likely to find itself in, so no easy BC. Software emulation isn't a 100% replacement for a hardware solution when it comes to compatibility, as Microsoft are only slowly working their way through their X360 back catalogue at the expense of human engineering time to prep the games for use on the X1.

 

There's an Android version of the Dolphin emulator, so it'd be doable on ARM hardware. Plus Nintendo have been developing software emulation since the Wii, so they've got a fair few years' experience of it.

 

I'd be very surprised if NX's Virtual Console didn't include Wii games at the very least, and maybe even Wii U if they go for the Pascal-based chip. Of course we'll have to buy them all over again though... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RubberJohnny

RubberJohnny

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Sarlaccfood said:

They don't say they don't get a profit share, just that it's more limited than people initially thought and as such won't be altering their financial forecast. 

 

Saying they make nothing from it is an exaggeration.

 

They do. They say they only got a licensing fee and a return on funds invested, if they had a 5% cut you think they wouldn't say given everyone wanted to buy their stock? It's illegal to lie in these things, y'know!

 

No one said they get nothing from it, don't put words in peoples mouths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarlaccfood

Sarlaccfood

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

They do. They say they only got a licensing fee and a return on funds invested, if they had a 5% cut you think they wouldn't say given everyone wanted to buy their stock? It's illegal to lie in these things, y'know!

 

No one said they get nothing from it, don't put words in peoples mouths.

 

Where does it say they don't get a profit share?

 

Genuine question. It's really vague but they must get a share if they're part owners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adrock

Adrock

Posted
Posted
Quote

The Pokémon Company is going to receive a licensing fee as well as compensation for collaboration in the development and operations of the application

 

So the Pokemon Company are getting some kind of revenue out of it. Or not?

 

Sounds to me like they will be offering services which Niantic will be paying for. So their revenue should benefit from it. Whether or not Nintendo benefit from that due to the 32% equity in in the Pokemon Company I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Adrock

Adrock

Posted
Posted

I've not moved any goal posts. I think its fair to say Nintendo will profit, eventually, from the success of the game but it wont be anywhere near as much as the original estimate of some share holders of Nintendo.

 

They do not have any direct profit share though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarlaccfood

Sarlaccfood

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

No, they provided seed capital for Niantic, it doesn't mean they get a profit share, they get their seed capital paid back with interest.

 

You're literally arguing with the facts and what Nintendo itself says.

 

 

I'm just asking. Do you have any links to that info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarlaccfood

Sarlaccfood

Posted
Posted

Okay Johnny just breathe.

38 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Do you have links to where they part own Niantic? You're the one saying something is the case, the burden is on you to provide the info.

 

Yeah in all the news stories about Nintendo shares rising and falling they mention it.

 

This from the WSJ:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-nintendo-is-no-pokemon-bubble-1469156617

 

It owns a 32% stake in one of the developers, Pokémon Company, and an undisclosed stake in another—Niantic. Pokémon Company also owns a stake in Niantic. Nintendo may also get some royalties because it owns all the trademarks of Pokémon.

 

This is from before the Nintendo statement I think. So do they contradict the above in that? I don't really speak lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mushashi

mushashi

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, DeNeo said:

 

There's an Android version of the Dolphin emulator, so it'd be doable on ARM hardware. Plus Nintendo have been developing software emulation since the Wii, so they've got a fair few years' experience of it.

 

I'd be very surprised if NX's Virtual Console didn't include Wii games at the very least, and maybe even Wii U if they go for the Pascal-based chip. Of course we'll have to buy them all over again though... 

 

Developing an emulator isn't a huge hurdle, making one which is a drop-in replacement for a hardware BC solution, as found in the Wii and Wii U and Nintendo portable devices is on a completely different level of difficulty. Sony and Microsoft and even Nintendo's own software emulators don't offer anywhere near the same level of game compatibility as a hardware solution has been proven to do, and they all have full access to the specs and designers of the original hardware.

 

I'm sure they can make an emulator to resell you some software, but that isn't really BC, which is a freebie included in the hardware natively which allows you to run 99% (the odd game may not work) of your existing old software without any extra hassles. Microsoft's efforts show how difficult it really is to emulate fairly powerful complex consoles, as every game needs bespoke work, which is fine if you are using it as some form of upsell/swaying buyer preference or planning to make money from reselling old games, but this does limit the amount of old games you'll likely be able to ever play via this modern form of 'backwards compatibility'.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I thought MS said their emulator pretty much works with all games, with just the odd one requiring a few tweaks for performance issues. I'm pretty sure they don't have to do bespoke work on every title to get them working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xevious

Xevious

Posted
Posted

 

7 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

The question since the first post has always been "do they get a profit share?", don't try and move the goalposts.

 

To be fair, the way you initially phrased it is a bit more ambiguous.

 

23 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

Also Nintendo don't get any share of the profits from Pokemon Go.

 

That sort of implies they will get nothing, rather than not getting a profit share.

 

5 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

Yeah, you can't prove people don't have a relationship, you know VN1X?

 

That's not legal, that's just logic. If Sarlaccfood thinks one exists, he's the only one that can prove it.

 

In terms of companies owning parts of other companies, then yes, you can prove it.  There are legal obligations on reporting and ownership.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Not Thread Owner

Not Thread Owner

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 hours ago, Jon said:

I thought MS said their emulator pretty much works with all games, with just the odd one requiring a few tweaks for performance issues. I'm pretty sure they don't have to do bespoke work on every title to get them working.

 

So why aren't they all available then, rather than one or two a fortnight?

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, deKay said:

 

So why aren't they all available then, rather than one or two a fortnight?

I'd say marketing, at a guess. Drip feeding them like this keeps the feature fresh in people's minds and allows them to make key titles available at certain times thoughout the year. It also allows them to hype upcoming games by making the earlier versions available on BC.

 

Maybe I'm misremembering though and they do have to do extensive work on each game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept