Say Iwata and a few other execs said 'oh screw this, lets buy some damn companies', how many could Nintendo buy? I don't know how much money they have but would it be easy for Nintendo to buy Sammy/Sega and Capcom, and still have money left over? What exactly would the equivalent of Nintendo's money be in buying company terms? Like 1 or 2 Capcoms. or what? I don't understand the scope of how much they have.
How many companies COULD Nintendo buy?
- Thread starter Hollywood
- Start date
soundwave05
Member
Probably a few, but that strategy wouldn't work because employees could just leave in such a situation (and Nintendo has said this on record).
soundwave05
Member
No, what would end up happening though is not all employees would be happy with a buy out. Some artists for instance may be concerned with artistic freedom. Ergo, you'd be bound to lose some employees.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo from making "edgy" franchises like Resident Evil themselves. It's not like they don't have $6 billion in the bank, it's not like there aren't a ton of talented programmers/directors out there just dying for a chance to share their vision.
There's nothing stopping Nintendo from making "edgy" franchises like Resident Evil themselves. It's not like they don't have $6 billion in the bank, it's not like there aren't a ton of talented programmers/directors out there just dying for a chance to share their vision.
Date of Lies
Banned
Nintendo could buy some compagnies. But then again, so could Sony and Microsoft.
Most likely Microsoft would outbid them.
Sega For Sale
Nintendo: 100$
Microsoft: x 10 to whatever last bid was
Nintendo: ahh, 1001$
Microsoft: 1002$
Nintendo: *wondering*
Going once, going twice...
Most likely Microsoft would outbid them.
Sega For Sale
Nintendo: 100$
Microsoft: x 10 to whatever last bid was
Nintendo: ahh, 1001$
Microsoft: 1002$
Nintendo: *wondering*
Going once, going twice...
soundwave05
Member
There isn't much hype for Geist, but you have to be patient. You can't just expect a venture to start up and start pumping out hits at the snap of a finger.
Case in point, last generation, Nintendo had an exclusive publishing agreement with a little company called DMA Design, but they broke it off when DMA wasn't delivering with games like Buggie Boogie and Body Harvest.
I believe these guys now make a game called Grant Theft Auto.
The other thing is now that Howard Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa are gone it just seems like Nintendo doesn't have the same nose for fishing out second party talent. Lincoln discovered Rare and fast tracked Donkey Kong Country ... these companies that Nintendo is currently working with for Geist and Advance Wars GC just reek of averageness.
Case in point, last generation, Nintendo had an exclusive publishing agreement with a little company called DMA Design, but they broke it off when DMA wasn't delivering with games like Buggie Boogie and Body Harvest.
I believe these guys now make a game called Grant Theft Auto.
The other thing is now that Howard Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa are gone it just seems like Nintendo doesn't have the same nose for fishing out second party talent. Lincoln discovered Rare and fast tracked Donkey Kong Country ... these companies that Nintendo is currently working with for Geist and Advance Wars GC just reek of averageness.
Date of Lies said:
It's not like they would be interested and it would automatically go to whoever has more money. A freaking pachinko maker overtook Sega for God's sake, not one of the big companies. Plus if you do it buy just buying MAJORITY then they become second party anyway and no one can buy them out if you got majority ownership over them.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Nintendo could by millions of companies and several high profile gaming companies.
Does anyone want them to?
Hell no!
Does anyone want them to?
Hell no!
soundwave05
Member
It would also be a difficult sell because Nintendo would then obviously force the said developer to work only on Nintendo platforms, which means going to a limited userbase.
Some how I don't think companies like Capcom, Namco, etc. would be interested.
The trick is to find the little, promising dev houses that can do big things with a little infusion of cash. That's what Nintendo did with Rare way back in 1993, that's what Microsoft did with Bungie.
Either that or you change internally. Encourage your developers to make games that people wouldn't associate with your company.
10 years ago, no one thought of Capcom as a survival horror/gothic action company, but they let their designers make something other than Street Fighter and Megaman and reaped the rewards of that.
Some how I don't think companies like Capcom, Namco, etc. would be interested.
The trick is to find the little, promising dev houses that can do big things with a little infusion of cash. That's what Nintendo did with Rare way back in 1993, that's what Microsoft did with Bungie.
Either that or you change internally. Encourage your developers to make games that people wouldn't associate with your company.
10 years ago, no one thought of Capcom as a survival horror/gothic action company, but they let their designers make something other than Street Fighter and Megaman and reaped the rewards of that.
Why would it matter if your developing for one platform or not? Damn .. you get paid all the same, plus its not like you would be taking the losses .. Nintendo would. Most companies don't give a damn what system their game is on, just make sure it goes to one that can make them the most money. All that crap don't matter if you get bought out. I could understand if Nintendo bought someone out and told all the employees 'hey were making pachinko and arcade games from now on' and they would be pissed like Sega is right now from Sammy. If its run the same, it won't make a difference.
soundwave05
Member
I'm speaking of the investors/business suits of the company.
Companies like Namco or Capcom would not IMO sell in a situation like that, because what happens if Nintendo's hardware fails to sell? Then your IPs are limited to a very small portion of the market.
This happened actually with the Bandai situation, the lead investor in Bandai was upset by Nintendo's investment and warned against selling Nintendo a majority stake because Bandai makes big profits from the Sony game consoles.
Nintendo's like the eternal bachelor of the game market anyway. They've had a lot of "companions" over the years -- Square and Enix during the Famicom/SFC days, then Rare during the late SNES and N64 days, occassionally flirting with Factor 5, Silicon Knights, Camelot, etc. but they never really settle down with any of these companies.
Companies like Namco or Capcom would not IMO sell in a situation like that, because what happens if Nintendo's hardware fails to sell? Then your IPs are limited to a very small portion of the market.
This happened actually with the Bandai situation, the lead investor in Bandai was upset by Nintendo's investment and warned against selling Nintendo a majority stake because Bandai makes big profits from the Sony game consoles.
Nintendo's like the eternal bachelor of the game market anyway. They've had a lot of "companions" over the years -- Square and Enix during the Famicom/SFC days, then Rare during the late SNES and N64 days, occassionally flirting with Factor 5, Silicon Knights, Camelot, etc. but they never really settle down with any of these companies.
Rocket Punch
Member
soundwave05 said:
This is in a nutshell what Nintendo has failed to do this generation. Last generation on N64 they had Rare to offer us one of the most critically acclaimed as well as financially succesful games in Goldeneye while at the same time Game Freak's phenomenon game Pokémon reigned supreme in the portable front. Two games that literally came out of nowhere and took the industry by storm.
The closest they've had to this on the current generation is Retro Studios with the Metroid Prime series which while succesful did not make anywhere near the splash that it deserved hindered in part by Gamecube's image problems and poor marketing strategy.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah, part of the overlooked thing is Capcom was never supposed to "go in alone" to sell older consumers on the GameCube.
Rare was supposed to be there, making equal parts Perfect Dark and Conker's BFD as Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong.
You had Factor 5 and Silicon Knights.
Retro was originally intended by Howard Lincoln to be a dev house that worked on multiple projects aimed at older consumers. They weren't intended to be the Metroid dev house, but Jeff Spanenberg couldn't keep the company on track.
All of these things really soured one by one.
If anything though, perhaps the most unpredictable was Nintendo normalizing relations with Square.
Rare was supposed to be there, making equal parts Perfect Dark and Conker's BFD as Banjo-Kazooie and Donkey Kong.
You had Factor 5 and Silicon Knights.
Retro was originally intended by Howard Lincoln to be a dev house that worked on multiple projects aimed at older consumers. They weren't intended to be the Metroid dev house, but Jeff Spanenberg couldn't keep the company on track.
All of these things really soured one by one.
If anything though, perhaps the most unpredictable was Nintendo normalizing relations with Square.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah. Not to mention NST gave 1080 and Wave Race (both million sellers on the N64) the touch of death on the GCN, neither the GC sequels had really any impact.
Mike Works
Member
While your opinion on the matter may be fair, if you analyze the examples..soundwave05 said:
Perfect Dark is now cel shaded and Conker's BFD is a port. Banjo and Donkey Kong are still PG games.
You still have Factor 5 and Silicon Knights.
Retro is still a dev house that will have created multiple products aimed towards an older audience.
Just saying.
soundwave05
Member
Yeah I realize that, but obviously way back in 1999 and 2000 when GameCube was "Project: Dolphin" I don't think they anticipated so many things going wrong.
Naturally with XBox entering the industry, the market for older consumers was going to become tougher anyway, so that certainly didn't help.
Retro Studios was (lol) originally supposed to produce like 2-3 games for the GameCube launch alone.
Naturally with XBox entering the industry, the market for older consumers was going to become tougher anyway, so that certainly didn't help.
Retro Studios was (lol) originally supposed to produce like 2-3 games for the GameCube launch alone.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Nintendo deserved this for merely polishing a few N64 games and making them GC games.
Rocket Punch
Member
On hindsight it's easy to see where things may have gone wrong for Nintendo. In truth it's impossible to know when or where the next big thing is gonna come out of in terms of gaming impact. Nobody knew of Bungie or Rockstar (DMA) until Halo and GTA.
The fact that Nintendo continues to be Japan-centric with respect to the market continues to be a big part of the problem as they have failed to forsee the shift to Western developer creativity and the increasing importance of the same market while the Japanese developers become stagnant from a creative point of view.
If Nintendo is to survive on to the generation following Revolution NOA must be given more authority and be put in charge of more capable hands if necessary. Also, more attention must be placed to the European markets and the rest of the world.
The fact that Nintendo continues to be Japan-centric with respect to the market continues to be a big part of the problem as they have failed to forsee the shift to Western developer creativity and the increasing importance of the same market while the Japanese developers become stagnant from a creative point of view.
If Nintendo is to survive on to the generation following Revolution NOA must be given more authority and be put in charge of more capable hands if necessary. Also, more attention must be placed to the European markets and the rest of the world.
Mass-buyouts are just not a solid strategy. The only time that they really pay off is when a company is bought while still small but is on the verge of creating something huge (like Bungie). MS didn't buy out a lot of studios, but they set up big publishing agreements with many of them......only one really paid off, and that was really a miracle.
After a company is already big, it's just too risky. Most companies only have one big franchise, and you are forced to gamble that that franchise will continue to be big for the next 5-10 years.
Nintendo is too focused on short-term profitability anyway. If an investment won't profit for the first few years then they won't do it (look at their attitude towards online infrastructure). Buying out a huge publisher like Capcom or Namco probably wouldn't turn profits quickly enough for them to justify a purchase......particularly given the waning popularity of their IPs.
After a company is already big, it's just too risky. Most companies only have one big franchise, and you are forced to gamble that that franchise will continue to be big for the next 5-10 years.
Nintendo is too focused on short-term profitability anyway. If an investment won't profit for the first few years then they won't do it (look at their attitude towards online infrastructure). Buying out a huge publisher like Capcom or Namco probably wouldn't turn profits quickly enough for them to justify a purchase......particularly given the waning popularity of their IPs.
Rocket Punch
Member
That reminds me, what ever happened to Fund Q that old geezer Yamauchi set up for start up companies? I know of Brownie Brown and Square's spinoff Developer Studios, both of which games made but ripples in the pond. It was a good idea but one that also didn't payoff as originally intended.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
Capcom did ask Nintendo to invest and Nintendo said NO. Go figure. So those of you who said Capcom in the same breath as a company that won't allow a Nintendo buyout.. you're wrong. Maybe now yes.. but they were keen for some N-funds
TheGreenGiant
Banned
border said:
they didn't extend that offer to Sony or MS. What does that say.
cheerio
soundwave05
Member
Howard Lincoln has some posh job with the Seattle Mariners now I believe (who are owned by Hiroshi Yamauchi).
Minoru Arakawa has retired to a huge house in Hawaii with his wife (daughter of Mr. Yamauchi).
Minoru Arakawa has retired to a huge house in Hawaii with his wife (daughter of Mr. Yamauchi).
soundwave05
Member
Yeah but then again I don't think going into the movie business was on Iwata's agenda either.
I think Nintendo will make some changes to their current philosophy, but I agree that probably won't involve buying out other big publishers.
I think Nintendo will make some changes to their current philosophy, but I agree that probably won't involve buying out other big publishers.
soundwave05
Member
I have a weird feeling that Nintendo is going to be very successful with the animation thing.
Its an arena, because of their size, where they can throw around a lot of weight, and it seems like every 4-5 years young boys will always be itching for some kind of new "craze" (Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, Pokemon, etc.).
Its an arena, because of their size, where they can throw around a lot of weight, and it seems like every 4-5 years young boys will always be itching for some kind of new "craze" (Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, Pokemon, etc.).
It says probably that they know that the offer isn't going to be accepted. Their highest profile developer has been bashing the the shit out of Sony and they moved their most high-profile franchise to a competitor's platform. Meanwhile they have yanked almost all support from Xbox. Why even bother asking for a cash infusion from companies you aren't very friendly with? Particularly when your company doesn't look like a very good investment opportunity in the first place....TheGreenGiant said:
soundwave05
Member
I think Capcom will be firmly in Sony's camp next time out, especailly if Mikami is gone from the company.
They're not going to play musical chairs with their big franchises.
They're not going to play musical chairs with their big franchises.
soundwave05
Member
BTW, instead of buying a company, for years now I've always though Nintendo should do these very simple steps.
Take a few million bucks out of that $6 billion cash horde, hire/relocate some kick ass artists, from that staff set up two or three dev teams with a strong creative managment core.
Then set these ground rules:
1.) No pre-existing Nintendo character can be used in any game.
2.) No "Disney-ish" characters period, even original ones.
3.) Games should be made with an older player in mind, not through boobies or unwarranted violence, but through game design, presentation (music, storytelling), and a more sophisticated artistic style.
Sin & Punishment on the N64 is more along the lines of what I'm thinking about. Wanda & Colossus from the ICO team, Prince of Persia, Half-Life, Final Fantasy ... stuff along those lines.
And then let these developers grow and see what types of games they can come up with. And don't cut funding if their first project doesn't sell as well as the business suits hoped. Cultivate your talent, let them grow and develop an audience.
This is cheaper than buying a third party or merging with some other company. Also, situations like with RE4 ... you really can't force another company to give you their IP exclusively. There's none of that issue if the franchise happens to be your own franchise.
Trying to expand your audience when you're not willing to expand the type of content you offer is kind of like trying to get better grades but refusing to do any more homework. Nintendo wants third-parties to do that work for them, but third parties are saying "hey we have to look after ourselves first and foremost".
Take a few million bucks out of that $6 billion cash horde, hire/relocate some kick ass artists, from that staff set up two or three dev teams with a strong creative managment core.
Then set these ground rules:
1.) No pre-existing Nintendo character can be used in any game.
2.) No "Disney-ish" characters period, even original ones.
3.) Games should be made with an older player in mind, not through boobies or unwarranted violence, but through game design, presentation (music, storytelling), and a more sophisticated artistic style.
Sin & Punishment on the N64 is more along the lines of what I'm thinking about. Wanda & Colossus from the ICO team, Prince of Persia, Half-Life, Final Fantasy ... stuff along those lines.
And then let these developers grow and see what types of games they can come up with. And don't cut funding if their first project doesn't sell as well as the business suits hoped. Cultivate your talent, let them grow and develop an audience.
This is cheaper than buying a third party or merging with some other company. Also, situations like with RE4 ... you really can't force another company to give you their IP exclusively. There's none of that issue if the franchise happens to be your own franchise.
Trying to expand your audience when you're not willing to expand the type of content you offer is kind of like trying to get better grades but refusing to do any more homework. Nintendo wants third-parties to do that work for them, but third parties are saying "hey we have to look after ourselves first and foremost".
disabledHeliocentric
Member
2.) No "Disney-ish" characters period, even original ones.
It's funny you mention this. Disney fixed its problem of relying on cute and disneyish characters by buying Miramax. Problem solved. Nintendo should find their own Miramax and leave it be to do stuff for a different audience.
It's funny you mention this. Disney fixed its problem of relying on cute and disneyish characters by buying Miramax. Problem solved. Nintendo should find their own Miramax and leave it be to do stuff for a different audience.
Heliocentric said:
Oddly, that hasn't been the best Disney outside development decision. One could argue that Pixar is a much better financial collaborator for Disney, bringing much more $$$ than Miramax...
The strange thing is that Pixar's movies are -more- Disneylike than anything Disney has put out in years.
Trying to "dump" or hide your core assets isn't always the best approach.
(Still hoping Eisner gets tossed out on his ear.)
disabledHeliocentric
Member
Well Nintendo used to have Rare. And now they are working with Retro. To me those select and elite satellite developers ARE their equivilant of Pixar.
I'm not sure a distinct flavor from Nintendo would work for Nintendo itself. Yet it has worked wonders for Sony.
I'm not sure a distinct flavor from Nintendo would work for Nintendo itself. Yet it has worked wonders for Sony.
soundwave05
Member
DavidDayton said:
Disney also owns Beuna Vista which has put out films like Pretty Woman and The Sixth Sense. Miramax is a niche division for Disney, Beuna Vista is a divsion that they set up themselves to be able to market live action movies and be taken seriously. They did not "buy" Beuna Vista, they built it from scratch.
Anyways, the point is, I mean why not set aside 2 or 3 developers and give them a mandate to stay away from typical Nintendo characters/style?
I just don't believe any type of marketing change will help them at all until they have the content to back it up.
Sega's "in your face" Genesis marketing only took off after Sonic the Hedgehog came out, and Sonic is clearly meant to be a "cooler" alternative to Super Mario. Now suddenly that marketing actually meant something.
Sony's Playstation was a relatively docile brand until they got games like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy VII, which really demonstrated a higher degree of movie-like sophisication. That's really when Playstation took off.
You *must* have the content and Nintendo is out of their mind if they think third-parties can do most of the work for them. The Capcom's of the world have their own problems to deal with.
I can understand being cautious about online play given there really isn't a monsterous market for it (yet), but if Nintendo is not going to invest in expanding their content, they deserve to be forced out of the console race. That type of thinking is totally ass backwards in this day and age.