|
|
Post by Flip on Jan 30, 2010 11:30:30 GMT -5
I understand they're now first-party, but what happens to their properties? Is it like HAL where Nintendo gets whatever they make AFTER ownership, but things like "Eggerland" are fair game outside of Nintendo?
The reason I ask is because, obviously, MS has been very busy these past few years, making games like Baten Kaitos and Xenosaga pre-first party, and then Soma Bringer, Monado, etc. post-Nintendo.
I suppose I should also ask about PAON, since I'm with it. Does their ownership mean Nintendo now also owns the old Data East properties?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jan 30, 2010 12:38:56 GMT -5
As has been stated before, owning a company does not automatically mean owning all of their assets unless specified.
Monolith Soft will own or co-own the rights to anything that they worked on (code, characters, etc.), while the original publishers will own the publishing rights. It all depends on whether the publisher commissioned them to develop the game or whether they developed it and sought a publisher.
If Nintendo wants to acquire those rights, they will have to negotiate them (or buy them) from the developer and the publisher.
The same is true of HAL. The company still owns or co-owns their games, but they're a LOT closer to Nintendo, so I expect negotiations between Nintendo and HAL are largely a golden handshake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Game Guru on Jan 30, 2010 13:59:35 GMT -5
I explained the situation with Monolith in the Xenoblade topic, but about Hal and Paon...
Paon owns the publishing rights to Karnov and Chelnov, but G-Mode owns the rights to Fighter's History which have Karnov and Chelnov as fighters. Paon, however, is a second-party... which means they are independent of Nintendo as a company. It is very likely that if Paon wanted to make another Karnov or Chelnov game, Nintendo would publish it as they did with Glory of Hercules.
HAL Labs, also being a second-party, is also an independent company from Nintendo. As recently as 2000, they released an Eggerland game for Windows.
One must remember that Nintendo does not usually buy companies. The only reason why Nintendo owns Monolith Soft is because Namco traded its shares in Monolith Soft for Nintendo's shares in Bandai. Bandai was going to merge with a company, and they wanted it to be a company that is not tied to a console. Yes, Nintendo owned enough of Bandai that there was a real chance for a merged Nintendo Bandai to form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on Jan 30, 2010 16:59:16 GMT -5
So what's the deal with Monolith Soft?  |
|
|
|
Post by Flip on Jan 30, 2010 17:39:16 GMT -5
So what's the deal with Monolith Soft? Seems like somebody's been saving that one ;p |
|
