Speculation Game Freak Removes Creatures Inc. from Major Business Partners on its Website

[Leaf_Ranger]

Independently of how well these last games sold, I think that the whole ruckus around it has put some stress and questioning on all the involved entities. Also I won't forget (despite some people wanting to or read it in another way) that infamous interview about teams and priorities in Game Freak and perhaps GF is also wanting to have some space away from the Pkmn franchise.
The removal of Creatures isn't just accident, so let's see what's next after the dust settles on Gen. VIII.

 

[Aulos]

I don't get this propping up of Nintendo. They've released two ambitious games - Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. I fully understand how significant Odyssey is in the context of the series as I've posted about that before, but I think that BOTW might have been developed with ambition with more monetary goals, as the previous Zeldas weren't performing as well as Nintendo liked. BOTW was either originally made to save the Wii U or to promote the Switch.

But... I feel like the bulk of Switch's releases have either been standard fare unambitious remakes sequels (Splatoon 2, Super Mario Maker 2) or Wii U ports. There's also games like the Kirby and Mario Tennis Aces which I couldn't even play for long because they were so uninspired to me. (Aces is a Camelot game, though, so perhaps not the best example)

I don't think Nintendo is as dedicated to quality, inspired games like BOTW and Odyssey as many people like to think. At the end of the Switch's lifespan I guarantee you those two titles will still be at least the bulk of what we consider the most ambitious. Maybe one or two other games will join their ranks if we're really lucky. (I think that Animal Crossing New Horizons and hopefully Metroid Prime 4 will both be excellent games, but I don't think that they'll join the ranks of BOTW and Odyssey as being super ambitious games that turn around their franchises)

The circumstance that the Pokemon series is in is a whole another can of worms. The mobile market is where it is at with Pokemon now. And Sword/Shield sold so great despite the major issues with them that I guarantee you there is absolutely nothing on any level to spark a change. I'm afraid I don't see any chance for a 3D Mario platformer revitalization here, as the circumstances are just so different with the Pokemon series.

 

[Almonds]

I've said this before, but Pokemon is super big as a franchise and a game delay would affect the anime and the TCG. (Btw, I wouldn't shove the TCG to the side when its World Championships prize money isarger than the video game division. The card games are still influential.) They're all closely tied together.

Also, I don't know what it is like for a game development project, but when do they usually realize they need to delay the games? Early in the development? Before the first advertising promo? After a significant progress is made?

 

[Poke Dragon]

In terms of remakes, Splatoon 2 isn't one of them, Super Mario Maker 2 maybe. Nintendo is dedicated to bringing quality games even if it means restarting the whole project like how it was with Metroid Prime 4. The studious under Nintendo's wing like Retro Studious comply with what Nintendo asks and that typically results in better games at the end.

Also, I'm starting to see opinions being treated like facts and that's a sign of a weak argument.

 

[Nicolas721]

As @Aulos said, I think that BOTW & Odyssey's success isn't a case of "Nintendo has a compromise with quality and the crew aspired to get experimental and do something great" and more of a case of "These games have to BE excellent or the new console will be doomed forever and thus we will give them large budgets and development time".

Pokémon wasn't in a dangerous state when the Switch came out, more like the opposite as it was being boosted by Go sales, so it didn't need that much attention. Nintendo likely just asked for a cheap game for 2018 and a new generation for 2019 and Game Freak agreed. Nintendo just didn't think Pokémon had to change, and I don't think they are angry for the games' results and willing to spend more money on them.

 

[Aulos]

My mistake, I did not mean to say 'remakes'. Quite funny because I'm so strict on the meaning of that term, but then I slip up and use it on games that are not remakes at all. I meant that those two games are rather standard sequels and do not show even a shred of the ambition of BOTW or Odyssey.

I'm not saying that's always bad. Both series are new, and a shake-up might not be welcome at this point. But even when looking at the titles beyond terms of ambition, I don't see them as being super impressive. They get the job done of what they're supposed to do, but they aren't anything special.

For me, modern Nintendo is defined by games like that (and Kirby/Mario Tennis Aces) just as much as they are BOTW or Odyssey. You may think my feelings about Kirby and Mario Tennis Aces are just opinions, and I understand that, but can you really tell me that those two games are shining examples of ambition? Or are they just...there, as I think?

 

[prog rocker]

My mistake, I did not mean to say 'remakes'. Quite funny because I'm so strict on the meaning of that term, but then I slip up and use it on games that are not remakes at all. I meant that those two games are rather standard sequels and do not show even a shred of the ambition of BOTW or Odyssey.

I'm not saying that's always bad. Both series are new, and a shake-up might not be welcome at this point. But even when looking at the titles beyond terms of ambition, I don't see them as being super impressive. They get the job done of what they're supposed to do, but they aren't anything special.

For me, modern Nintendo is defined by games like that (and Kirby/Mario Tennis Aces) just as much as they are BOTW or Odyssey. You may think my feelings about Kirby and Mario Tennis Aces are just opinions, and I understand that, but can you really tell me that those two games are shining examples of ambition? Or are they just...there, as I think?

Well, I don't know if you could use Mario Tennis as an example, because, well, you can't do much with that. Most of the other Mario series, on the other hand... (specially the 2D ones).

 

[Bolt Strike]

I don't get this propping up of Nintendo. They've released two ambitious games - Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. I fully understand how significant Odyssey is in the context of the series as I've posted about that before, but I think that BOTW might have been developed with ambition with more monetary goals, as the previous Zeldas weren't performing as well as Nintendo liked. BOTW was either originally made to save the Wii U or to promote the Switch.

But... I feel like the bulk of Switch's releases have either been standard fare unambitious remakes sequels (Splatoon 2, Super Mario Maker 2) or Wii U ports. There's also games like the Kirby and Mario Tennis Aces which I couldn't even play for long because they were so uninspired to me. (Aces is a Camelot game, though, so perhaps not the best example)

I don't think Nintendo is as dedicated to quality, inspired games like BOTW and Odyssey as many people like to think. At the end of the Switch's lifespan I guarantee you those two titles will still be at least the bulk of what we consider the most ambitious. Maybe one or two other games will join their ranks if we're really lucky. (I think that Animal Crossing New Horizons and hopefully Metroid Prime 4 will both be excellent games, but I don't think that they'll join the ranks of BOTW and Odyssey as being super ambitious games that turn around their franchises)

A game doesn't need to be ambitious to be a quality game, it's important for BotW and Odyssey which are both adventure games focused on exploration, but huge overworlds aren't really necessary for games like Splatoon 2 and Super Mario Maker 2. Those two games are also the second iterations in their series so they don't really need a big mechanical shakeup whereas the 3D Marios and 3D Zeldas have been running for 20 years. All they need to do is provide solid gameplay for what they're trying to do and appeal to the demographics that want them, which both of those games do. Splatoon 2 is an arena shooter focused on using ink based weaponry and controlling territory. So they have a variety of multiplayer modes, many of which are online focused, a large variety of gear and weapons, and a single player campaign (plus a DLC expansion) for players to get good at the game. Super Mario Maker 2 is focused on creating and sharing your own 2D Mario levels, so they've added tons of new features to the level creator, they have a story mode for you to get ideas, a challenge mode for you to play through multiple user created levels, co-op creating and playing. The games include as much content as they need to in the areas they need to, there's no need for them to be huge open worlds like BotW and Odyssey.

As for Pokemon, there's multiple components of the gameplay they need to account for (trading, battling, catching Pokemon, social features, adventuring through the overworld, the story and characters), but SwSh isn't particularly satisfying in any of those areas. That's where they need to focus on improvement.

The circumstance that the Pokemon series is in is a whole another can of worms. The mobile market is where it is at with Pokemon now. And Sword/Shield sold so great despite the major issues with them that I guarantee you there is absolutely nothing on any level to spark a change. I'm afraid I don't see any chance for a 3D Mario platformer revitalization here, as the circumstances are just so different with the Pokemon series.

The focus on mobile is another choice that is likely being driven by Game Freak and TPC to save development costs and overemphasize a blue ocean market that isn't particularly interested in its flagship games. Nintendo doesn't focus on mobile nearly as much as Pokemon does, they only have 1 game per IP (compared to what? 4 or 5 for Pokemon in the last 3 years) and it's mainly designed to draw players towards the flagship entries on Switch. The majority of this market isn't really interested in buying a Switch, only really pays for games through questionably ethical tactics such as microtransactions, and is generally so fickle about what they want to play that they're not a reliable source of income for the console market. Nintendo is not going to want to focus on mobile like TPC is now, they'd want more Switch games and less mobile games.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

We actually have no evidence that Nintendo isn’t approving the pushes at all. We know they’re green-lighting everything in the franchise. They own 33% of The Pokémon Company and publish the games, so I don’t really get passing Nintendo as the saviour of the franchise since they aren’t really absolved of all blame due to their work on totally unrelated games.

If GameFreak's profiting from the new schedule, Nintendo is, too. And let's not forget the fact that they relegated most of their online to a mobile app. In the end, they too are a corporation that works for profit and have had enough fiascos themselves. I don’t want to come off as insensitive but Nintendo won’t really "save" the franchise, whatever that means.

They knew well and good and allowed a game with Dexit to be sold, and are equally to blame, specially since most arguments here are:
1. Based on conjecture.
2. Based on faith on a multi-million (billion, I think?) cooperation which wants nothing but your money.
3. We don’t even know about the inner workings of TPCi. We absolutely don’t know who forced whom. For all we know GameFreak wants to make quality games but are strong-armed into a yearly release schedule by TPCI and Nintendo as a whole. There’s absolutely no way to prove anything.

 

[Bolt Strike]

@PkmnTrainerV Again, a 33% share doesn't get you very far, you need a majority control to really approve anything. So how exactly do we know they're greenlighting everything? If you're going to pull the "we don't know" card, that invalidates the idea that they're greenlighting things. They can just as easily be greenlit by Game Freak and Creatures approving everything without Nintendo needing to agree.

We really don't know for sure that they're not approving, no, but the other examples do provide strong evidence that they object to the kinds of practices being used with Pokemon. By looking at their work as a whole we can see patterns in their game development and draw conclusions on their behavior based on that. It's not a matter of blind faith or conjecture, they've provided numerous examples across a broad variety of games which shows that they consistently behave this way.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Again, a 33% share doesn't get you very far, you need a majority control to really approve anything. So how exactly do we know they're greenlighting everything? If you're going to pull the "we don't know" card, that invalidates the idea that they're greenlighting things. They can just as easily be greenlit by Game Freak and Creatures approving everything without Nintendo needing to agree.

Do you really think that a huge developmental decision was passed without the consent of the 33% owner of the franchise and the publisher of the game? And creatures doesn’t get much out of green lighting Dexit anyway since they already did their job of providing the future proofed models. At most they’d be indifferent.

It’s a more reasonable assumption that Nintendo was well aware and greenlighted Dexit rather than it being some conspiracy about GameFreak launching a game which cut features with Nintendo forebidding it. The game was released is proof enough that Nintendo allowed it. The theory that Nintendo somehow didn’t allow Dexit but GameFreak did it anyway is the one which requires knowledge of the inner workings of TPCi, since the fact that Nintendo knew about it and allowed it is the more reasonable assumption seeing what we do know about the workings of TPCi.

Its because if Nintendo were harshly against it, logically the game wouldn’t even be released. Specially since Dexit is said to be a long term decision. Such a long term decision not requiring the green light of the publisher and 33% owner of the company is strange at best and ridiculous at worst.

No single party is to blame, rather a mixture of circumstances and different companies.

 

[Poke Dragon]

That's really not how it works, all three companies have equal shares of TPC, which the decision on what is done is based on the majority agreement. In this case, Nintendo was forced to agree because of Game Freak and Creatures Inc. voting yes on not delaying a game. It's not that hard to realize that sometimes, companies are forced to do what they don't want to do. It's a lot more likely that Nintendo wanted to delay the game but couldn't because of majority vote.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

That's really not how it works, all three companies have equal shares of TPC, which the decision on what is done is based on the majority agreement. In this case, Nintendo was forced to agree because of Game Freak and Creatures Inc. voting yes on not delaying a game. It's not that hard to realize that sometimes, companies are forced to do what they don't want to do. It's a lot more likely that Nintendo wanted to delay the game but couldn't because of majority vote.

If Nintendo had that strong of an opinion against it, they could refuse to publish the game under their name...

 

[Poke Dragon]

If Nintendo had that strong of an opinion against it, they could refuse to publish the game under their name...

They had no choice but to publish the game as they are the publisher of the group. Just because they are the parent company doesn't mean they can control everything that happens to Pokemon when there are other two companies that also have the same amount as Nintendo.

 

[Bolt Strike]

Do you really think that a huge developmental decision was passed without the consent of the 33% owner of the franchise and the publisher of the game? And creatures doesn’t get much out of green lighting Dexit anyway since they already did their job of providing the future proofed models. At most they’d be indifferent.

It’s a more reasonable assumption that Nintendo was well aware and greenlighted Dexit rather than it being some conspiracy about GameFreak launching a game which cut features with Nintendo forebidding it. The game was released is proof enough that Nintendo allowed it. The theory that Nintendo somehow didn’t allow Dexit but GameFreak did it anyway is the one which requires knowledge of the inner workings of TPCi, since the fact that Nintendo knew about it and allowed it is the more reasonable assumption seeing what we do know about the workings of TPCi.

Its because if Nintendo were harshly against it, logically the game wouldn’t even be released. Specially since Dexit is said to be a long term decision. Such a long term decision not requiring the green light of the publisher and 33% owner of the company is strange at best and ridiculous at worst.

No single party is to blame, rather a mixture of circumstances and different companies.

At best it would've been a reluctant agreement when they really didn't want to go through with it (and certainly not with as little content and polish as it had). Again, their only alternative would've been incredibly risky and potentially even less desirable. If Nintendo held out because they wanted them to spend more time on the game and Game Freak and Creatures refused, then they would just want to release it on PS4, Xbox One, or mobile and potentially break off from Nintendo to do it. Then Nintendo would have nothing instead of a game that sort of satisfies people and sells well, and neither they nor the fans would benefit from that decision. Nintendo doesn't have the leverage in this arrangement to force the other two parties to change their schedule or budget, Pokemon has shown that it sells well regardless of circumstances or platform, so if Nintendo draws a hard line Game Freak and Creatures can take their business elsewhere. Hence the only way to really force the issue is to gain majority control over TPC.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

If Nintendo held out because they wanted them to spend more time on the game and Game Freak and Creatures refused, then they would just want to release it on PS4, Xbox One, or mobile and potentially break off from Nintendo to do it. Then Nintendo would have nothing instead of a game that sort of satisfies people and sells well, and neither they nor the fans would benefit from that decision.

It literally can’t happen unless the TPCi is broken up. No, GameFreak and Creatures absolutely "can’t take their business elsewhere" so easily.

The entire situation doesn’t have such a clear cut solution, since the Dexit currently has no known logical reason anyway since the assets were reusable. And again, Nintendo being forced into a long term Dexit arrangement, the Pokémon Home app while being a third owner and the publisher makes less sense the more I think about it.

An emotionally charged selective co-operation blaming and defending will get us nowhere.

And... looking at the premise of the thread, how do we know Creatures supported the Dexit? In fact, they’re actually removed from the business partners, which would imply some sort of conflict between the two entities. That was what this thread was set out to, not to selectively direct the TPCi and play a blame game on the basis of which multimillion cooperation one adores and one doesn’t.

At this point we don’t have enough information to determine if this conspiracy theory is true(it sounds like one). There’s no conceivable way Nintendo had any negative reaction beyond meh on the policy change based on the power structures. Nintendo as a company holds a lot of power, and it has a symbiotic relationship with Pokémon. Nintendo needs Pokémon, and Pokémon needs Nintendo. I’m not inclined to believe that Nintendo severely disagreed.
And in the end they’re a cooperation: they’re literally right in the middle of a class action lawsuit.

 

[Poke Dragon]

It literally can’t happen unless the TPCi is broken up.

Which would most likely happen if Nintendo refused to let them release a game every year.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Which would most likely happen if Nintendo refused to let them release a game every year.

You’re assuming Nintendo is opposed to yearly releases. Pokemon is their cash cow.

I looked it up and:

© 2019 Pokémon. © 1995–2019 Nintendo/Creatures Inc./GAME FREAK inc. Pokémon, Pokémon character names, Nintendo Switch, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo DS, Wii, Wii U, and WiiWare are trademarks of Nintendo. The YouTube logo is a trademark of Google Inc. Other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

And one more extremely important aspect no one bothered to mention before- Nintendo is the sole owner of the Pokémon trademark worldwide and all three have equal division of the Pokémon Copyright i
And one more extremely important aspect no one bothered to mention before- Nintendo is the sole owner of the Pokémon trademark worldwide and all three have equal division of the Pokémon Copyright i

So, no, GameFreak will not dare to split from Nintendo unless they’re willing to release a knock off of their own game on the PS4. It can’t be called Pokémon, or have the Pokémon copyright.

I’m sorry to inform you that Nintendo isn’t a benevolent company being pushed around by GameFreak and Creatures.

 

[Poke Dragon]

You’re assuming Nintendo is opposed to yearly releases. Pokemon is their cash cow.

And one more extremely important aspect no one bothered to mention before- Nintendo is the sole owner of the Pokémon trademark and all three have equal division of the Pokémon Copyright.

So, no, GameFreak will not dare to split from Nintendo unless they’re willing to release a knock off of their own game on the PS4. It can’t be called Pokémon, or have the Pokémon copyright.

Nintendo's true cashcows are actually Mario and Zelda. Cashcows don't really need to be released every year for them to be cashcows.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Nintendo's true cashcows are actually Mario and Zelda. Cashcows don't really need to be released every year for them to be cashcows.

Read my edit. GameFreak and Creatures can’t split from Nintendo and create a game called Pokémon. They’re legally incapable. Nintendo holds more power in the arrangement than you think.