5 ms·

No disrespect to Nintendo, as I think the game looks pretty cool, but it's awesome how the average human's investment memory is now down to 45 days (remember wh

by nstj 10y ago

No disrespect to Nintendo, as I think the game looks pretty cool, but it's awesome how the average human's investment memory is now down to 45 days (remember when Nintendo stock ripped after Pokemon Go?)[0] > Shares in Nintendo Co tumbled as much as 18 percent on Monday after the company said Pokemon GO would have a limited impact on its earnings - their biggest setback so far after a huge run-up on the smash-hit game. [0]: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nintendo-pokemon-stocks-idUSKCN10504G http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nintendo-pokemon-stocks-id...

Navarr 10y ago
The issue with Pokémon GO was that they were simply stakeholders, not the prime owners (Pokémon is itself an individual company owned by GAME FREAK owned by Nintendo - so Nintendo itself has limited $$ from the game). Whereas, so far as I can tell, this Mario game is 100% Nintendo.
chatmasta 10y ago
The difference is that PGO was developed by Niantic, a third party developer, who pays Nintendo licensing fees. The licensing terms were not public, so it makes sense that the initial pricing of Nintendo would favor them to be optimistic, before correcting to a lower price upon hearing the news from Nintendo that the fees would minimally affect revenue. Mario will be developed directly by Nintendo and they will keep 100% of the revenue it generates.
- dsacco 10y ago
  >>Mario will be developed directly by Nintendo and they will keep 100% of the revenue it generates. Minus the 30% that Apple takes.
  - mercer 10y ago
    While possible, I find it hard to believe the Nintendo didn't manage to come up with a Special Deal just for them. I mean, Nintendo entering the iOS market, properly entering it, strikes me as worthwhile enough to Apple as well as Nintendo that they probably made a custom deal. Or perhaps I'm over-valuing Nintendo's position, of course. Anyone have thoughts on the matter?
akst 10y ago
Yeah but their stocks ripped because nintendo only owned a 3rd of the stake in the Pokemon Company & nintendo made an announcement that they didn't expect this to affect their earnings

by nstj 10y ago

Navarr 10y ago

The issue with Pokémon GO was that they were simply stakeholders, not the prime owners (Pokémon is itself an individual company owned by GAME FREAK owned by Nintendo - so Nintendo itself has limited $$ from the game). Whereas, so far as I can tell, this Mario game is 100% Nintendo.

chatmasta 10y ago

The difference is that PGO was developed by Niantic, a third party developer, who pays Nintendo licensing fees. The licensing terms were not public, so it makes sense that the initial pricing of Nintendo would favor them to be optimistic, before correcting to a lower price upon hearing the news from Nintendo that the fees would minimally affect revenue. Mario will be developed directly by Nintendo and they will keep 100% of the revenue it generates.

dsacco 10y ago
>>Mario will be developed directly by Nintendo and they will keep 100% of the revenue it generates. Minus the 30% that Apple takes.
- mercer 10y ago
  While possible, I find it hard to believe the Nintendo didn't manage to come up with a Special Deal just for them. I mean, Nintendo entering the iOS market, properly entering it, strikes me as worthwhile enough to Apple as well as Nintendo that they probably made a custom deal. Or perhaps I'm over-valuing Nintendo's position, of course. Anyone have thoughts on the matter?

akst 10y ago

Yeah but their stocks ripped because nintendo only owned a 3rd of the stake in the Pokemon Company & nintendo made an announcement that they didn't expect this to affect their earnings