# Investors Realize Nintendo Doesn't Make Pokemon Go, Stock Drops



## BORTZ (Jul 25, 2016)

So nintendo had no hand in this at all?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jul 25, 2016)

Bortz said:


> So nintendo had no hand in this at all?


Well no, Nintendo had very little to do with the app outside licensing Pokemon to Niantic. Niantic are the ones made the app itself and (AFAIK) makes the "most" off of it.


----------



## KingAsix (Jul 25, 2016)

I mean technically Ninantic (probably butchered that) developed it, right?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 25, 2016)

If the numbers are correct from what I have been reading Nintendo will still make a billion or two from Go over the next 2 years (assuming it doesn't fizzle) 

Either way it's fun to watch.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Either way Nintendo stock would of gone down eventually as fads like this die out. Pokémon Go shows how out of touch Nintendo is. Although I am shocked investors didn't even check out the facts before evaluating Nintendo stock.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Never mind


----------



## DaniloLemes (Jul 25, 2016)

Saw this early this morning, looks like a Sensacionalist (https://www.facebook.com/sensacionalista/?fref=ts) thread.
They also said their only engagment in the mobile scene was with Miitomo.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jul 25, 2016)

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anywhere in the article that the drop was due to investors finding out Nintendo didn't make Pokemon Go.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

DaniloLemes said:


> Saw this early this morning, looks like a Sensacionalist (https://www.facebook.com/sensacionalista/?fref=ts) thread.
> They also said their only engagment in the mobile scene was with Miitomo.


Yes as that is with DeNA through a partnership


----------



## DaniloLemes (Jul 25, 2016)

It could be comic if it was not tragic


----------



## Fabax01 (Jul 25, 2016)

_Oof! Taken down!
STOCK? The money the INVESTORS dropped. It's here somewhere._



Spoiler



Edited Pokemon red script.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 25, 2016)

AFAIK, Nintendo is one of the shareholders of Niantic anyways. So to some extent, Niantic belongs to Nintendo, Google and some others*.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> AFAIK, Nintendo is one of the shareholders of Niantic anyways. So to some extent, Niantic belongs to Nintendo, Google and some others*.


Yeah but  they still own alot less then  what investors thought


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Jul 25, 2016)

All I can say is: LOL


----------



## dreary79 (Jul 25, 2016)

The Pokemon license will increase in value so much from Go that there stocks may not continue to drop.  Even if they do they should go back up again.  Between deals with chains like McDonald, toys, video games, collectable cards, clothing and other collectables Nintendo is going to make a lot of money on the Pokemon license.  Hopefully they don't screw this up like they did with the Wii U.


----------



## McHaggis (Jul 25, 2016)

sarkwalvein said:


> AFAIK, Nintendo is one of the shareholders of Niantic anyways. So to some extent, Niantic belongs to Nintendo, Google and some others*.


Google, Nintendo and The Pokémon Company (also partly owned by Nintendo) invested into Niantic, along with smaller amounts by venture capitalists.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jul 25, 2016)

investors realized "wait a minute those are the guys that did the wiiu quick sell!"


----------



## nolimits59 (Jul 25, 2016)

Yeah, because Nintendo NEVER suppervised or validated or given any directives about the game, OF COURSE Nintendo is not involved AT ALL an don't own any part of Pokemon compagny, game freaks, or Niantic... yeah... Nintendo didn't made anything of pokemon go... yeah... damn how stupid it sound when you say it ! x)


----------



## vayanui8 (Jul 25, 2016)

I was surprised when I heard it was Nintendo's stocks that rose from this, I suppose it makes alot more sense now


----------



## tech3475 (Jul 25, 2016)

vayanui8 said:


> I was surprised when I heard it was Nintendo's stocks that rose from this, I suppose it makes alot more sense now



Investors saw it was popular and thought popular == profit, Ive heard allot of investment is also handled by computers now which doesnt help.

It was just a matter of time before something happened to cause the shares to decline.


----------



## richardparker (Jul 25, 2016)

damn sad...


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 25, 2016)

The correct headline should be something like this: Nintendo's stock drops after announcing limited revenue off Pokemon Go
Investors couldn't care less who makes the game. It's about how much the profit is. You make profit, investors are interested. You don't make profit, investors aren't interested. Simple.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Jul 25, 2016)

i don't understand can someone explain me. nintendo and gamefreak own the pokemon ip right? so niantic is the developer so niantic developed this game with nintendo and gamefreaks intellectual property so pokemon go without the pokemon would just be something else. so why the hell is this happening considering the pokemon brand is now getting bigger because of this game so now is more valuable for nintendo. shouldn't the stock be high still. and why the hell when activision payed like 7 billion for candy crush the stocks went up. i just don't understand this


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

WiiUBricker said:


> The correct headline should be something like this: Nintendo's stock drops after announcing limited revenue off Pokemon Go
> Investors couldn't care less who makes the game. It's about how much the profit is. You make profit, investors are interested. You don't make profit, investors aren't interested. Simple.


Very true but if it is implied that Nintendo made the game it is only reasonable to assume they get a larger (if not 100%) piece of the pie.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gbaboy123 said:


> i don't understand can someone explain me. nintendo and gamefreak own the pokemon ip right? so niantic is the developer so niantic developed this game with nintendo and gamefreaks intellectual property so pokemon go without the pokemon would just be something else. so why the hell is this happening considering the pokemon brand is now getting bigger because of this game so now is more valuable for nintendo. shouldn't the stock be high still. and why the hell when activision payed like 7 billion for candy crush the stocks went up. i just don't understand this


The app company is licensing the rights from Nintendo (who owns gf) and the stock went down since the amount of revenue being collected for Nintendo is smaller than what was originally thought. The brand strength does matter but the big deal is the actual revenue.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 25, 2016)

Aside from titles like Mario Kart Wii developed by their R&D department, they don't actively develop games anymore. They are licensors and publishers. I thought this was common knowledge, especially in the business world.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Subtle Demise said:


> Aside from titles like Mario Kart Wii developed by their R&D department, they don't actively develop games anymore. They are licensors and publishers. I thought this was common knowledge, especially in the business world.


Basically that is what it boils down to for most of thier original ip franchises


----------



## Ev1lbl0w (Jul 25, 2016)

I always knew it was Niantic who developed the game. Nintendo just gave them permission to use Pokemons.

And, in the beginning of the year, Nintendo was going to give permission to use ther franchises for mobile apps.

Seriously, did many people though Nintendo did Pokemon Go? I mean, when you open the app it shows "Niantic", not "Nintendo"!


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Ev1lbl0w said:


> I always knew it was Niantic who developed the game. Nintendo just gave them permission to use Pokemons.
> 
> And, in the beginning of the year, Nintendo was going to give permission to use ther franchises for mobile apps.
> 
> Seriously, did many people though Nintendo did Pokemon Go? I mean, when you open the app it shows "Niantic", not "Nintendo"!


Perhaps they did because 
A) they thought Nintendo owned the company 
B)they believed Nintendo did all of the work and used the company for distribution


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Jul 25, 2016)

Ev1lbl0w said:


> Seriously, did many people though Nintendo did Pokemon Go? I mean, when you open the app it shows "Niantic", not "Nintendo"!


Because 'Pokémon' is more often associated with Nintendo (or GameFreak), than with Niantic.


----------



## Ritsuki (Jul 25, 2016)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> View attachment 57198​
> Since Pokemon Go was released, Nintendo has been all up in that money. With a century-record under their belt, it's safe to say the executives at Nintendo were rolling in the dough...that is, until investors realized that Nintendo themselves didn't make Pokemon Go.
> 
> The Stock dropped a whopping 18%, resulting in a loss of _$6.7 billion _market value for Nintendo after their record breaking $4.5 billion surge on Friday. The stock dropped after announcing their 13% "economic stake" for the app itself.
> ...



The investor didn't exactly "realize" that, Nintendo actually told them that they'll get only 13% of the generated profits. Why ? Because like said before in the topic, Niantic developed the game, using the Pokemon franchise, which actually doesn't belong directly to Nintendo, but to The Pokemon Company, and Nintendo owns 32% of this company. So Niantic will pay for the franchise and an indemnity for the help they provided in the development of the game. Meanwhile, they didn't change their previsions for the years, so they pretty much knew that was going to happen. And even with this loss, they still gained over 10 billions in capital over the weeks.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Ritsuki said:


> The investor didn't exactly "realize" that, Nintendo actually told them that they'll get only 13% of the generated profits. Why ? Because like said before in the topic, Niantic developed the game, using the Pokemon franchise, which actually doesn't belong directly to Nintendo, but to The Pokemon Company, and Nintendo owns 32% of this company. So Niantic will pay for the franchise and an indemnity for the help they provided in the development of the game. Meanwhile, they didn't change their previsions for the years, so they pretty much knew that was going to happen. And even with this loss, they still gained over 10 billions in capital over the weeks.


Keep in mind the loss will most likely grow though


----------



## CeeDee (Jul 25, 2016)

DiscostewSM said:


> Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see anywhere in the article that the drop was due to investors finding out Nintendo didn't make Pokemon Go.





WiiUBricker said:


> The correct headline should be something like this: Nintendo's stock drops after announcing limited revenue off Pokemon Go
> Investors couldn't care less who makes the game. It's about how much the profit is. You make profit, investors are interested. You don't make profit, investors aren't interested. Simple.


gotta have that clickbait title though


----------



## RepeatingDigits (Jul 25, 2016)

Breaking news: Investors are fucking idiots who don't even know what the company they're investing in even does.
More at 11.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

RepeatingDigits said:


> Breaking news: Investors are fucking idiots who don't even know what the company they're investing in even does.
> More at 11.


The question is did Nintendo hide the information? I am not sure for 100% but that has to be considered.


----------



## CathyRina (Jul 25, 2016)

Holy shit did it take long for people to read the Wikipedia page, realize that it was Tsunekazu Ishihara's Idea (Head of the Pokemon Company), realize that there is no splash logo for Nintendo in the app and that nintendo's app plans were excluive towards Dena's 5 apps, one of which is Miitomo.


----------



## RepeatingDigits (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The question is did Nintendo hide the information? I am not sure for 100% but that has to be considered.


They didn't hide anything. Investors are just that stupid, I mean they only move by numbers and have no interest in the company itself. 
Suits just don't care, that's why we got "pay $5 to make mario jump higher" man. Complete disconnect and ignorance.
In a nutshell, they're just autists with money who like numbers. That's the stock exchange for you.


----------



## OfficialBrony (Jul 25, 2016)

no


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Holy shit did it take long for people to read the Wikipedia page, realize that it was Tsunekazu Ishihara's Idea (Head of the Pokemon Company), realize that there is no splash logo for Nintendo in the app and that nintendo's app plans were excluive towards Dena's 5 apps, one of which is Miitomo.


Afaik the DeNA deal was not 100% exclusive


----------



## OfficialBrony (Jul 25, 2016)

no


----------



## CathyRina (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Afaik the DeNA deal was not 100% exclusive


Still, the writing was on the wall.
There were at least half dozen Pokemon Apps before Pokemon go and yet Nintendo still claimed Miitomo to be their first one.
People don't do research nowadays.


----------



## keven3477 (Jul 25, 2016)

This was what i believed was true in the beginning, no where in the app said Nintendo, it was all mostly niantic, it always irritated me when anybody talked about Nintendo to fix the app when they had no hand in the development only in branding.


----------



## CathyRina (Jul 25, 2016)

keven3477 said:


> This was what i believed was true in the beginning, no where in the app said Nintendo, it was all mostly niantic, it always irritated me when anybody talked about Nintendo to fix the app when they had no hand in the development only in branding.


their name is listed once in the entire app but only on the login screen which you can miss since the app auto-logs in.
And it's only there because Nintendo co-owns the Pokemon Company.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Still, the writing was on the wall.
> There were at least half dozen Pokemon Apps before Pokemon go and yet Nintendo still claimed Miitomo to be their first one.
> People don't do research nowadays.


Agreed 100%


----------



## Ericzander (Jul 25, 2016)

I knew it!  Alright, so I didn't invest in Nintendo prior to the game coming out because I have student loan debt and I would be in a better position to pay that off quickly than to invest in anything.  But I told my friend with no financial obligations to invest in Nintendo before the game came out.  He did - and he was ecstatic.  Once it hit its apex I told him he might wanna sell it because it looked to me (and I'm sure most people who were paying attention) that it plateaued.  He didn't sell and now I gotta break this news to him.  However he'll still come out ahead.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

keven3477 said:


> This was what i believed was true in the beginning, no where in the app said Nintendo, it was all mostly niantic, it always irritated me when anybody talked about Nintendo to fix the app when they had no hand in the development only in branding.


Again the problem is people don't think. It's like no one thinks Nintendo makes bed linen because it has Mario on it so why think they make apps with charters on it?


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The question is did Nintendo hide the information? I am not sure for 100% but that has to be considered.


I think Nintendo's shares in The Pokemon Company/GameFreak, w/e is public knowledge and therefor I think the investors just jumped the gun a little bit after seeing the popularity of the game.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Subtle Demise said:


> I think Nintendo's shares in The Pokemon Company/GameFreak, w/e is public knowledge and therefor I think the investors just jumped the gun a little bit after seeing the popularity of the game.


I was speaking of the knowledge in relation to niantic and the profit relating to the actual app


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> I was speaking of the knowledge in relation to niantic and the profit relating to the actual app


I'm sorry, I took my prescription painkillers and am a little foggy


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'm sorry, I took my prescription painkillers and am a little foggy


It aight


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 25, 2016)

Do investors not know what joint ventures are?


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

osaka35 said:


> Do investors not know what joint ventures are?


Or they are to lazy to take two minutes to Google  the status of a company that they ae aboutvto invest in


----------



## tbb043 (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Again the problem is people don't think. It's like no one thinks Nintendo makes bed linen because it has Mario on it so why think they make apps with charters on it?



Mario sheets are a hell of a lot further from Mario games than a Pokeyman phone game is from a  Pokeyman GB/C/A/(3)DS game.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

tbb043 said:


> Mario sheets are a hell of a lot further from Mario games than a Pokeyman phone game is from a  Pokeyman GB/C/A/(3)DS game.


True but ultimately the logc does apply to an extent as they are still different markets (although you could argue that they are different subdivisions of the same market).


----------



## TehCupcakes (Jul 25, 2016)

The question is, should I cash out now, or hold on hoping info about the NX will drive another spike? I bought into Nintendo stocks when they were down, knowing they would go up over silly things like Pokemon Go, but I should have anticipated them going down for the same reason.  I don't really get why people think Pokemon Go is somehow a highly profitable product... I can't imagine most people spending real money on it, but perhaps I underestimate the economic potential of freemium games.


----------



## Xenon Hacks (Jul 25, 2016)

TehCupcakes said:


> The question is, should I cash out now, or hold on hoping info about the NX will drive another spike? I bought into Nintendo stocks when they were down, knowing they would go up over silly things like Pokemon Go, but I should have anticipated them going down for the same reason.  I don't really get why people think Pokemon Go is somehow a highly profitable product... I can't imagine most people spending real money on it, but perhaps I underestimate the economic potential of freemium games.


Sell NX will be another flop, and if possible reinvest a small portion in Niantic.


----------



## CathyRina (Jul 25, 2016)

TehCupcakes said:


> The question is, should I cash out now, or hold on hoping info about the NX will drive another spike? I bought into Nintendo stocks when they were down, knowing they would go up over silly things like Pokemon Go, but I should have anticipated them going down for the same reason.  I don't really get why people think Pokemon Go is somehow a highly profitable product... I can't imagine most people spending real money on it, but perhaps I underestimate the economic potential of freemium games.


Pokemon Go is literally a money printing machine. But Nintendo only gets 13% of the revenue.
I myself dropped 10€ on that game because that's all I'd pay for it if it was a premium product. Seeing how in my city somebody uses a lure module everyday other people seem to be spending money too.


----------



## anhminh (Jul 26, 2016)

It mostly mob effect, when investor see a bunch of investor go to Nintendo they just go with them.

Then when they see no profit in it, they just go and everyone follow.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 26, 2016)

Well that didn't last long.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 26, 2016)

FRIGGIN CALLED IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steena (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> The app company is licensing the rights from Nintendo (who owns gf)


As I understand it, that's not the case.
Pokemon is owned by 3 companies: Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures Inc., which created "The Pokemon Company" in order to manage the franchise as a whole. Gamefreak is officially a second party, which means it is not owned by Nintendo in any capacity.
But wait, there's more.
Nintendo also has undisclosed levels of ownership to Creatures Inc., the third core company.
But wait, there's more.
Nintendo has the full ownership of the Pokemon logo and the Pokemon names, on top of doing their 32% ownership part by having a dedicated, separate developing team to assist GF (primary mainline game devs) with the games, publishing, and help networking.

"Now" they are licensing the franchise to third parties. Good luck figuring out what Nintendo's final net profit is. My brain exploded just typing this out.


----------



## mgrev (Jul 26, 2016)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Holy shit did it take long for people to read the Wikipedia page, realize that it was Tsunekazu Ishihara's Idea (Head of the Pokemon Company), realize that there is no splash logo for Nintendo in the app and that nintendo's app plans were excluive towards Dena's 5 apps, one of which is Miitomo.


oh shit i forgot about miitomo lol


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 26, 2016)

Steena said:


> As I understand it, that's not the case.
> Pokemon is owned by 3 companies: Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures Inc., which created "The Pokemon Company" in order to manage the franchise as a whole. Gamefreak is officially a second party, which means it is not owned by Nintendo in any capacity.
> But wait, there's more.
> Nintendo also has undisclosed levels of ownership to Creatures Inc., the third core company.
> ...


Their taxes must be a bitch


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 26, 2016)

I thought investors where suppose to be smart


----------



## Inukami (Jul 28, 2016)

If these investors made such stupid decisions, they can't be very good.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

Sounds like they should've done some more research before they invested


----------



## zoogie (Jul 29, 2016)

Their stock is still 30% higher than before pokemon go launch, even accounting for the recent selloff.

Doomed.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

zoogie said:


> Their stock is still 30% higher than before pokemon go launch, even accounting for the recent selloff.
> 
> Doomed.


----------



## zoogie (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Mt. Pretty Accurate


Did you not see the right side of the graph leveling off?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 29, 2016)

zoogie said:


> Did you not see the right side of the graph leveling off?


Majestic Mountain does level off on the right hand side. Just not quite as early as the stock graph does. I was just making a visual pun as to how they kind of look similar


----------



## zoogie (Jul 29, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Majestic Mountain does level off on the right hand side. Just not quite as early as the stock graph does. I was just making a visual pun as to how they kind of look similar


Ok, fixed that quote


----------



## Inukami (Jul 30, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sounds like they should've done some more research before they invested



yeah... unfortunately a lot of decisions have to be made within seconds when you want to buy/sell or else it i'll be too late.


----------

