The Pokemon Company has drawn the ire and attention of many, with a new job posting that is actively seeking employees with experience in uncharted territory for the Pokemon franchise. The hiring page shows that The Pokemon Company International wants to hire staff that has "deep knowledge and understanding of Web 3, [...] blockchain technologies, NFT, and/or metaverse. They also appear to be looking for someone who can "connect the relevance of potential partners or technologies with Pokemon's existing assets", which has fans dramatically split between unease and excitement for what this might mean for the future.

The Pokemon Company isn't the first, and definitely won't be the last, in terms of businesses trying to incorporate elements of the blockchain into the video game industry. Despite harsh criticism in the past, Square Enix is still committed to pushing the idea of NFT games. Regardless, outside of the hiring page, nothing involving NFTs has been announced from The Pokemon Company, for now.

Pokémon company posted a job opening that encompasses Blockchain, NFT’s and Web3 technologies.

Oh no, please no 😨 pic.twitter.com/p0XrH0Eat3

— Pory (@pory_leeks) March 12, 2023

 

[Leen]

Oh, now I got it, you were talking about Furukawa, not about Ishihara.

Nintendo's influence is there, sure, It's different companies. Hiring people, that is the topic we have here, do not seem to be much on Nintendo's influence sphere.

the point i was trying to make with nintendo having a controlling interest they could force them to do it even if they want to be lazy and ride on their coat tails. Though honestly i'm hope not to see NFT in my game i really dont need that stuff

 

[Foxi4]

they took a decade to implement DLCs and yet not touched on lootboxes. The video game side of the pokemon company (gamefreak) is portrayed as money thirsty, but they actually are just lazy, lazy even to milk money.

They’re selling trading card games and used to do blind bag minifigs - how are those not just analog lootboxes? Not sure if you’re counting Pokémon Go in your estimation either. Aren’t boxes effectively a lootbox? You don’t know what’s in them besides pokeballs and consumables - Lucky Eggs aren’t fully disclosed. Are those still a thing? Now, admittedly the game’s ran by Niantic, but it’s part of the franchise.

 

[FAST6191]

Yeah you people do tend to think "teachers" are a useless job, right?
Those Fs are showin', buddy.

I am not sure what people I am.

Likewise I had some fantastic teachers, though the chances of a good one was almost on par with finding a good comedy show on TV after the butchers at the networks had their say on what should be.
Which is to say could be good but what is out there is so watered down and ineffectual that... yeah useless.

they took a decade to implement DLCs and yet not touched on lootboxes. The video game side of the pokemon company (gamefreak) is portrayed as money thirsty, but they actually are just lazy, lazy even to milk money.

Personally I would count pokemon yellow as a DLC, albeit they managed to squeeze full price out of people for it.
Event pokemon was also a thing
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mew_(Pokémon)#In_events
Some of those possibly squeaking up to on disc DLC as well.

 

[Dyhr]

Oh, now I got it, you were talking about Furukawa, not about Ishihara.

Nintendo's influence is there, sure, It's different companies. Hiring people, that is the topic we have here, do not seem to be much on Nintendo's influence sphere.

Er, no. It's Nintendo.
You are smoking some seriously good stuff to think Nintendo, who is worth more than the top several gaming companies combined, doesn't have a majority say over the literally irrelevant Creatures Inc. (who are "ideamen" at best and utterly worthless trash in reality: since they've outsourced almost all Pokemon designs since Diamond and Pearl despite designing being literally the only reason Creatures Inc. is even INVOLVED) or GameFreak LOL.

It's called tax avoidance. That's why Nintendo would publicly claim Pokemon is a "joint ownership company". If it were really a "joint ownership company" with an even 33/33/33 split, GameFreak/Creatures Inc. could tell Nintendo "no" sometimes, but they actually can't.

 

[Foxi4]

Er, no. It's Nintendo.
You are smoking some seriously good stuff to think Nintendo, who is worth more than the top several gaming companies combined, doesn't have a majority say over the literally irrelevant Creatures Inc. (who are "ideamen" at best and utterly worthless trash in reality: since they've outsourced almost all Pokemon designs since Diamond and Pearl despite designing being literally the only reason Creatures Inc. is even INVOLVED) or GameFreak LOL.

It's called tax avoidance. That's why Nintendo would publicly claim Pokemon is a "joint ownership company". If it were really a "joint ownership company" with an even 33/33/33 split, GameFreak/Creatures Inc. could tell Nintendo "no" sometimes, but they actually can't.

It has nothing to do with tax avoidance - the tax burden is almost exactly the same regardless of what umbrella you file under. Nintendo’s superior position in the joint is a matter of leverage - Pokémon-related trademarks are owned jointly by all three companies in Japan (which is a big reason why they formed a joint in the first place), but owned solely by Nintendo in overseas markets. If a Pokémon product is sold outside of Japan, it’s licensed by Nintendo. Nintendo’s the biggest player out of the three and owns the largest slice of the legal rights, so often times they get the final say in regards to product development and publishing.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Er, no. It's Nintendo.
You are smoking some seriously good stuff to think Nintendo, who is worth more than the top several gaming companies combined, doesn't have a majority say over the literally irrelevant Creatures Inc. (who are "ideamen" at best and utterly worthless trash in reality: since they've outsourced almost all Pokemon designs since Diamond and Pearl despite designing being literally the only reason Creatures Inc. is even INVOLVED) or GameFreak LOL.

It's called tax avoidance. That's why Nintendo would publicly claim Pokemon is a "joint ownership company". If it were really a "joint ownership company" with an even 33/33/33 split, GameFreak/Creatures Inc. could tell Nintendo "no" sometimes, but they actually can't.

What taxes are being avoided then? I'm eager to learn how you do avoid taxes creating a company in the same country, the same town with the same regulations as the parent company.

Please teach me what taxes are being avoided.

 

[Foxi4]

What taxes are being avoided then? I'm eager to learn how you do avoid taxes creating a company in the same country, the same town with the same regulations as the parent company.

Please teach me what taxes are being avoided.

In theory you could avoid some of the burden if the company made less revenue as Japan doesn’t have a flat corporate tax rate. The lower rate is capped at 8 million yen (a little over $60K, like a small business) - The Pokémon Company handles orders of magnitude more revenue.

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/japan/corporate/taxes-on-corporate-income

The “savings” here are so minimal they’re not even worth mentioning - as far as corporate tax rate (sans local and misc. taxes) we’re talking about a difference of 8.2% on the first 8 million yen, which translates to about 5 grand in USD. That doesn’t even cover the annual coffee budget at the company.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

In theory you could avoid some of the burden if the company made less revenue as Japan doesn’t have a flat corporate tax rate. The lower rate is capped at 8 million yen (a little over $60K, like a small business) - The Pokémon Company handles orders of magnitude more revenue.

oh yeah, progressive taxation, this would make sense. I don't know now that both companies are having obscene amounts of profit, but maybe back on 1998 or whenever they created The Pokemon Company.

 

[Foxi4]

oh yeah, progressive taxation, this would make sense. I don't know now that both companies are having obscene amounts of profit, but maybe back on 1998 or whenever they created The Pokemon Company.

They made more money than that from day 1, they formed a joint because they own a joint trademark - that had far more severe financial implications for the three companies. Nintendo’s not squabbling over 5 grand, that’s silly.

 

[Dyhr]

What taxes are being avoided then? I'm eager to learn how you do avoid taxes creating a company in the same country, the same town with the same regulations as the parent company.

Please teach me what taxes are being avoided.

2023 someone just found out about shell companies.
You're one of the lucky 10,000.

 

[Foxi4]

2023 someone just found out about shell companies.
You're one of the lucky 10,000.

…that’s not what a shell company is.

 

[Dyhr]

…that’s not what a shell company is.

You are on some good peyote to pretend TPC has more worth than Nintendo.
TPC is just shell companies all the way down.

Nintendo (1/3rd) + GameFreak (1/3rd) (majority owned by Nintendo, isn't allowed to do anything out of Pokemon without permission from Nintendo AND the promise of the game launching on a Nintendo platform AS WELL) + Creatures Inc. (1/3rd (shell company from Nintendo)

When it started, it was absolutely a shell company and it's idiocy to pretend otherwise. Creatures Inc. wasn't and will never be a real studio, it's just a shell branch of Nintendo, but it's a joint owner of TPC?
Hell, TPC itself has branched off numerous times too.

 

[Foxi4]

You are on some good peyote to pretend TPC has more worth than Nintendo.
TPC is just shell companies all the way down.

Nintendo (1/3rd) + GameFreak (1/3rd) (majority owned by Nintendo, isn't allowed to do anything out of Pokemon without permission from Nintendo AND the promise of the game launching on a Nintendo platform AS WELL) + Creatures Inc. (1/3rd (shell company from Nintendo)

When it started, it was absolutely a shell company and it's idiocy to pretend otherwise. Creatures Inc. wasn't and will never be a real studio, it's just a shell branch of Nintendo, but it's a joint owner of TPC?
Hell, TPC itself has branched off numerous times too.

…that’s still not what a shell corporation is, bud.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shellcorporation.asp

TPC has active business dealings, massive revenue and sizeable assets.

 

[Dyhr]

…that’s still not what a shell corporation is, bud.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shellcorporation.asp

TPC has active business dealings, massive revenue and sizeable assets.

Except it is. It doesn't preclude them from being a shell company.
Keep living up to your title buddy.

 

[Foxi4]

Except it is. It doesn't preclude them from being a shell company. Keep living up to your title buddy.

It’s not a shell company. It wasn’t opened with zero assets and zero activity, neither deceptively nor to build funding.

You’ve been very entertaining so far, but I’ll leave you be, I think. Have fun on the forums.

 

[trillspector]

That’s literally what a blockchain is.

No a blockchain refers explicitly to having that type of database decentralized across multiple different devices using hashing hardware to maintain integrity. I am saying skip all of that, and just have a database, no hashing needed.

 

[Dyhr]

No a blockchain refers explicitly to having that type of database decentralized across multiple different devices using hashing hardware to maintain integrity. I am saying skip all of that, and just have a database, no hashing needed.

...if it's decentralized, it's inaccessible and useless. That's why crypto is fucking pointless.
You need to recentralize it in order for it to have literally any purpose or use, but then why not just use money, which already has all of the centralization and difficulties of use covered?

Decentralized is garbage. Then. Now. Forever.

 

[tabzer]

...if it's decentralized, it's inaccessible and useless. That's why crypto is fucking pointless.
You need to recentralize it in order for it to have literally any purpose or use, but then why not just use money, which already has all of the centralization and difficulties of use covered?

Decentralized is garbage. Then. Now. Forever.

That blind hate. Like an atheist seeking to argue against the existence of gods, except worse.

You love your government's currency? The one backed by the trusty words of politicians and the wars they are willing throw you under?

As the world around you embraces and develops blockchain, you just shake your first and demonstrate what you obviously don't understand. Is it to stay relevant? In the end you lose, and there is no,"I told you so." You offer nothing.

 

[Dyhr]

That blind hate. Like an atheist seeking to argue against the existence of gods, except worse.

You love your government's currency? The one backed by the trusty words of politicians and the wars they are willing throw you under?

As the world around you embraces and develops blockchain, you just shake your first and demonstrate what you obviously don't understand. Is it to stay relevant? In the end you lose, and there is no,"I told you so." You offer nothing.

Oh god it's an ancap in the wild. Dear god I thought those things were only on TS and Gab.
No one is "embracing" or "developing" blockchain LOL. Literally no one. The only bank to even remotely think "blockchain" has a chance just went belly up.

Hey ancap, what are your thoughts on bears?

 

[tabzer]

Oh god it's an ancap in the wild. Dear god I thought those things were only on TS and Gab.
No one is "embracing" or "developing" blockchain LOL. Literally no one. The only bank to even remotely think "blockchain" has a chance just went belly up.

Hey ancap, what are your thoughts on bears?

Lol, everything you say on this thread is factually wrong. Even what you say in your latest post shows that you haven't been keeping up with the conversation. Blockchain is being embraced and actively developed--as plenty examples have already been demonstrated.

The point that fiat is backed by country isn't controversial. It's a topical fact; it's not an ancap position (lol deflection). I'm not trying to abolish anything. Newer and effective technologies will simply make archaic systems more irrelevant. Propping the failures of financial institutions as an argument against blockchain is a bit backwards.