Baldur’s Gate 3 Dev Says It Is Really “Simple” To Understand Why Palworld Was A Success

A developer behind Baldur's Gate 3 has offered their perspective on the success of Pocket Pair's action adventure game, Palworld.

[Deathdeliverer]

That team wants to be acquired after a one hit wonder. I’m surprised Nintendo hasn’t sent an army of armed lawyers to their gates.

[DivineHand125]

There aren't enough similarities between Palworld and Pokemon for Nintendo to go after them.

Palworld has mechanics that were never done in Pokemon since those games came out in the 90s.

[ZeekQuattro]

Palworld has more in common with Ark and Conan Exiles. Not sure why people still comparing to Pokemon.

[meganick]

Probably because Nintendo doesn’t own Pokémon.

[RabbitFly]

Yea they do. Pokrmon just got so big that nintendo branched it out into It's own Company. Still owned by Nintendo.

Palworld has nothing that makes it infringing on the ip though.

[Nerdmaster]

@RabbitFly
"Ackshually..." no, Nintendo doesn't own it. Don't know if links are ok here, so type "Who Owns Pokémon? gameinformer" on Google.
At first Nintendo only sold the games, while Creatures were the producers, and Game Freak were the developers.
At the end, Masuda, who's Game Freak's co-founder, says they keep Pokemon on Nintendo platforms for the companies' friendship, so it's implied that just as Game Freak develops titles for other platforms, they could do the same with Pokemon if they wanted to.
Yes, Nintendo owns a third of The Pokemon Company, but if Game Freak and Creatures decided to release a game on another platform, I don't think Nintendo would be able to stop it.

[RabbitFly]

The pokrmon Company owns pokemon. They all own a third of the pokemon Company each.

There is No way that game freak could Just force a licensing agreement without nintendos agreement.

This is not Just a friendly deal. They all own a third of the Company each. And while i don't know how its strucrure is organized. It is likely they all have a similar amount of control.

[Nerdmaster]

Your statement "Nintendo owns Pokémon" still stands wrong. Just like if you own 33% of the shares of a company, you're still under the rule of the ones who control the majority.

Yes, the chances that Game Freak and Creatures will go over Nintendo is extremely low. That's why Masuda says it's "highly unlikely" that Pokémon will ever be released on other platforms. But not impossible.

Because Nintendo doesn't own Pokémon.

They themselves clearified this when Nintendo stocks jumped in price when Pokémon Go was released, because people were buying Nintendo stocks thinking their price would rise because of the game success, and Nintendo had to say they don't own Pokémon and the game would have low impact on their earnings (since it was not on a Nintendo platform, they wouldn't sell more consoles or get the money every game on their platform needs to pay them when it's sold), and the stock price went back to normal.

If you need one more proof... Please visit Nintendo Store either in New York or Tokyo. Do you know what you won't find there?
Pokémon merchandise.

Because Nintendo doesn't own Pokémon.

[RabbitFly]

If Nintendo is one of 3 owners in a three way Split it is absolutely factually correct to say that they own it. They are literary one of the owners.

The thing about control is corporate politics.

Keep in mind i never said that nintendo decides what plattform they launch pokemon products on.

I merely corrected the statement that they did not own it. Because they do. Just not alone.

[meganick]

@Rabbit

Pokemon is owned by a corporation called The Pokemon Company. Nintendo owns some stock in that company but not a controlling interest.