Template talk:Nintendo developers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Nintendo task force.

Camelot Software Planning[edit]

Why are they a former second party developer in this template when they are listed as a current second party developer on List of Nintendo developers? I'm changing them back to current until a source says they aren't because that's what they've been.

Partners modifications[edit]

I've removed several companies that are not typically associated to Nintendo, such as Bandai Namco. Companies on this proposed revision should be primarily developing on Nintendo consoles at the moment; some such as Square Enix may qualify as "former" due to the fact they were once in this arrangement, but I'd personally like to disqualify developers that focused on NES and SNES development, as Nintendo was incredibly influential over the market at the time, and it would result in too much of a mess. On the other hand, Atlus (as a Sega subsidiary that has, in the 2010s, produced mostly Nintendo titles) has been kept, as it is increasingly associated to the 3DS rather than PlayStation consoles, with only one upcoming release being PS4, with its most well known franchise being . Please suggest changes; I plan to just edit it myself if no one objects. This is intended to make "Partners" also fulfill the requirement to be a Nintendo development team. If a developer has never made a game worthy of an article on Wikipedia, significantly collaborated on a Nintendo game, or contributed to Nintendo hardware, they are removed.

Also, companies are separated based on criteria met. So far, "Exclusive developers" are those which have never made a title outside of Nintendo's ecosystem, or currently have publicly become developers exclusive to Nintendo systems. Any company that has collaborated on Nintendo titles or licensed Nintendo IP is a partner. Any Nintendo-published company is usually regarded as a business partner, unless it's obscure (Nintendo arcade games by Namco Bandai) or former (Namco and Square both meet these requirements through the spinoffs Super Mario RPG and Star Fox Assault which are about as good as some other developers, but it would be hard to say they're Nintendo teams, and this was before their companies entered their current forms as Bandai Namco (aka Namco Bandai) and Square Enix.)

However, on the note of "obscure", perhaps "arcade developers" could be a separate category within this.

Companies that have not contributed to development efforts (publishing the Pokemon Adventures manga etc.) are not even considered. Full disclosure, I like Nintendo, work in the games industry (PC developer, no professional connections to Nintendo), and in the past I made edits removing Sega, SE, and BN among others from this list. For reference, "Partners" in a vague sense includes IBM, AMD, etc. for assisting in hardware development. Nuke (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this for a bit and my thoughts are that there is way too too much original research in this navbox. My suggestion would be to find what terms WP:VG/RS sources use for these devs and use those as the defining groups. For example, "second-party" devs current/former. How do the sources actually refer to "select partners"? Or is it an invented category? All additions/removals need to be grounded in sources, preferably those from a video game reliable sources custom Google search or archive.org magazines. – czar 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with Intelligent Systems[edit]

According to a recent Nintendo PDF (financial report from last spring, IIRC), Intelligent Systems wasn't listed as a company they owned/had any stake in. (all others they do were listed) Could anybody help me find this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, here:


The link to the PDF is in that post.

Personally, I think Intelligent Systems and Game Freak should still be listed in the affiliated box, as Nintendo has lifetime contracts with them, as well as shared ownership of the Fire Emblem and Pokemon IPs, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Are the percentages even appropriate for the navbox? I'd think not czar 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. However, the fact still remains that Nintendo has deep ties with the like of Intelligent Systems, HAL Laboratory, and Game Freak through shared IP ownership, and should be in the navbox for that reason. I understand that one could make the argument for other developers Nintendo has ties with being included, such as Vanpool (Dillon's Rolling Western) or Skip, (Chibi Robo) but the difference there is that Nintendo doesn't share the rights of those franchises with those developers, they own those franchises outright, and the developer is little more than a contracted workforce. Cases in point:


HAL and Nintendo are listed as joint copyright holders at the bottom.


Intelligent Systems and Nintendo are listed as joint copyright holders at the bottom.

Then, we move onto more "questionable" partners such as Vanpool, as I listed above.


Vanpool is not listed in the copyright section at the bottom, as the IP is wholly owned by Nintendo and not shared.


Again, we see that Nintendo is the sole copyright owner. Skip isn't listed.

IP ownership is the difference between all of Nintendo's various "partners", and since they are intricately linked with the likes of HAL Laboratory/Intelligent Systems/Game Freak on various IP rights, I feel they can be added to the affiliates section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be listed somewhere on the template, just as long as it wasn't misleading like it previously was. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I would chop off the commentary in gray altogether czar 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)