Pokémon Go shows that Nintendo's franchises are way bigger than its hardware
theverge.com
theverge.com
This has the effect of not trampling on the resale market as well as keeping sure that sales don't slump because people are waiting for a price reduction. If you want to buy a Nintendo game, then you just buy it.
I don't think Mario or Zelda or Donkey Kong, or any of the other beaten-to-death Nintendo IP is on the same level.
The takeaway is that Google has a whole lot of skin in the game and really wouldn't allow such an exclusive deal like you might speculate.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_(video_game)
They then started looking to be bought out (hoping to be bought by Nintendo) but Microsoft ultimately bought them. After moving to Microsoft, they made Perfect Dark Zero (terrible), Viva Piñata (unsuccessful), Kinect Sports (moderate success), and a single possible bright spot, the upcoming Sea of Thieves that's looking pretty good.
Rare is a great example of how Nintendo and Microsoft differ and why it wouldn't necessarily be a huge success.
83% dont add value https://www.group50.com/mergers-acquisitions-shareholder-val... many more on https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=company%20acquis...
Am I right in thinking that Pokemon Go is the first Nintendo game to use the "free-to-play" business model, where all sorts of progression is gated behind ongoing coin purchases?
That's totally the same thing.
What about all the stuff they released, that didn't need Nintendo hardware? Like TV shows, movies, trading card games, merchendise, etc.
They "just" didn't do mobile games...