Skip to content

JESNET Becomes A Subsidary Of Nintendo

Nintendo has announced that they have bought stocks in JESNET Co. Ltd. This means that the Japanese company will become a Nintendo subsidiary. They have been handling the distribution of Nintendo products in Japan for several years. However, the purchase will allow Nintendo to handle all distribution internally with JESNET’s strong stocking and sales network. JESNET Co. Ltd officially becomes a subsidiary of Nintendo on April 3rd. Nintendo’s Board of Directors had this to say:

JESNET and AJIOKA have been the largest-scale companies dedicated to handling Nintendo products in Japan for many years, selling mainly video game systems through their nation-wide distribution network. [We acquired them to] unify Nintendo’s product development acumen with JESNET’s and AJIOKA’s robust stocking and sales networks.

Source / Via

25 thoughts on “JESNET Becomes A Subsidary Of Nintendo”

  1. Next acquisitions on the agenda pls: Capcom, SEGA, Konami, DreamWorks (you need someone to make them films), and Niantic. Also please purchase fully DeNA and the Pokémon franchise thx k bai

    1. Dreamworks is a subsidiary of Viacom. In order to buy them, you need to buy Viacom, convince Viacom to sell it, or perform a hostile takeover on it’s Board of Driectors (none of which would happen).

      Nintendo owns the legal rights to the name Pokémon, the character names, and the legal burden to protect it in case someone wants to take legal action against it. That alone gives them enough power over it.

      I agree in buying DeNA, but they’re going to have issues with doing so. Case in point, Sony has deals with that company and buying them out would cause issues with Sony, so Nintendo will need to be careful about that.

      I DON’T agree with Konami. They’re way too toxic to begin with.

      Everything else in your list, though, I don’t see a problem with.

      1. Yeah I don’t know much about DW so I’m not going to doubt your knowledge about them.

        As for Pokémon, they have control but I wouldn’t go as far as to say ‘enough’ control. Pokémon is always distinctly separated from the rest of Nintendo IP, be it easter eggs or the Rio Olympics closing. Smash is literally the only exception. I’m sure Nintendo would crave to market Mario and Pikachu side by side in a more prolific way.

        Regarding DeNA, I don’t see why Nintendo would shy away from that because of deals with Sony. Those can continue without enemies being made, so long as Nintendo generate a profit.

        And as for Konami, while yes they are toxic, they still hold a plethora of great gaming IPs, which together with Capcom’s, could really give a future Nintendo console the perfect jump start to success, with so many dark, much-loved now-exclusive IP under their belt.

        1. For Pokémon, for one thing, they have the legal burden as well as the Pokémon name and characters. If Nintendo removes those things, the Pokémon Company will have no way of protecting themselves and they lose the rights to market and advertise the very thing that Nintendo owns the legal entities to. That alone gives them enough power. But the second thing is that Nintendo not only do they own 33% of the Pokemon Company, but they also have a (unknown) minority stake with Creatures. (Creatures also owns 33%, while Game Freak owns 34%.) Based off of the above information, Nintendo has enough power. The thing is that Nintendo chooses to let them do whatever they want. I think what you might want to say is for Nintendo to exercise it a bit more. As in: you want Nintendo to start telling the Pokémon Company what to do instead of letting them do whatever they want. With that said, I don’t know if they should be micro-managing that franchise; they’ve been doing well without Nintendo needing to step in all the time. Pokémon (well, Pikachu specifically) has become one of the standard icons in the modern Japanese culture, and while I’m not saying that Nintendo had nothing to do with it, I am saying that Nintendo didn’t tell them how things should be done. For example, I doubt Nintendo would do something as having 5 airplanes be painted with Pikachu and other Pokémon.

          (In relation to DeNA) When a company is fully purchased by another company, any deals that are not in the now-parent company’s interest are shut down. It may not be immediate, but it will be done. So for DeNA, they have deals with a huge number of companies and they make most of their money off of those than just with Nintendo (Miitomo is the only game that they’ve made). In order to be properly sold, the company that would be purchased has to consider these previous deals. But they have to be careful about it; if they burn bridges, it wouldn’t look good on either the would-be subsidiary or the would-be parent (unless neither doesn’t care that much about their image, and I know that they do). There’s also the possibility of Sony (or some other company) in making a counter-offer. For Sony, they have a stronger hand, since they have a huge company portfolio and they have a history of being able to take care of large companies at the same time; Nintendo doesn’t. I feel that DeNA would take Sony’s offer more. As a matter of fact, at the announcement that Nintendo and DeNA did to say that Nintendo is letting the latter make mobile games based off of Nintendo’s IP, a shareholder (or journalist; I don’t know which one), voiced that concern that having a company that currently has deals with Sony may create a conflict of interest. I understand that Iwata reassured the contrary, but the possibility of problems arising can still happen, only accelerating if Nintendo decided that they wanted to take more control of the company.

          I understand your position with Konami, but I think that, with the way the gaming community is currently seeing, combined with Konami’s current actions (*cough*Metal Gear Survive*cough*) would show that Nintendo would be shooting themselves if they were to buy them now. Personally, I think that Capcom and SEGA would be enough; both companies are very well aligned with Nintendo’s way of thinking to enough of a degree and most of their IPs match Nintendo’s. My only concern (but it’s not enough to be an issue) is what to do with Sega Sammy Holdings (since SEGA is a subsidiary of Sega Sammy Holdings). Yes, they’ve published some (probably unknown) games, but why does Nintendo need to be in the casino business (Sammy makes pachinko machines)? Now, I understand that you believe that by buying these companies, they would have a strong NX lineup in March 2017 (and that position makes sense), but that’s a little over 6 months away; none of the three (except SEGA, because they’re making NX games anyway) would have time to make launch titles for the NX. So if buying them out was for that, it’ll be way too late for it. Fall/Winter 2017 is a more realistic goal (not completely, but it’s somewhat manageable).

          Anyway, like I always say, I could be wrong, and I might have overlooked something, but this what the information at hand tells me.

      2. (I should probably properly explain why buying Dreamworks would be a bad idea.)

        Viacom is a conglomerate (a company with chains of other companies, which those may have chains of other companies, etc. “Companyception” as the young ones call it I guess). Sony is another example of a conglomerate. Usually, these companies have piles of cash. Nintendo, which they also have piles of cash, don’t have enough of it to buy out Viacom, so buying them is not an option.

        Convincing them to sell Dreamworks won’t work since Viacom considers them too valuable to let go. I don’t need to explain that part for you to understand why, looking at their movie portfolio (also, Viacom likes to compete against Disney’s Pixar, so…)

        Hostile takeovers would cause a major upset in the business world, the media industries, and to Viacom’s AND Nintendo’s shareholders. And Nintendo would end up being shown in a bad light (also, I don’t remember the last time a Japanese company performed such an action).

        Oh:nI should also mention that your list wasn’t bad and I wasn’t attacking you, but I was just looking at it in a critical eye and I wanted to make sure that you knew what (realistically) could be possible.

        1. Don’t worry about ninjadude99 your comments weren’t taken in a bad way, actually I’m pleased as I learnt a bit more about the state of DW. I targeted them since I thought they were an independent company, and the biggest in animation after Disney/Picar and Illumination, but those I knew where definitely off the list.

        2. One point you also missed, those companies if not a hostile takeover, would need to want to sell. If Capcom, Sega, and Konami or even DENA don’t want to sell, then Nintendo would have no interest in trying to buy them. I see people say buy this company and that company but those companies may like where they are and don’t want to be bought.

          1. The point that I mentioned about them considering the deals that they already have with other companies (and the fact that I even mentioned about hostile takeovers at all) already implied it. I also implied it when I mentioned that Viacom probably would allow the sale of Dreamworks for whatever reason, further implying it. Finally, I figured that it was obvious, since, when you read news articles and press releases, they either use the words/phases “join”, “agrees to buy”, “(insert company name here/”We”) are part of (insert now-parent company’s name here)’s family”. Or something like that.

            If you’ve read my past comments long enough, you’ll know that I have issue with long text. Already, all of my comments today have been very long, but it’s because I want to use as much information as possible to prove my points. I know it’s a problem, so I’m trying to shorten my comments by leaving things out and hoping that others would use logic to figure it out. Apparently, my success has been limited in that regard, so I may have to try different tactics.

            Maybe what I should have said on top of it was something like, “Assuming that they even wanted to be in a position of becoming a subsidiary of another company”.

            See what I mean?

            1. I agree. I thought your comment/reply was great. I thought it would be best for outside readers who might not have understood that. I notice the Dreamworks part but wanted it to stand out that it applies to the other companies as well.

        1. As I said to DeBono-san, while I understand why some people are requesting Nintendo to buy Konami, would it really be smart to buy a company that (pretty much) most of the gaming community considers as horrible? If anything, this would put Nintendo in an even worse light than ever and I doubt that they want that (companies tend to try to move away from others that in trouble instead of attempting to try to use their PR to make it die down (because that rarely ever works)), so that’s not going to happen.

          Maybe they can convince Konami to sell some of their IPs, but other than that, I don’t think it’s a good idea (also, if Konami doesn’t want to sell, there’s nothing Nintendo can do short of a hostile takeover (which is another can of worms)).

          1. I really don’t understand why so many people want Nintendo to buy up third party developers anyways. Just because Nintendo bought an IP, wouldn’t mean automatic success or quality. Look what Nintendo has done (or hasn’t done) with the Metroid franchise. Look what Nintendo did with the Star Fox franchise. Look what Nintendo did with F-Zero. And even if Nintendo did buy a third party IP, more than likely they would keep the same developers on board. So it would essentially be the same devs making the game, just with a different publisher.. It really makes no sense for Nintendo to buy anymore IP’s. They can’t even keep up with the ones they have.

    2. I don’t think they would buy nantic or konami. Both of those companies wish to remain independent how ever Sega would be a great buy, perhaps platinum if they made a decent offer.
      DreamWorks would be out of Nintendo’s price range (Shrek is more valuable then micky, which is partly owned by universal) they could partner well with WB though, which they should do.

    1. But do Sega want to be bought. You can’t buy a company that don’t want to be bought unless you do a hostile takeover and then that hurts the companies imagine.

    2. They should buy sega and platinum.
      Sega could double game development resources. And could focus on more adult content then nintendo tends to make. With platinum they could just focus on first party M rated content

  2. Well so far it seems that Nintendo doing really good in term of business. I am really surprise how far they have accomplished this year. 2016 financial year seems to be very good for them and by the way we should thank Iwata san for that cause I am sure he may have start a lot of those acquisitions, creation of mobile games and partnership.

    I think…. (hold I am doing a Patcher here) they should consolidate they acquisitions, give them work Nintendo can’t do on they own like developing IP, plan distribution network and so on..

    For Nintendo’s sake, Nintendo cannot be taking over by a foreigner so which means that Universal or any US company can’t take over Nintendo Nippon. Which bring me to the point of Nintendo’s partnership with foreign companies. They really need to exploit the IP via theme park and they have plenty of characters which could fill entire park. Imagine the mushroom Kindgom, Bowser castle or Hyrule castle and dungeons. They can go on for centuries if they play their card right.

    It would be a nice move if Nintendo buy Rockman from Capcom and Castlevania from Konami (I think they don’t need to be the all company). But that just a fan’s dream

  3. Pingback: Nintendo acquista il 70% della Jesnet – Real Game Tribu – Official Web Site

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: