Talk:List of companies with minor representation

Hudson

Should Hudson Soft be included in the list? Sure, the company was acquired by and absorbed into Konami in 2011 and 2012, respectively, but ceased to exist after the absorption into said company. Juju1995 (talk) 01:58, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

I think can do, because the Bomberman was born before the Hudson was acquired. However, the situation is ambiguous.--Capstalker (talk) 11:30, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

I kinda thought about the same thing, too. Juju1995 (talk) 11:49, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

Given how Bomberman is currently listed on Konami's page (and is being treated as such on the wiki in general), I don't think it would be necessary to bring up Hudson. Though, Konami's page does specify that Konami only owns the Bomberman series, so... Aidan, the Rurouni 11:56, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

Hudson may be a second-party developer for Nintendo, being the original developer of the Mario Party series, and ever since the Konami acquisition, several of Hudson's Mario Party staff moved to the Nintendo-owned developer NDcube. Of course, that's just my opinion. Juju1995 (talk) 12:14, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

Almost every third-party company with their own pages has ever developed games for Nintendo. The second-party I understand is that Nintendo owns part of the ownership in the company or the game, but not all.--Capstalker (talk) 13:10, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

Separate section and maybe a page rename.

I feel like there should be a separation between companies whose properties have more major representation in the series (Assist Trophies, items, or stages) vs. companies that have very minor representation (trophies, stickers, or spirits). Also, while companies like Ubisoft and WayForward having representation in Smash is pretty special, there's still plenty of second/third-party companies that also have minor representation in the series (Some companies even have multiple IPs represented in Smash, such as indieszero, Sandlot, Skip Ltd., Cing, iNiS, Grounding inc., Red Entertainment, Mistwalker, and MuuMuu).

And if we're gonna agree with the former statement, can we also change the title, too? Brownie Brown (now 1-Up Studios) and ND Cube have IPs they created represented in Smash (Magical Starsign and Wii Party, respectively), but both are wholly owned by Nintendo, so calling them "third-party" wouldn't be technically correct. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 19:22, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

One page is fine for it; otherwise, we should give Tekken, Nintendo Labo, and Tales of Symphonia heir own pages because they have mii costumes. Removing “third-party” from the title should be fine though. Lou Cena (talk) 19:28, May 2, 2019 (EDT)

I’m agree with Lou Cena here. But I have some questions, the developers of the spinoff-series should be included? (like AlphaDream by Mario & Luigi) If yes, the third-party universe the same? (like Inti Creates by Mega Man Zero)--Capstalker (talk) 04:06, May 3, 2019 (EDT)

We should probably include those companies too. Like I suggested, just remove “third-party” from the title, and all should go well. Lou Cena (talk) 17:28, May 3, 2019 (EDT)

We can add AlphaDream anyway since Tomato Adventure has some spirits in Ultimate. As for developers who're only represented with games they developed that are of already represented universes (Like Cap said, Inti Creates with Mega Man Zero)...I'm not really sure, honestly. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 19:39, May 3, 2019 (EDT)

Friendly Reminder

Please refrain from uploading the logo to any company until you gain permission from them. Otherwise, that's seen as copyright infringement, and thus could get this site possibly taken down. And that's the last thing we want. Crazy456Rhino (talk) 09:35, May 9, 2019 (EDT)

Spike Chunsoft and Dragon Quest

By the same logic that puts Platinum with major companies for their involvement in the Bayonetta series, should Spike Chunsoft not also also be moved up since they developed the first five Dragon Quest games? Erdrick and the DQIV protag both hail from that era of the franchise so some of their work is represented by a fighter. NuFace (talk) 18:04, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Considering that the first DQ was developed by it, I think we should give a page. But I heard that character design was always done by Enix, I don't know if it's important. And Level-5 developed the DQVIII, it seems that there should also be a page.--Capstalker (talk) 05:00, June 20, 2019 (EDT)

I'm unsure, because within the Dragon Quest series, Chunsoft was considered a subsidiary of Enix; it wasn't until after the 5th game that they broke off into their own company, and by then they were only involved with the Mystery Dungeon spin-offs. Similarly, if we count Level-5 here, they were really only involved with VIII and IX, so that'd only be enough for a minor entry at most, I think. (Also note that Platinum has its own page because they own the Bayonetta series, separate from their publishers.) DryKirby64 (talk) 05:37, June 20, 2019 (EDT)

Chunsoft is a subsidiary of Enix? I haven't heard that before, I only know that its founder once worked for Enix.--Capstalker (talk) 07:45, June 20, 2019 (EDT)

Platinum does not own the Bayonetta series. Every game they've ever developed and every IP they've ever created is fully owned by the original publisher. They've talked about only recently working on a yet to be unveiled game they can legally call all their own. As for Chunsoft, I'm not seeing anything about them originally or ever being a subsidiary of Enix. Koichi Nakamura, their founder, apparently worked with Enix before creating the company separately, but I don't believe Dragon Quest was thing until after he had founded Chunsoft. I see your point with DQVIII too. If the established rule is "playable character created by company=Major representation" I don't really see an argument against moving them up as well.NuFace (talk) 10:18, June 20, 2019 (EDT)

You know that thing at the end of the credits of Nintendo games where they say "Nintendo is the author of this software for the purposes of copyright"? That's what they use to define who owns the characters in Smash; for Bayo's case, the credits of Bayonetta 2 say "Nintendo, SEGA, and PlatinumGames are the authors of this software for the purposes of copyright". This means Platinum has some legal claim over Bayonetta, hence their name in the copyright for "Original Characters".

As for Dragon Quest, in this case it is Square Enix who owns the copyright. Note that none of the five Dragon Quest titles Chunsoft worked on have their name on the box; they were a similar case to Yuji Horii's Armor Project, which solely maintains the characters and setting of the Dragon Quest games. Chunsoft was originally dedicated exclusively to developing for Enix, and only later split into an independent company (starting with Otogirisō for the Super Famicom). And regardless, Spike Chunsoft in its current form isn't involved in the series at all. DryKirby64 (talk) 14:48, June 20, 2019 (EDT)

Parent 3rd party companies categories

For minor subsidiary companies on the list that are owned by a major 3rd party represented in Smash, should we include the category of their parents in their file images, like this one of Taito, a Square Enix-owned company? Juju1995 (talk) 00:01, October 2, 2019 (EDT)

Creatures, Inc.

So I've been thinking about how we should handle Creatures, Inc. on this Wiki.

They've developed the Chalien franchise, which is represented in Ultimate with a spirit of the series mascot, Li'l Blue.

However, Creatures is often credited as the current name of a company called "Ape Inc.", which was the main development team for the first two EarthBound games.

So, should we put Creatures here and give Ape Inc. a page, or should we give Creatures its own page and put in all info about Ape Inc. on there instead? SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 20:39, October 4, 2019 (EDT)

As for own page, Creatures wasn't part of creating Smash Bros., so I don't think it needs a page, unless I'm mistaken on that assumption. CookiesCreme 20:42, October 4, 2019 (EDT)

You seem to have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. What I was asking is if Creatures should have their own page since they created the EarthBound series (albeit back when they were called Ape Inc.). We gave Next Level Games and 1-Up Studios pages, and they didn't contribute to much in the Smash series AFAIK (although I am against the idea of the former having its own page). SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 20:52, October 4, 2019 (EDT)

I don't see why not. Since most of Ape's staff moved on to Creatures, Inc., if an article is created it should be called Creatures, Inc. instead. CookiesCreme 20:57, October 4, 2019 (EDT)

Koei Tecmo page

With the announcement of Byleth joining the roster, I've been thinking we should probably Koei Tecmo their own page, since they did help co-develop Fire Emblem: Three Houses. If 1-Up Studio can get their own page just for co-developing Mother 3, then I don't see why not with KT. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 01:16, January 17, 2020 (EST)

Support. I'd say they're about the same level of importance. Crazy456Rhino (talk) 09:34, January 17, 2020 (EST)

Support. I'd agree that Koei Tecmo has enough importance to Smash to warrant a page addition.ThePieMaster51 (talk) 12:15, January 18, 2020 (EST)