Questions on the tags for companies
|#1 by phantomjs|
2022-05-14 at 23:00
|< report >Was scrolling around VNDB and landed on Saga Planet's page. Saw that someone added that SP is no longer under Visual Arts but the parent producer is still VA. Went to VA's page and saw that SP was listed as a subsidiary of VA. If the parent producer tag is removed in SP's page, SP's name also disappears in VA's subsidiary page. I thought that made perfect sense so I went and remove the parent compnay tag but someone reinstated it. |
Curious - what is SP's current relationship with VA?
Also, what does parent producer means? Using SP as an example, does that mean their titles are (still) being produced by VA or it means something else? Also, an imprint of a company is basically a sub-brand of that company right?
Thanks in advance for helping, guysLast modified on 2022-05-14 at 23:02
|#2 by phantomjs|
2022-05-16 at 22:44
|< report >No one here knows anything on this? O.o.....|
|#3 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 00:43
|< report >d4#3:|
|#4 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 01:34
|< report >#3|
Friend, that answers non of my enquries except for the very last one (¬_¬”).....
|#5 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 01:56
|< report >*sight*:|
1º: I have no idea and I don't know enough Japanese to make a proper search.
2º: Yes, titles produced or published by a subsidiary are considered a separate work from the parent company. To make things easier on you: SAGA PLANETS and Visual Arts are considered different entities with their own games. Sometimes the parent company will publish the games made by their subsidiaries.
3º: Already answered.
4º:This edit is correct. You can give more information in the description if you wish. If they changed their name, create a new producer with the relation "Succeeded by".Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 01:57
|#6 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 03:13
|< report >#5|
4º - I still don't get it. If you say that edit is correct, then what does ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019'' mean? Also, if that edit is correct, then Saga Planets are still a subsidiary of Visual Arts despite being ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''?
Also, the information inside #3 is a bit confusing to me. Firstly, there's no exact definition on producer, but I assume that's because it's self explanatory (a producer of a Visual Novel is the one producing it). So Parent Producer means it's product by that parent producer right? However, inside the link in #3, ''Reverse of Subsidiary - current producer is a subsidiary of the selected producer.''. In the case of SP, I would have thought that means VA is the producer for SP's titles. Also, does this mean SP is still a subsidiary of VA? I thought they are ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''????
Thanks for your help, friend :)
|#7 by Ezezin|
2022-05-17 at 04:02
|< report >VNDB has two ways of distinguish a producer: who developed (or created a game) and who published (in most cases who sells the game, or in the case of translations and mods, who made them). The producer relation has nothing to do to with the VN entries.|
Speaking solely from what I can see in the visual novels entries, SAGA PLANETS makes and publishes their own games, Visual Arts doesn't seem involved in the creation process, otherwise you would see SAGA PLANETS games in Visual Arts page (and this is not case).
if that edit is correct, then Saga Planets are still a subsidiary of Visual Arts despite being ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019''You actually make a good point. On one side I would update the producer entry to show this change; but I don't want to remove a relation and loose valuable information. As you can see, we don't have a relation for former subsidiary. Besides, it seems it's not as simple as it looks. Basically, I don't know how to proceed :/
Personally, I would ask someone who may know more about that company or do more research before editing the relation; but in the mean time, explain their current status in SAGA PLANETS description (with sources, of course).Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 04:09
|#8 by phantomjs|
2022-05-17 at 20:58
|< report >link|
Anyone knows what this guy meant in this revision? In the case of Saga Planets, the Parent Producer, or Subsidairy as defined by VNDB, should remain as Visual Arts inside the VDNB entry page even though the Parent Company aren't Visual Arts anymore or they aren't a Subsidiary (again by VNDB's definition) of Visual Arts anymore?? (Doesn't makes sense to me as they are ''No longer under Visual Arts as of November 2019'')Last modified on 2022-05-17 at 21:13
|#9 by alto|
2022-05-20 at 19:33
|< report >As far as I know, Visual Arts acts as a franchiser. Not sure which developers are in-house (Key?) and which are "partner brands" who are franchisees. Given that, I'd guess most finance their own games and give VA a cut for their distribution/support.|
If Saga Planets no longer has a publishing relationship with VA, which I think is originally sourced from here, then I agree it's strange for VNDB to keep the relation. Doing some quick research, while not conclusive a split does seem very likely:
- They switched to KiriKiri from SiglusEngine (VA's engine) from Kin'iro Loveriche -Golden Time- onwards
- The physical releases from r60685 in Feb 2019 onwards have "（株）ラッセル" as the associated company with the JAN - link Every previous release I checked back to 1998 has "ビジュアルアーツ"
- They started hosting some things on the sagapla.net domain vs VA's product.co.jp like link
- For new titles DMM now has e.g. "sgpl_0001" vs "vsat_0229"
- Scrubbing through ED videos on YouTube, Visual Arts is credited with Sales, PR, music and the engine for Kin'iro Loveriche but nothing in the games after
In the absence of a former parent/subsidiary relation, imo removing the relation and adding a note (maybe on both sides) is the best option. That said, I also don't know how VNDB treats these changes. On one hand it's silly to have publishers who died in the 80s listed as parent producers for companies making games today, especially if there's no dates or notes with an explanation. On the other it's nice to have the relationship graph. From a general more general DB perspective, I think preferring current information is the sanest option.
|#10 by miyanoshiho|
2022-05-21 at 01:16
|< report >Maybe we need a new relation called Former Subsidiary?|
That way keeps information up to date as well as retaining the connection in the relationship graph.
You must be logged in to reply to this thread.