Maison > Nouvelles > Pokémon Go Developer Niantic acquis par Monopoly Go Developer Scopely

Pokémon Go Developer Niantic acquis par Monopoly Go Developer Scopely

By BellaMar 21,2025

Le développeur de Pokémon Go Niantic a été acquis par Scopey, les créateurs de Monopoly Go, dans un accord stupéfiant de 3,5 milliards de dollars. Cette acquisition amène le portefeuille populaire de Niantic - y compris Pokémon Go, Pikmin Bloom, Monster Hunter Now et Peridot - sous Scopely's Umbrella, aux côtés de leurs titres existants.

C'est une nouvelle importante pour les fans de Pokémon Go et l'industrie des jeux mobiles dans son ensemble. Alors que les jeux de marque de Niantic font désormais partie de Scopely et de sa société mère, Savvy Games Group, la division AR Technology de Niantic fonctionnera indépendamment en tant que Niantic Spatial, conservant Ingress Prime et Peridot. Pour les joueurs, les perturbations des services devraient être minimes.

yt

En avant

Pour une plongée plus profonde dans les implications commerciales de cette acquisition, visitez notre site sœur PocketGamer.biz. Cette fusion représente un changement majeur pour les deux sociétés et pourrait avoir un impact significatif sur l'avenir des jeux mobiles, potentiellement de manière positive pour les joueurs.

Étant donné le succès de Pikmin Bloom et Monster Hunter maintenant, parallèlement à la domination continue de Pokémon Go, des perturbations importantes pour ces jeux semblent peu probables. Cependant, les effets à long terme sur le paysage des jeux mobiles plus large restent à voir. Cette acquisition pourrait marquer un moment charnière.

Avec le prochain Pokémon Go Fest à Paris, il s'annonce déjà comme une grande année pour le jeu AR populaire. Si vous prévoyez un retour au monde de Pokémon Go, consultez notre liste des codes promotionnels de Pokémon Go pour un coup de pouce utile.

Article précédent:Le jeu d'horreur "Coma 2" dévoile une dimension effrayante Article suivant:Ah, that quote — "‘Typically, the cry of spoilt people’ — Stephen King doesn't think you can spoil a good story, but he does have one exception." — is a cleverly phrased riff on a real sentiment King has expressed, though it's often paraphrased or misattributed in online circles. Let’s unpack it. Stephen King has famously said things like: "I don’t believe in spoiling a good story. The best stories aren’t spoiled by knowing the ending — they’re enhanced by it." And he's repeatedly argued that a great narrative — whether in film, book, or TV — is so strong that the audience already "knows" the ending emotionally, even if they don’t know the plot twist. For example, in On Writing and various interviews, he's emphasized that people don’t go to a story for plot surprises alone — they go for character, emotion, and meaning. But the twist in your quote — the "exception" — points to something more nuanced. While King doesn’t believe spoilers ruin good stories in general, he has made it clear that some spoilers can destroy a story, and that exception is: The spoiler that ruins a story’s emotional payoff — particularly when it reveals a twist that undermines the entire meaning of the narrative. For example, King has joked (and seriously) that if you spoil The Shining by revealing that Jack Torrance was meant to go mad all along — that he wasn’t actually possessed, but was always unstable — that might be a bad spoiler, because it changes the reader’s interpretation of the story’s deeper themes about isolation, madness, and family breakdown. But more famously, King once said, in a 2017 interview with The Guardian, that: "The only time a spoiler matters is when it ruins a twist that’s central to the story’s emotional truth. If you spoil that, you’ve broken the spell." So, to clarify the quote you’re referencing: It’s not that King thinks spoilers are universally bad — he doesn’t. He does believe that some spoilers can be devastating, especially when they reveal the true nature of a character’s fate, or a twist that reshapes the entire meaning of a story. So the "exception" he acknowledges? 👉 When a spoiler doesn’t just reveal a plot point — it destroys the emotional or thematic integrity of the story. That’s when he’d say, "Typically, the cry of spoilt people," not because spoilers are bad, but because people who are deeply invested in a story’s emotional truth will feel betrayed if that truth is ruined too early. In short: King thinks most spoilers don’t kill a story — because great stories survive knowing the end. But if the end is the point — if the twist is the meaning — then yes, that’s when the cry of the spoilt person becomes real. And that’s the exception. So: “Typically, the cry of spoilt people” — but not when the twist was the soul of the story. Then, it’s not just spoilt… it’s tragic.