-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Yoshi's Crafted World a first-party Nintendo game?
- Thread starter Clay
- Start date
If there's value in distinguishing who developed it, then just say who developed it. Nintendo/Not Nintendo is a rather odd and vague classification to make, especially once you consider Nintendo frequently directs and produces externally developed games; their devs are still involved.
It's not like all first party studios are equal, either. You can perceive differences between games developed by EPD and, say, Monolith Soft. Lumping Galaxy with Xenoblade is about as useful as lumping Samus Returns with Smash Ultimate.
As an aside, these are not terms coined by the gaming industry. Second party software is already defined to mean software provided by the user, even though game platforms tend to lock this out.
Edit: reading that last line of your OP, do you consider only internal studios to be first party? In that case, I don't really know why EPD/not EPD wouldn't suffice for you. Personally, I feel this is definition just falls apart when you consider Sony's model.
That distinction doesn't matter. Bayonetta 2, a Platinum Games-developed title using SEGA-owned IP, is a first party release for Nintendo.
Last edited:
First party and third party are most often used to refer to the publisher, not the developer. Nintendo published the title and owns all the rights to it. While it's correct to make a distinction between it and games developed in-house at Nintendo's own studios it isn't relevant to the whole first party/third party metric. Second party isn't a real term.
I know Second Party isn't supposedly a real term, but it's always made sense to me, so stuff like Crafted World, Luigi's Mansion 2, Fire Emblem, I like to call Second Party in my head. Made by a Nintendo-owned studio, but not by one of Nintendo's in-house studios, like EAD. People are going to hate me for this, but if you were to apply this to Sony, stuff like Puppeteer, Gravity Rush, and Astro Bot would be first party, while games like Last of Us, Horizon, and God of War would be second party. Though it isn't a real term, so not a big deal, but that is basically the idea behind it.
Except you're wrong. When it released on Xbox during that exclusivity window it was published by Microsoft, not a third party.
Second party. A first-party IP developed by an outside studio with a close relationship with Nintendo. I mean, I know a lot of people find the second party term confusing and don't like to use it, which is fine, but that's the definition. If you want to call it a first-party game, go ahead, but if you specifically say Yoshi's Crafted World is not a second party game, you are wrong.
Last edited:
That's not the definition. I can call an apple a orange too.
So you're suggesting that the only thing that matters is who publishes it?
yes. First/third party refers to publishers. Always has.
=P
I was saying that in the thread that originated this one
That being said, Nintendo did kinda owned the videogame rights for Goldeneye for videogames when they made it and Sony partially owned the videogame rights for spider-man when they made it. Not exclusivaly, not trully owning, but they owned in the sense that at the time, they payed to have it and do stuff with it.
I was saying that in the thread that originated this one
That being said, Nintendo did kinda owned the videogame rights for Goldeneye for videogames when they made it and Sony partially owned the videogame rights for spider-man when they made it. Not exclusivaly, not trully owning, but they owned in the sense that at the time, they payed to have it and do stuff with it.
So, Destiny is a first party PlayStation game if you live in Japan, but third party if you live somewhere else?
It changes by geographical location?
Yeah, it's fucking dumb.
There is no such thing. Halo is first party even when Bungie was developing it for example.
There's no confusion there because Microsoft owned Bungie back then. They were a first party studio.
I think it's fair to call a game first party if the plattaform holder provided more than funding and advertising. It's like star fox zero, myamoto designed, but platinum implemented.
That might not be exactly the case with astral chain or w101, where Nintendo basically just payed for it, even if they own the ip.
Also, guys, we can make up term however we want, ok? There is no jail for using the term second party, so if everyone understood, use it.
That might not be exactly the case with astral chain or w101, where Nintendo basically just payed for it, even if they own the ip.
Also, guys, we can make up term however we want, ok? There is no jail for using the term second party, so if everyone understood, use it.
Wonderful 101 is in a weird place. Nintendo still owns the trademark, which is why all content related to the remaster has to include the word "Remastered" so Platinum can release it.
Though recently Nintendo fully bought up the Astral Chain IP. No idea what that means, possibly a way to let other developers work on the IP.
On-topic: Of course Yoshi's Crafted World is a first party title.
Ehhh not true, they split in 2007 before Reach was released, possibly 3 too.
2nd party isn't an actual term in the industry. You use the term 1st and 3rd party for who owns the IP, developer, and publisher.
But 99.9% of the time a first party game is whoever owns the IP.
That doesn't make any sense. A single game release can't be first party AND third party to a particular platform.
I feel like there is a distinction to be made whether or not a game is made by an internal studio or contracted to an outside studio but I don't have any strong feelings one way or another what the labels should be. Also something to consider is that a game can be developed internally but have components outsourced to other outside entities so it can get more complicated.
It's as first-party as the Capcom Zelda games, the Bandai Namco Smash Bros / Mario Kart games, the Camelot Mario Sports games or the previously third-party Next Level Games Luigi's Mansion games.
2nd party is nonsense. Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, Paper Mario, Pokemon, Super Mario RPG, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Resistance: Fall of Man, WaroWare, Golden Sun, Xenoblade Chronicles, Mario Golf, Luigi's Mansion 2-3, Infamous, etc etc etc are all first party games. You learn absolutely nothing by delineating them as second party, for any worthwhile information to be made about them you have to look at them on a case by case basis.
As for value in distinguishing who made a game, that should be investigated on a game by game basis. Because it's pretty dumb to look at a franchise like Luigi's Mansion where you can say 1 and a future 4 are first party, but 2 and 3 aren't even though they're made by the people who will inevitably make a 4. Or the first two Infamous games weren't first party, but the third one magically was.
As for value in distinguishing who made a game, that should be investigated on a game by game basis. Because it's pretty dumb to look at a franchise like Luigi's Mansion where you can say 1 and a future 4 are first party, but 2 and 3 aren't even though they're made by the people who will inevitably make a 4. Or the first two Infamous games weren't first party, but the third one magically was.
Because saying a game is both 1st party and 3rd party to a single platform is a contradiction.
no it isn't. It's just expressing the realities of the publishing situation, which is the entire point of the first/third party distinction in the first place. The reason it sounds weird is because of all of these preconceived and unnecessary complexities people (like many in this thread) have attached to them.
That's how it works for the Hyrule Warriors games, funny enough: published by Koei-Tecmo in Japan, published by Nintendo elsewhere, with the Japanese performance of the game impacting just K-T's financials.
Let's use the rules of first person/3rd person camera.
So 2nd party developer is a direct competitor developer.
And really we have examples with Microsoft Software Games developing for everything!
People like to make up rules on what makes a game first party or third party, but it just comes down who the publisher is.
If it was published by the console manufacturer, its first party.
If it was published by a different publisher, its third party.
Sometimes you'll see things like Destiny and COD in Japan where Sony and Microsoft will publish them--this is typically just a distribution deal.
And then there are cases like Minecraft Dungeons and the upcoming MLB the Show where Microsoft and Sony will be both a first party and third party publisher.
Second party has never been an official thing.
If it was published by the console manufacturer, its first party.
If it was published by a different publisher, its third party.
Sometimes you'll see things like Destiny and COD in Japan where Sony and Microsoft will publish them--this is typically just a distribution deal.
And then there are cases like Minecraft Dungeons and the upcoming MLB the Show where Microsoft and Sony will be both a first party and third party publisher.
Second party has never been an official thing.
You know, I definitely always thought second parties were a real thing, since Rare in the N64 days, and I even voted accordingly on the pool, but reading through this thread has convinced me otherwise. Everyone's made very solid cases for why it should only be first or third parties
OP
OP
People in here claiming it's based on who owns the IP, others on who owns the developer, others on who published the game.
Lots of games change between 1st and 3rd party depending on which of those you think is right.
It's clear there is no single official accepted definition for the terms. Which is why there's constant confusion and debate about it.
Lots of games change between 1st and 3rd party depending on which of those you think is right.
It's clear there is no single official accepted definition for the terms. Which is why there's constant confusion and debate about it.
Second-party is a thing that was largely made up in the N64 era when Nintendo wanted to take ownership of games as made specifically for their console with oversight from them. Gaming magazines then ran with it and started calling stuff like Shadows of the Empire second-party, despite the fact it was a third-party game.
At some point the gaming community just started using it for any game that was published by a platform holder but not developed by them, even for games where that wasn't true, like Conker's Bad Fur Day.
At some point the gaming community just started using it for any game that was published by a platform holder but not developed by them, even for games where that wasn't true, like Conker's Bad Fur Day.
The first party is the platform holder, which sells its consoles to the second party, which is you, the consumer. The third party is a company outside this relationship that pays the first party to muscle in on it.
The term second-party only exists because people who don't know what they're talking about thought there was a grey area between first- and third-party and therefore that must be the second-party. You really only see it in gaming because people are obsessed with list wars and categorising everything. In reality, there are first-party companies and third-party companies and lots of complicated arrangements between them because that's how business and licensing works.
The term second-party only exists because people who don't know what they're talking about thought there was a grey area between first- and third-party and therefore that must be the second-party. You really only see it in gaming because people are obsessed with list wars and categorising everything. In reality, there are first-party companies and third-party companies and lots of complicated arrangements between them because that's how business and licensing works.
there is a single official accepted definition, it's just that, like with so many other things, ResetEra is not the place to find it. The confusion is 100% self inflicted.
I always thought the discourse surrounded Mario + Rabbids to be very funny.
Many on ERA claimed that the success of the game was proof that 3rd party games would be successful on Switch, lol.
Like what kid is going to truly understand the distinction between a Mario spinoff made by Nintendo vs. a 3rd party?
Who has defined it and where can the definition be found?
its been defined by the businesses that use it and to who it is important. Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft consider any game they publish to be a first party game, regardless of exclusivity or IP ownership or whatever other needless caveats or qualifiers gaming fans have attached to those over the years. Conversely they consider any game published by an outside party on their platform to be third party. That's it. That people have taken something like this and made it more complicated than even the businesses that use it is sort of ridiculous.
If the game is (c) Nintendo, it is a first-party game.
Note that games like Mario Rabbids or Mario & Sonic are (c) Ubisoft and (c) SEGA, respectively. They are third-party games using a Nintendo IP. I suppose technically Ubisoft could replace every Mario reference to Splinter Cell references in Mario + Rabbids and publish it as Splinter Cell + Rabbids on PS5 (SEGA sorta did it with a "Sonic at the Olympic Games" mobile game).
Of course, a first-party game can be developed:
- mostly internally, by Nintendo EPD itself (e.g. Zelda BotW, Odyssey, Splatoon, Ring Fit);
- mostly externally by another company owned by Nintendo (Monolith) or with a long history of working with Nintendo, to the point it is de facto a "Nintendo team" (HAL, IntSys);
- mostly externally by a third-party partner (Platinum).
Since there is formally nothing setting HAL and IntSys apart from Platinum or Good-Feel, it's hard to tell when a game falls in the second case or in the third case. And you also have games developed by external companies directed by someone from EPD (Star Fox Zero, Samus Returns). But that's the muddy nature of the keiretsu.
And then you have games developed and owned by other companies but published by Nintendo in some regions, like Layton during the DS and Octopath in EU/NA, or Epic Mickey Wii and Rayman Legends Wii U in Japan.
Note that games like Mario Rabbids or Mario & Sonic are (c) Ubisoft and (c) SEGA, respectively. They are third-party games using a Nintendo IP. I suppose technically Ubisoft could replace every Mario reference to Splinter Cell references in Mario + Rabbids and publish it as Splinter Cell + Rabbids on PS5 (SEGA sorta did it with a "Sonic at the Olympic Games" mobile game).
Of course, a first-party game can be developed:
- mostly internally, by Nintendo EPD itself (e.g. Zelda BotW, Odyssey, Splatoon, Ring Fit);
- mostly externally by another company owned by Nintendo (Monolith) or with a long history of working with Nintendo, to the point it is de facto a "Nintendo team" (HAL, IntSys);
- mostly externally by a third-party partner (Platinum).
Since there is formally nothing setting HAL and IntSys apart from Platinum or Good-Feel, it's hard to tell when a game falls in the second case or in the third case. And you also have games developed by external companies directed by someone from EPD (Star Fox Zero, Samus Returns). But that's the muddy nature of the keiretsu.
And then you have games developed and owned by other companies but published by Nintendo in some regions, like Layton during the DS and Octopath in EU/NA, or Epic Mickey Wii and Rayman Legends Wii U in Japan.
Someone better alert Sony that they're using totally made up and totally never-actually-used terms in their official press releases.
Or that Gio Corsi managed to land himself a made-up job in a made-up department.
i hope it does. i never played it either and really want it on switch.
I always liked to think of it as Second-party even though that isn't the technical term. I think Reggie would consider it that way as well when he was asked why Nintendo struggles with third-party.