• Light/Dark
  • 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.

It took 14 years for a third party M-rated title to reach #1 on a Nintendo console in NPD

Status
Not open for further replies.
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
NPD results for April 2019, Mortal Kombat 11 ranked #1 for Nintendo Switch specific rankings: https://www.resetera.com/threads/np...-2-mlb-3-switch-best-selling-hardware.118316/



Turns out it looks like the last time a 3rd party M-rated game was #1 on a Nintendo console was Resident Evil 4 on the GameCube back in February 2005.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Before you ask, Bayonetta 2 for Wii U is a first party title that was #1 on NPD in October 2014.

What does this tell you about how third party M-rated games sell on Nintendo consoles compared to its competitors?

What do you think will be the next M-rated third party title that can reach #1 on NPD for a Nintendo console?
 
Etrian Darkness

Etrian Darkness

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,515
UK
Bayonetta 2 is hardly first party when it is developed by Platinum and owned by Sega. Being exclusive doesn't mean first party.
 
Hero

Hero

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,747
Grand Theft Auto V port might do it, or Diablo 4 when we get there.
 
Dekuman

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
It tells me good conversions and day and date releases are rewarded with sales on Switch
 

Deleted member 3017

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,653
Spider-Man PS4 is a third party game. Developed by a third party and IP owned by Disney/Marvel

/s
 
Kouriozan

Kouriozan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,073
Bayonetta 2 is treated as first party on Nintendo earning and stuff, like they do with Nintendo-published Level 5 games.
It not treated the same as our definition of 1st party.

Sometime on Nintendo's release schedule they give at investor meeting, it says "this game is treated as a Nintendo release" when they have the publishing rights.
 
Last edited:
Unknownlight

Unknownlight

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 2, 2017
10,560
Nintendo funded, published, and partially oversaw development of Bayonetta 2. That's not a third-party game, although it's not a first-party game either.

...What does second-party mean again?
 
Shadow_FFVI

Shadow_FFVI

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 30, 2017
545
If it's developed by a third party developer, the publisher has to own the IP for it to still be considered a 1st party game. Like Bloodborn for instance.
 
OP
OP
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
Imran said:
Party definition is dumb and frequently leads to dumb discussions but if you're eager to make that an exception you should expect to be challenged on it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nintendo funded Bayonetta 2, Nintendo funds Kirby games, Nintendo funds Fire Emblem games.

Yet they don't own PlatinumGames, HAL Laboratory or Intelligent Systems.

So for Bayonetta 2 to be called a third party title, Kirby and Fire Emblem would have to be seen as that as well.
 

Deleted member 197

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,263
I think this thread just shows how bad conversation can get in this forum, thread totally derailed because despite we all know what the OP meant some people just need to be smartasses and come with their "uhhh actually" takes.

Awful, just awful.
 
Skittzo

Skittzo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,037
I like how this has become another thread about what first party means.

Anyway I hope this is a sign that other third parties will look at for the (hopefully near) future.
 

Deleted member 249

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,828
Yeah, that's pretty nuts. That said, a lot of that has to do with the fact that there haven't been many meaningful M rated third party games on Nintendo consoles in a while. WB took a risk and were rewarded.

Continental 0p said:
When did Nintendo publish Dragon Quest? I thought they just handled distribution in the West (or some regions at least)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
6, 7, and 8 on DS and 3DS were all handled by them, as were DQ Builders, Builders 2, and the upcoming 11 S
 
Gaiaknight

Gaiaknight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,983
Nintendo treats bayonetta 2 and the upcoming bayonetta 3 as first party games and thats the only definition that matters.
 
Shadow_FFVI

Shadow_FFVI

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 30, 2017
545
ggx2ac said:
Nintendo funded Bayonetta 2, Nintendo funds Kirby games, Nintendo funds Fire Emblem games.

Yet they don't own PlatinumGames, HAL Laboratory or Intelligent Systems.

So for Bayonetta 2 to be called a third party title, Kirby and Fire Emblem would have to be seen as that as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do they own the IPs?
 

Deleted member 1441

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
135
Unknownlight said:
Nintendo funded, published, and partially oversaw development of Bayonetta 2. That's not a third-party game, although it's not a first-party game either.

...What does second-party mean again?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Second party means when a publisher agrees to develop games exclusively for a particular platform. You can think of Game Freak as a Second Party developer since they exist outside of Nintendo but publish games only on their HW.
 
OP
OP
ggx2ac

ggx2ac

Sales Heaven or Sales Hell?
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,504
Ridley327 said:
IP ownership isn't particularly important as far as first-party content is concerned. All that matters is who pays for the game to exist in the first place, and for that, Bayonetta 2 and 3 are as first-party as they come.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This. Otherwise Spider-Man for PS4 wouldn't be seen as a first party title.
 
Continental 0p

Continental 0p

Member
Oct 27, 2017
777
GA, USA
Phantom Thief said:
Yeah, that's pretty nuts. That said, a lot of that has to do with the fact that there haven't been many meaningful M rated third party games on Nintendo consoles in a while. WB took a risk and were rewarded.


6, 7, and 8 on DS and 3DS were all handled by them, as were DQ Builders, Builders 2, and the upcoming 11 S
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I was definitely wrong there. Going off of Wikipedia, some were published by Square Enix in Japan, but Nintendo published some WW. Seems kinda weird that some of the Japanese releases were published by Nintendo since it seems like a flagship series for SE over there.
 

brainchild

Independent Developer
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
9,478
Ridley327 said:
IP ownership isn't particularly important as far as first-party content is concerned. All that matters is who pays for the game to exist in the first place, and for that, Bayonetta 2 and 3 are as first-party as they come.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exactly, otherwise the CD-i Zelda games would be first party.
 
SuperFakerBros

SuperFakerBros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,827
A bit alarming that it's been that long but not too surprising, really. There aren't many M-Rated third party titles on Nintendo systems that are exactly high profile enough and release in a good enough situation, such as day and date, to really be able to pull that off
 
ILikeFeet

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
so is that Hamtaro game on the GBC not first party?

this is a joke, it's first party of course
 
BeaconofTruth

BeaconofTruth

Member
Dec 30, 2017
3,417
The fact that after Resi4 the only two third party titles to reach number 1 were Bayo2 n Mk11 still holds weight people. Even if you can get people to concede and ignore that Nintendo had to fund Bayonetta 2, thus effectively making it like a first party title that Platinum n sega cant put elsewhere, this is kind of a big deal even if that game counts.

That's two games in a 14 year run. When third party M rated game hasn't come close to having that type of drought on other consoles.

Just speaks to the larger point that's always been obvious, Nintendo systems tend to get less buyers for third party games than the other two consoles. It is what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.