It's pretty simple if you've been around long enough. Rare used to be 2nd party working with Nintendo, once they were bought by Microsoft they became 1st party. Same thing with Quantic Dream and Sony, they were 2nd party.
If Nintendo owns and publishes the game, then it is a 1st party game. There's no technicalities or gray area here. It doesn't matter if it was developed internally, externally, or by interdimensional beings.I think most people are speaking from their need for brand continuity (which Nintendo is admittedly super great at). Strictly speaking, if Nintendo does not actually own the studio, then those games are not actually first party games.
But it's fine for "first party" to colloquially mean "exclusive" on a gaming forum like this. Trying to make a distinction between "first party" and "second party" games requires knowledge of a company's structure / business agreements which isn't really relevant when people just want to talk about when Fzero will get its next game or whatever.
(Answer: Never. Fzero will never get another entry.)
The whole discussion gets murky when you realize there's more than 3 scenarios.
-First party owned and developed game.
-IP owned by console maker, but developed by independent studio
-IP owned and developed by independent studio, but exclusive to a single console
-IP owned and developed by independent studio and not exclusive
It gets even worse once you realize games are often made by more than one team.
How about Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example?
IP owned by Square, developed by Square, but also Xbox had their own devs helping on development of the game. Then the game was exclusive for 6 months until PC, 12 months until PlayStation.
Long after the exclusivity was up, most would consider that 3rd party, but what about during development when Xbox was helping? Or during the exclusivity period. 2nd party?
There are just way too many variations in deals and development approaches to cleanly fit them into just 3 boxes. Too much gray area.
This is just silly. Suddenly Smash Bros., Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, Advance Wars, Mario Tennis/Golf, etc. are not first-party games?Strictly speaking, if Nintendo does not actually own the studio, then those games are not actually first party games.
It only about who is own the IP, if it's a console maker then it 1st party if not it's third-party
Separating a category based on whether the game was developed internally or externally is the unnecessary complication.Again, first part games are published and developed by a platform holder.
Second party are published but not developed.
Third are neither.
Where are all the complications, caveats, and qualifiers? It seems straightforward to me. If there were dozens of labels for various combinations of ownership and development I'd agree... but there's three.
EhhhAgain, not true. Sony doesn't own the Spiderman IP yet Spiderman and Miles Morales are first party. Also the aforementioned original Demon's Souls was a Sony owned IP yet published by Atlus as a third party game in North America. IP ownership has nothing to do with it.
Copyright:
© 2019 MARVEL
© 2018 Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
Developed by Insomniac Games, Inc.
Ehhh
rhid is copyright on Spider-Man
Copyright:
© 2019 MARVEL
© 2018 Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
Developed by Insomniac Games, Inc.
and why you talk about publishers?
This is just silly. Suddenly Smash Bros., Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, Advance Wars, Mario Tennis/Golf, etc. are not first-party games?
that's using 2nd party as a term to refer to a studio. in that way, it makes some sense.It's pretty simple if you've been around long enough. Rare used to be 2nd party working with Nintendo, once they were bought by Microsoft they became 1st party. Same thing with Quantic Dream and Sony, they were 2nd party.
that's not how it works.Strictly speaking, if Nintendo does not actually own the studio, then those games are not actually first party games.
Nope, and they never have been.
But as I mentioned, the people on gaming forums / in the community will continue to conflate "first party" with "exclusive," and that's fine, I think. The way that people use language doesn't have to be perfect as long as the what is being communicated is understood.
See, I don't understand this mindset at all. If someone asked "Wow, cool table, did you build that yourself?" I wouldn't think "Why are you asking me to specify this worthless distinction? Either way I own it." I would just tell them whether I built the table or not.
Obviously they're interested in who's responsible for the craftwork of it, not who owns it.
I'm kind of blown away I need to explain this, but to differentiate games made by different creators. Let's say hypothetically Nintendo hired an outside studio to make the next Mario they way they had Capcom develop the GBC Zelda games. You don't think there's value in distinguishing the Nintendo-developed titles from the externally developed ones? That's all first and second party are, shorthand for internally and externally developed.
that's using 2nd party as a term to refer to a studio. in that way, it makes some sense.
2nd party games aren't a thing tho.
"Second-party developer is a colloquial term..."
...i said second party games aren't a thing. that's talking about second party developers (which also isn't really a thing)
Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios who take development contracts from platform holders and develop games exclusive to that platform, i.e. a non-owned developer making games for a first-party company
I assure that the concept of property ownership is not a gaming forum thing.Nope, and they never have been.
But as I mentioned, the people on gaming forums / in the community will continue to conflate "first party" with "exclusive," and that's fine, I think. The way that people use language doesn't have to be perfect as long as the what is being communicated is understood.
I assure that the concept of property ownership is not a gaming forum thing.
But trying to claim that Nintendo's property is not their property and never has been is definitely a you thing.
This. There's no second party.
Retro Studios is first party.I like the term second-party. It serves a purpose since it's basically "studios that are working for Nintendo but that could be doing something else or cease to be at any moment". AlphaDream and Cing died after a couple of miss-managed projects, but Retro Studios has been kept afloat despite not releasing much lately, to give some examples.
When doing speculation it's something interesting to take into account to measure your expectations.
Some are more of a wild card than others, but in the case of Good Feel I liked how they tackled a different IP every time until CW got announced.
I don't care if 2P isn't an official term in any case.
That's why I was comparing them.
I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying then.
They're still kind of a grey area, with Nintendo producers/support working on them and split regional publishing sometimes. Hyrule Warriors, FE Warriors and Cadence of Hyrule also fall in this camp. They're really shared IP co-productions.mario+rabbids or mario & sonic olympics games are third party games using licensed nintendo characters.
Just that if the studio is owned by Nintendo you don't need to worry about them not having funds and disappearing someday.
I see now.Just that if the studio is owned by Nintendo you don't need to worry about them not having funds and disappearing someday.
Just because a studio is owned by a platform holder does not mean it won't get shut down or have lack of funds, just look at JAPAN studio.Just that if the studio is owned by Nintendo you don't need to worry about them not having funds and disappearing someday.
Japan Studio does still exist, even if in a drastically reduced manner.Just because a studio is owned by a platform holder does not mean it won't get shut down or have lack of funds, just look at JAPAN studio.
I've always viewed it as a sub-category of 1st party rather than its own thing.
You might want to look up what "colloquial" means. It's genuinely not a serious term beyond what some old-ass magazines ran on back in the day.Second party. I always thought that was a thing and I'm sure gaming mags used to use the term years ago too. I don't know when this feel out of favour.
Simple distinction between internal studios and external studios. I don't get why anyone would be adverse too it - It doesn't make it anything lesser, and the game is literally created by a secondary party.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer confirms is been a term for years. Y'all internet kids are just put of touch ;p
Yeah, I should say in the near future, what is left of them will probably be rebranded before long. But there are countless examples.Japan Studio does still exist, even if in a drastically reduced manner.
...but yeah, ask Studio Liverpool, Evolution Studios, Guerilla Cambridge, Icognito Entertainment and Zipper Interactive how that whole "owned by a platform holder" thing turned out for them. Nintendo is a legitimate anomaly when it comes maintaining studios, as the worst that's ever happened on their watch were some high-profile departures of individual talent like Gunpei Yokoi, but never an outright studio.
Second party. I always thought that was a thing and I'm sure gaming mags used to use the term years ago too. I don't know when this feel out of favour.
Simple distinction between internal studios and external studios. I don't get why anyone would be adverse too it - It doesn't make it anything lesser, and the game is literally created by a secondary party.
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer confirms is been a term for years. Y'all internet kids are just put of touch ;p
You might want to look up what "colloquial" means. It's genuinely not a serious term beyond what some old-ass magazines ran on back in the day.
And there's no reason to muddy the waters on third-party developers being contracted out by platform holders. They are just that.