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.
-
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
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.)
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.)
I've learned that the Advance War, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, and WarioWare games are all considered second 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.
second party is an idiotic term.
it's a first party game developed by a third party studio.
a ton of Switch's games are like that including Pokemon, Smash, Fire Emblem, Luigi's Mansion (at the time of release), Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Kirby, Yoshi, Link's Awakening, Astral Chain, Paper Mario, etc..
it's a first party game developed by a third party studio.
a ton of Switch's games are like that including Pokemon, Smash, Fire Emblem, Luigi's Mansion (at the time of release), Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Kirby, Yoshi, Link's Awakening, Astral Chain, Paper Mario, etc..
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.
-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.
There really isn't any gray area. Tomb Raider was a third party game because a third party publisher published it. That doesn't change during development. The exclusivity or how many developers MS sent to work on it is irrelevant. Removing that needless complexity (which doesn't really matter anyway) suddenly makes things a lot simpler.
The question you should be asking is "Why do you we need a specific label for a very specific circumstance where a game is published by a third party but also happens to be part of a timed exclusivity agreement but the platform holder also assisted with development in some capacity but the game is also launching on PC"?
It only about who is own the IP, if it's a console maker then it 1st party if not it's third-party. What the hell is 2nd party? a player?
This is just silly. Suddenly Smash Bros., Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Paper Mario, Advance Wars, Mario Tennis/Golf, etc. are not first-party games?
Again, 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.
Separating a category based on whether the game was developed internally or externally is the unnecessary complication.
Game Freak, Intelligent Systems, Sora Ltd, HAL Laboratory, Good-Feel, and Camelot are external studios, but the games they develop like Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Smash Bros, Kirby, Yoshi, and Mario Tennis/Golf are 100% Nintendo. For all intents and purposes they are first party games. No reason to add the qualifier that they were developed externally.
Then there's games that were developed by an external studio with support of an internal studio, or vice versa. Like the way Grezzo co-developed the Zelda and Luigi's Mansion 3DS remakes. Or the way 1-Up Studio (formerly Brownie Brown) has assisted Nintendo over the years. Many games aren't developed solely by one studio.
Basically all that matters is Nintendo owns Eternal Darkness and keeps renewing the trademark while doing nothing with it. Bah!
People really want to needlessly complicate things. "Oh no Ubisoft asked for Nintendo's feedback on Mario + Rabbids. Now what do we call it??"
Ehhh
this is a copyright on Spider-Man
and why you talk about publishers?
edit this is MUA3
They own the game, as in the paid to have it developed, they don't own the Spiderman IP. Just like they don't own Major League Baseball but MLB The Show is a first party title (and soon to be a third party title on xbox). They license out these IP but don't own them.
And I talk about publishers because that is literally what First/Third Party exists to differentiate. Its a term for publishers.
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.
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.
that's not how it works.
not all first party games have to be exclusive, and not all exclusive games are first party, so that usage sort of falls apart rather quickly.
ANd frankly, there's a better designation to use for exclusive games. Its called "exclusive games".
If Nintendo is involved in production of the game then yes. It's common practice to outsource. If it's something like Octopath where Nintendo publish but it's clear the creative control came from SE then no. It's all about creative input, not IP ownership.
I'm 100% with you on this. Crazy it needs to be said. The quality is VASTLY different between games developed internally and externally. Most EPD games are around 90 on Metacritic. Not the case at all for external studios.
...i said second party games aren't a thing. that's talking about second party developers (which also isn't really a thing)
Wait, so are people now considering the CDi Mario, and Zelda games to be first-party since Nintendo owns the rights to the charcters? Or are they so terrible that they are an exception to the rule?
I was under the same impression as the topic creator as to the definition of first-, second-, and third-party games.
I was under the same impression as the topic creator as to the definition of first-, second-, and third-party games.
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.
I think it's a pretty meaningless term from a consumer point of view, though it might make more sense in corporate speak.
From a consumer perspective really there are three levels.
- A game exclusive to a platform because the platform owner owns some part of it (thus it is highly unlikely to come to other consoles, though Sony IP on PC is bucking this trend)
- A game exclusive to a console because that's the decision made by the publisher, usually for reasons of demand (thus it may come to other consoles given the right circumstances - see Nier Automata and Yakuza coming to XBox eventually)
- A game which is available for multiple platforms from the get go.
Ultimately if Yoshi's Crafted World sucks, that's on Nintendo and it damages their image and my chances of buying further products from them (hypothetical - YCW is charming). I might be interested in a developers track record, but its not really relevant who currently owns them.
From a consumer perspective really there are three levels.
- A game exclusive to a platform because the platform owner owns some part of it (thus it is highly unlikely to come to other consoles, though Sony IP on PC is bucking this trend)
- A game exclusive to a console because that's the decision made by the publisher, usually for reasons of demand (thus it may come to other consoles given the right circumstances - see Nier Automata and Yakuza coming to XBox eventually)
- A game which is available for multiple platforms from the get go.
Ultimately if Yoshi's Crafted World sucks, that's on Nintendo and it damages their image and my chances of buying further products from them (hypothetical - YCW is charming). I might be interested in a developers track record, but its not really relevant who currently owns them.
Just because people in gaming will colloquially use "first party" to mean "ip holder" and "exclusive" does not mean that that usage is totally correct (and I am certainly not claiming that Nintendo can't have their own IP). Again, I'm not saying that this usage is a bad thing, and I'm really not attacking the community. It's fine, you guys.
It's a first party game. It's owned by and published by Nintendo. It's a Nintendo game.
Doesn't matter that it wasn't developed by a company that Nintendo doesn't own. It's been commisioned for Nintendo and been released by Nintendo. It's a Nintendo game. Some of the biggest first party games out there were made by third party devs (Pokemon, Marvel's Spider-man, Smash Bros etc).
Second party isn't a thing. It's a made-up term by gamers to describe the situation where a third party dev makes a first party game.
Doesn't matter that it wasn't developed by a company that Nintendo doesn't own. It's been commisioned for Nintendo and been released by Nintendo. It's a Nintendo game. Some of the biggest first party games out there were made by third party devs (Pokemon, Marvel's Spider-man, Smash Bros etc).
Second party isn't a thing. It's a made-up term by gamers to describe the situation where a third party dev makes a first party game.
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.
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.
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.
Pokkén Tournament, Pokémon Conquest and even Pokémon Mystery Dungeon too really, with the further complication of the Pokémon Company being more directly involved.
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.
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
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
Last edited:
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.
And there's no reason to muddy the waters on third-party developers being contracted out by platform holders. They are just that.
Yeah, I should say in the near future, what is left of them will probably be rebranded before long. But there are countless examples.
colloquial term...
Let me just quickly show why it doesn't make sense:
1st = us (platform holder)
3rd = them (other developers for the platform)
So that means 2nd is you... But the context is Nintendo/Sony/Some platform holder talking about software available on the platform to *you* the buyer. But you are not a developer, and if you are, you are not interested in buying your own game. So it doesn't make sense to call some developers 2nd party, because they are not you, and they are not the platform holder, so they are *them* or the 3rd party.
It's a genuine term people use. I don't see how people are offended by its use. Might as well just call everyone developers but who cares to make the distinction right?
It's a useful label to have. This one was made by an internal Nintendo studio, this one was made by an external one. Cool. Neato. Doesn't make it a lesser game.
Secondary party makes the games, Second party is a fine name ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So if a game is developed in conjunction by one than more studio, which is not a strange thing... We have to define it too?
If a third-party like MercurySteam have help from in-house developers at Nintendo making Samus Return, what is it then? A second-party game even if first-party developers worked on it? A one-and-a-half-party game?
It doesn't make sense IMHO. It's a first-party game and MercurySteam developed it, a third-party studio. Some of those studios has longer or exclusive agreements with the license holder (Nintendo in this case) but that doesn't change anything, because that contract could end anytime. Classifying a 3rd-party studio as a second sometimes just adds to the confusion, I think.
If a third-party like MercurySteam have help from in-house developers at Nintendo making Samus Return, what is it then? A second-party game even if first-party developers worked on it? A one-and-a-half-party game?
It doesn't make sense IMHO. It's a first-party game and MercurySteam developed it, a third-party studio. Some of those studios has longer or exclusive agreements with the license holder (Nintendo in this case) but that doesn't change anything, because that contract could end anytime. Classifying a 3rd-party studio as a second sometimes just adds to the confusion, I think.