jarrod said:
bbsin said:
jarrod said:
bbsin said:
jarrod said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:
bbsin said:
What does the amount of studios owned have to do with anything? Any company can pay for publishing rights for certain games. You don't need a studio to publish a million seller.
|
No. In 2006, the only Nintendo-made GameCube game was Twilight Princess. So the GameCube was not supported by Nintendo in 2006, as Twilight Princess was also released for the Wii.
|
Nintendo also published Chibirobo (skip), Odama (Vivarium) and Baten Kaitos Origins (Monolith/tri-Crescendo) in 2006. Which kind of proves his point, your can have a robust 1st party output still publishing external/contracted titles.
|
correct me if I'm wrong, but publishing titles for exclusivity wouldn't mean that the the publisher would have a robust 1st party output, it would mean that that they'd have a 2nd party output since the studios are not internal. The amount of titles published can have little to do with the amount of internal studios a publisher has since all you have to do is fund a project.
|
Unless those 2nd parties are selfpublishing (which isn't unheard of ex; The Pokemon Company), it's still 1st party output. It's just not 1st party developed.
|
I assume you're talking about second party developers, if that's the case, it's impossible for a 2nd party dev to fund it's own project because the definition of a 2nd party developer is a 3rd party or independent dev that makes a game funded by a 1st party publisher.
So if a 2nd party dev funds it's own project, it either means it's a 3rd party dev or an independent dev, whether they choose to make a game exclusive is up to them.
If a 1st party publisher isn't completely producing a title with their own studios, then I don't see how they would be considered to be producing "1st party output" by definition. What Nintendo did in 2006 is better described as publishing output rather than 1st party output.
At least, that's how I see it.
|
So how would you define The Pokemon Company? Or Sony Online Entertainment? Are the games they publish 1st party, 2nd party or 3rd party?
|
Since Nintendo owns Pokemon, I would assume that the games made by the pokemon company is actually first party. Sony Online Entertainment is a division within Sony, so games made by them are first party as well. At the end of the day, those 2 devs are under the first party umbrella and are funded by the parent company, which leads me to say that they're first party developers.
Here's some examples.
Nintendo: 1st party dev: Retro studios / 2nd party dev: Camelot Software / 3rd party dev: High Voltage
Sony: 1st party dev: Polyphony Digital / 2nd party dev: Insomniac / 3rd party dev: Kojima productions
Microsoft: 1st party dev: Lionhead studios/ 2nd party dev: Remedy Entertainment / 3rd party dev: Ubisoft Montreal
