RolStoppable said:
mibuokami said:
RolStoppable said:
If Nintendo or Sony publish games, then those effectively become first party titles. It's for that reason that financial reports of third parties like Level 5 exclude American and European sales of the Professor Layton series, because Nintendo publishes the games in these territories. It doesn't make sense to remove games like you did, because every first vs. third party sales analysis counts those games as first party titles. In other words, the name of the publisher determines whether a game is first or third party, not the name of the developer.
|
I concede the point but would like to offer a rebuttal: publisher changes depending on regions.
Lets take Final Fantasy VII and Ghostbuster as examples. Both of these game are published by Sony in Europe but they are clearly not first party games. Another example would be Demon Soul, the game was developed by FromSoftware with assistance from Sony Japan, but was published by Atlus in the US, Namco Bandai in Europe and Sony in Japan. How does this work under your definition of first party?
Further, this debate is also about the merit and quality of the first party games: a reflection of each console maker's respective developing studios, I don't feel that games that are not even developed in-house should effect the internal studio's pedegree.
|
Your rebuttal doesn't add much considering that I already mentioned a similar example with Level 5's Professor Layton series. Demon's Souls is a first party game in Japan and a third party game in the rest of the world. Sounds odd, but that's how it is.
This thread is about first party games, not first party studios.
|
I saw your example, and I merely place mine at the extreme end, it simply doesn't make sense to say that any game published by Sony is automatically a Sony first party game in the conext of the OP. Otherwise games like ghostbuster would be first party in Europe when it even exist as a mutliplat!
