dsister said:
mantlepiecek said:
Well, except for wikipedia, there is not a single source explaining first party games.
Also, cnet has an article in which it considers Pokemon as first party game, so it pretty much doesn't matter who develops a game if the IP is owned by a company.
"Nintendo is the leader when it comes to first-party titles. Its franchises--Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Pokemon, and others--have proven to be extremely profitable for the company. But when you look at first-party games on Microsoft's Xbox 360 or Sony's PlayStation 3, there's no comparison to Nintendo."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10236513-17.html
Oh, and its an old article btw :)
|
Ok, cool. The only definition on the internet says I am right...
And technically Nintendo's 1st party has released Pokemon games
|
How does it say you are right?
And third party have released Pokemon games as well. Let me guess then, resistance is first party because on the PSP its released by a first party developer? Correct? If that's the case then calling resistance as a first party should be OK as a franchise and that is what this thread is pretty much about, since we all stated franchises and not the games itself.
