Viper1 said:
Controlling share does matter. Rare couldn't have developed a game for Sony or MS if they wanted to back then because Nintendo called the shots. Are you suggesting that Game Freak, Project Sora, Nd Cube and Monolith Soft are 3rd party? And don't fully rely on Wikipedia. Especially when the data isn't sourced from anything. A 1st party studio that is wholly owned is referred to as an internal studio. External first party studios would be those not fully owned but do have a controlling share...such as those I listed above. |
As Bungie could not make a game for Sony or Nintendo, but that is now no longer the case. Were they any less 3rd party then than they are now? No, they were at best 2nd party (by colloquialism).
According to Wikipedia, and it makes sense, those are all 3rd party studios bound by contract with Nintendo on specific 1st party IPs (if even that) or for specific periods. Nintendo has alot of control over them because of the shares they possess in those studios, but these are still not 1st party, they are at best 2nd party. (I've always called them 2nd party) Technically they are 3rd party, as 2nd party is a type of 3rd party.
Having said that, there is a difference between a 1st party IP and a 3rd party IP. That's why, when you said this
"2nd party refers to a 3rd party game that Nintendo publishes (think Geist from n-Space). Stuff like Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day would still be considered first party. ",
it fails because Perfect Dark is property of Rare, and now Microsoft (Nintendo's direct competitor), so how in the world is Perfect Dark or CBFD 1st party? It's at best 2nd party by colloquialism, 3rd party by definition.
The same holds true for Insomniac games, and held true for Bungie. At any time these studios can change direction ,as has happened many times, even in the case of 49% ownership, since in the end, 49% is not 51.
"External first party studios would be those not fully owned but do have a controlling share...such as those I listed above."
You can say so, and we would understand what you mean, but having your own definition of something doesn't help the industry. If wikipedia, being a collaboration by multiple individuals in the industry, specified that the qualifier 1st party was bound to ownership and acquisition (in the case of an "external" studio), then how would you convince me that your definition is more solid, and who in the industry supports your claim?
--------------- Also ----------------
1st party studios cannot make IPs that are not property of the parent company. The same cannot be said about the examples you listed, if Rare gives us any lessons to learn from.
