Should Nintendo develop more "Mature" rated games?

[Viper1]

happydolphin said:

Viper1 said:

Try looking in the talk section of that Wiki page.  You'll see others also saying that 1st party is valid by controlling shares.   And since the published definition isn't sourced to anything specific, the current definition displayed is also just some guys personal definition.  I could go in and make the changes to the definition myself but since no actual definitive source exists ont he amtter, it will get changed back as per Wikipedia rules.  And contesting it would either result in no change or get the entire page deleted since it's an unsourced page.  So why bother?

The one I'm giving you isn't just my own but the definition used by many other people in the media and the developers and publishers I work with every day.

I could easily at this point start video gaming journalism. I would have to quit my day job though.

I guarantee you that I've always called such companies 2nd party studios and would continue the trend.

Tell me though, how much did Rare (non-Nintendo) shareholders own before getting bought out by MS? 51%? Was Nintendo majority shareholder up until that point?

If so, how were they able to create IPs that Nintendo did not keep if they were first party? That tells me they were not first party, and at best 2nd party by colloquialism.

Rare published Conker and Perfect Dark themselves.  Nintendo didn't own that IP because they didn't publish it.   And if you are going to ask about Killer Instinct, that IP is in such limbo between Nintendo, Rare and Midway (now defunct) that I doubt we'll ever see the IP again unless the legal issues are alleviated.  Banjo carried over with Rare because Nintendo sold their rights to it.