Nintendo 1st party actually reminds me of Microsoft 1st party or vise versa

[Hynad]

pokoko said:

Hynad said:

And that's obviously what the OP had in mind, right? Minecraft is a good Sony first party game, a good Nintendo first party game, and a good Microsoft first party game. A game developed by a studio owned by Microsoft. That makes so much sense. Just like your claim about Nioh being both a third and first party game. 

Which is why I said it wasn't worth arguing about in the first place.  Internet fans have their definition, just like "AAA", which was taken from the original, industry definition and twisted to mean something from a consumer perspective.  That's the one forums like this are going to use.  You wanted to get into schematics, though, which is why I thought it was worth having a conversation over, but that appears to not be the case.  I made a mistake by even mentioning malleable legal definitions on a gaming forum.  I really, honestly don't care about this and you obviously only want to consider this from one perspective, so I happily concede.  It means whatever you want it to mean.

No. There's a difference between a game being "published by" and a first party game. One holds publishing rights to a game not owned by them, the other is a game owned by them.  And you mix them all in the same basket. Sony holds publishing rights to Minecraft on their consoles, they do not own the game. Hence, it's not a first party game. I really can't believe I have to explain this.