By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slownenberg on 05 September 2018
Edit Thread
Nautilus said:
Slownenberg said:

I gotta say the other guy is right. Mario + Rabbids is third party. It is a collaboration between Nintendo and Ubisoft and to allow Ubisoft to use the Mario franchise they required Ubisoft follow their rules but that in no way makes it second party.

2nd party doesn't have anything to do with how much a third party communicated with or got direction from a console maker about a particular game like the Mario + Rabbids mashup. 2nd party refers to a company not a specific game. It generally means the console maker owns a large enough amount of the company to get to be in charge of what platforms their games come out on. So 2nd party games only come from 2nd party studios.

A first party game is developed by first party studios, a second party game is developed by second party studios, a third party game is developed by third party studios. Mario + Rabbids is developed and published by Ubisoft - it is entirely a third party game, though obviously the licensing is shared between the two franchises so neither Nintendo nor Ubisoft would be able to make a sequel without the other's approval. Every game Ubisoft makes is third party.

Thats not the definition of second party at all.At least, thats not the definition everyone(95% of users here and everywhere) and by default, I use.A second party game entails that the company comissioning the game, which is always either Sony, MS or Nintendo, has ownership over the game in some form or another, be it because they financed the game, said game uses IP of the company that commissioned the game, or both.But the ones developing the game are not owned by MS, Nintendo, or Sony.They were merely "hired" to develop the game.So in another words: Company A owns the game because they either payed for it or their IPs is being used in the game, but a second company, company B, is developing it.

By your definition of second party, Monolith would be a second party developer, Intelligent Systems would be a second party developer.Retro Studios would be a second party developer.Insomniac would be a second party studio.But neither of them are.In the case of the first three examples, they are first party studios, because they are a part of Nintendo, they are 100% owned by them.In the case of Insomniac, they are independant and the only reason they make exclusive games either for Sony or for MS, is because they were paid for the development and exclusiveness of the game for said company.Another example would be Ratchet and Clank.Insomniac always developed these games, but Sony actually owns the IP, but Insomniac isnt part of Sony, nor does Sony owns any part of them, at least not significantly.

 

Quote taken from Wikipedia:(which are written by the public, and thus a good measurement of how the public interpret what second party games are)

"Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios who take development contracts from platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.[7] These studios may have exclusive publishing agreements (or other business relationships) with the platform holder, but maintain independence so upon completion or termination of their contracts are able to continue developing games. Examples are Insomniac Games (originally a 2nd party for Sony), Bungie (originally a 2nd party for Microsoft) and Rareware (originally a 2nd party for Nintendo)."

I really though it was obvious what Second party games were.Guess I was wrong.

"In the case of the first three examples, they are first party studios, because they are a part of Nintendo, they are 100% owned by them."...um what? You said I'm trying to argue that studios that are 100% owned by the console maker are 2nd party? uhhh yeah i don't think you read what I wrote.

1st party studios are owned by the console maker.

2nd party studios are ones in which a console maker has a significant enough ownership to be able to direct what platforms their games come out on or in some way have serious control over the direction of the studio through their significant ownership of it, or can also simply be they sign a contract to only make games on that company's systems. Basically they are bound to a console maker despite not being wholly owned by the console maker.

3rd party studios are not owned by a console maker in any significant amount so they have complete autonomy to make games for whatever platform they choose.

Ubisoft is a third party developer. They collaborated with Nintendo on Mario + Rabbids. It's a game developed and published by a third party, therefore it is a third party game, but includes licenses from a console maker. Like how Soul Caliber 2 that came out on Gamecube was not a second party game simply because it had Link in it, that is just Nintendo allowing that third party to use their licensed character in their game, it doesn't magically make Soul Caliber a second party game, just like it doesn't magically make Mario + Rabbids a second party game. Your definition of "if you use a console maker's IP in the game it is a 2nd party game" would mean the Soul Caliber 2 was a 2nd party game. Sorry but that is just plain wrong.

It would seem you don't even know what you thought was obvious to everyone.

Last edited by Slownenberg - on 05 September 2018