| Nautilus said: ...What I am saying is that, alongside that definition, a game that can be considered second party(developed by someone that Nintendo dosent own but the game is exclusive to that system or to the company that commissioned it and always will be because of a contract) even if it is developed by an independant company.Im not saying that said company is a second party developer, but rather the game falls in the second party category, because of all the reasons posted before.And thats the case for Kingdom Battle, because of the use of the Mario IP. |
I appreciate the classification you are looking to distinguish here. Mixed IP rights often come with certain caveats. Consider for a moment, however, whether Namco could have gotten away with releasing the version of Soul Calibur II featuring Link as a playable character on PS2 or Xbox. And then, whether this legal situation of the game by itself ought to classify it as second party.
"Second party game" as a descriptor mentions a second party, and then a game. However there is no second party present in that IP holder constellation. Or the one responsible Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle. I feel like utilizing this already disputed term the way you are looking to use it might be detrimental to clarity. And might earn you more arguments than anything else.
