Why does Nintendo let developers co-own their IP?

[AngryLittleAlchemist]

Jumpin said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure the OP is right when he says that Astral Chain is at least a partially owned Nintendo IP. Nintendo released a schedule of first party releases that included Astral Chain. And since first party titles are really decided by IP ownership and not the development studio (hence Yoshi's Crafted World, Mario Tennis Aces and the like being first party), it makes sense to believe Nintendo do at least own some of the Astral Chain IP. This is similar to The Wonderful 101 being Nintendo owned. 

Notice how Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 isn't included, even though it is a published exclusive.

Technically those would be second party games. Games developed by Nintendo owned studios are first party since the are directly from the platform seller. Second party are where Nintendo is the purchaser of the services of a third party in order to develop a game, and this applies to exclusive dev houses partially owned or contractually bound to Nintendo despite not being owned directly by Nintendo. While third party games are supplied by an independent studio without the first party purchaser/contracting relationship.

Pokémon and the DKC trilogy are perfect examples of second party games. Super Mario Galaxy or Breath of the Wild as first part games. Final Fantasy 7 Remaster as a third party game.

I mean, I guess? But that correction is sort of pointless. I'm not saying there isn't any difference whatsoever, but for the most part it's a distinction without a difference. Nintendo didn't list it as second party in their financial reports, and iirc there has even been developers coming out and stating that second party isn't really a thing within the industry. 

I think second party is something that makes the most sense as a term when applied to a studio. Companies that are only partially owned can often branch out and do different things, like GameFreak. When applied to a specific game title it becomes a little too broad, because it can refer to just about anything. It can refer to a game developed by a 1st party studio, but a 3rd party IP. It can refer to a third party IP coupled with a third party studio, but with the rights to the game exclusively belonging to the platform holder. It can refer to a third party studio with a first party IP. Etc etc. And of course again, the problem is that first party IPs always guarantee that a game is "first party" in the minds of the parent company. When applied to an IP, it becomes again a meaningless distinction. 

But sure, if you want to say it's second party go ahead. It really doesn't make a difference.