HoloDust said:
Because they were not owned by Nintendo (at least not majority stake), so, in the nutshell, they were 3rd party developer that made games exclusively for certain platform holder (very definition of 2nd party developer, IIRC). |
Not even sure if a uniform definition exists at all.
But IF
a game is developed, based on an IP the platform holder owns, by the platform holder itself, equals 1st party
AND IF
a game is developed based on an IP that is not property of the platform holder, by a company that is not owned by the platform holder either, equals 3rd party
THEN
2nd party would be something along the lines of
- a platform holder uses an IP which is not theirs (3rd party IP) to develop a game
- a company that is not owned by the platform holder uses an IP of said platform holder (1st party IP) to develop a game
Funding a game based on a 3rd party IP also feels like a 2nd party game, as rights to that game are split.
Maybe
1st party = all rights belong to the platform holder
3rd party = none of the rights belong to the platform holder
2nd party = 1st party and 3rd party share their rights for a game.
