By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Should first party go third party?

 

Should first party go third party?

Bungie and Insomniac have it right 12 33.33%
 
No, keep studios first party 24 66.67%
 
Total:36
Xoj said:
hsrob said:
Xoj said:
nintendo.

Make bunches of money on hardware.

but not using state of art tech, that way the continue making games.

Consoles are rarely state of the art by the time they are released.  In terms of having relatively up to date tech, the Gamecube was pretty damn good and they still made money on that.



Around the Network

Thread makes no sense. First party or even second party will never go completely multiplat. I mean developers that were previously/are currently first or second party could go multiplat but then new developers will just step in and become first/second party developers because that is essential for a console manufacturer to sell consoles.



Firstly Bungie was first party, I thought Insomniac was also at least partially owned by Sony. Sorry I guess I was wrong. But geez come on no reason to get all pissed off. I'll refrase the question should 1st or 2nd party developers go third party?

 



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

hsrob said:
Xoj said:
hsrob said:
Xoj said:
nintendo.

Make bunches of money on hardware.

but not using state of art tech, that way the continue making games.

Consoles are rarely state of the art by the time they are released.  In terms of having relatively up to date tech, the Gamecube was pretty damn good and they still made money on that.

i know :3 i loved the gamecube in 2003



Nobody seems to know the definition of first party compared to second or third. First is anything wholly owned. Second is partly-owned. Nominally Insomniac was a third-party that was merely in a publishing relationship with Sony, but they practically counted as second party.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.