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

Forums - Sales - Why does Sony fail at making another mega franchise?

gtxmann on 09 September 2010

ps3 flop because xbox 360 king of this genration

EDIT: This post has been moderated. -d1



Around the Network
Michael-5 on 09 September 2010
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Activision doesn't own Bungie. I'd suggest paying close attention before claiming someone needs to get their facts straight.

And, look up what terms? Doesn't matter who an owned IP is developed by, it's still considered an in-house title if it is owned by the manufacturer. Nobody else can do anything with it. Sure, many of these IPs are developed by an outside studio. But Team Ninja developed Other: M, 3rd party developed, 1st party IP. Same goes for titles such as resistance, Halo (now), and inFAMOUS.

Bungie signed a 10 year publishing deal with Activision Blizzard this year you know that? They also separated from Microsoft. Activision doesn't own Bungie, but neither does Microsoft. After Reach 343 Studios is taking over Halo development, and Bungie is working on a new IP, to be published by Activision Blizzard, for both the PS3 and 360.

I do my research, Activision doesn't own Bungie, but Bungie is independent and on a 10 year publishing contract with them.

As for 2nd and third party, your mixing up the terms. Go look them up. Halo: Reach is technically second party now, same with Resistance, Gears of War, and Pokemon :O!

You should really keep watch of the contradictions because you just said that Activision owned Bungie. And yes, I know all about their ten-year partnership (which still doesn't mean ownership).

Also, I'm not the one mixing anything up. Halo is a 1st party IP, period. Resistance is 1st party. Gears of War is a 3rd party IP that Microsoft publishes (same case with HEAVY RAIN regarding Sony). There really is no "2nd Party", although the terminology is used from time to time by Sony.

Okay well sorry about saying Activision owns Bungie, what I wanted to focus on was that Bungie has gone independant from Microsoft. So if they made a future Halo game (which they won't), then it would be 2nd party.

Halo up to ODST is 1st Party, Halo Reach is 2nd Party, Resistance is 2nd Party since Sony does not own Insomniac, Gears is 2nd Party, and so is Heavy Rain.

Look up under Wikipedia, there is a difference between 2nd and 3rd party developers. Remedy for example (makers of Heavy Rain), are second party, Game Freak (Pokemon) second Party, Level-5 is a second party developer for multiple consoles. There is a difference. Left 4 Dead is third party, developed and published by someone else then Microsoft, significantly different from Alan Wake. Valve can release Left 4 Dead for PS3 if they choose too, but Remedy cannot have Sony publish a PS3 version of Alan Wake.

P.S. Resistance retribution was developed and published by Sony, thats a 1st party resistance game.

Oh dear, there's a TON wrong here.

a. HEAVY RAIN is owned by a 3rd party dev called Quantic Dream. The IP is only published by Sony, but still 3rd party.

b. Wiki? Really? You know they tend to be rather inaccurate themselves, correct?

c. An IP doesn't change it's status between iterations, no matter who the developer is, unless the company who owns it is picked up by another company. Otherwise, Halo 3 ODST, Halo: Reach....Halo whatever, are all 1st party, all owned by Microsoft.

d. Gears of War is NOT 2nd Party, it is 3rd, published by Microsoft. HEAVY RAIN is NOT 2nd party, it is 3rd, published by Sony. Resistance (sounding like a broken record now) is Sony's IP. It's 1st party, no matter who develops it.

At this point, you're doing more harm to your argument than good.

a.I did not know that, does that mean Heavy Rain may end up being released on the 360, like Mass Effect 2 did for PS3? (P.S. I did say I don't know wheather Heavy Rain was 2md or third party remember?)

b.Just suggested it to show you a list of second party devs.

c. Halo is a 1st party franchise, I agree, but since Bungie has separated from MS for a short period of development time on Reach, it's technically a 2nd party game. Just an interesting fact.

d. Resistance, developed by Insomniac is 2nd party. Sony owns the IP, but not the developer. dunno who owns the Gears IP, I really think MS owns it, and that would make it second party. I don't like how people say Resistance is 1st or 2nd party, but Gears isn't. It's in the same situation, Insomniac is developing a multiplatform title now you know?

How am I doing any harm to my point? I'm not saying anything wrong. Eiash, your so harsh.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

RockMan10 on 09 September 2010
RolStoppable said:

Sony doesn't do amazing things first, that's why. Their games usually consist of ideas borrowed from somewhere else and mixed together. It's not surprising that Uncharted was compared to Tomb Raider and Gears of War a lot. Why did Gears of War do so much better? Because it redefined its genre and ever since then other TPS try to mimic its gameplay. God of War followed Devil May Cry. Killzone followed Halo.

Why didn't LittleBigPlanet or Heavy Rain become mega blockbusters? Because they are not amazing to most gamers. The thing that's new in LBP is the extensive level editor, but most gamers rather play than create, so they don't care. Heavy Rain is more of an interactive movie and that's only amazing to a small subset of gamers.

Of course, this explanation works in reverse as well and that's why Gran Turismo is so big while it's imitators never come close in sales. Forza would be the most popular one and hardly anyone remembers Konami's Enthusia Professional Racing anymore.

If you want to hit it big then you either have to do something first or something that hasn't been done in a long time by anyone else.


Stop being a douche. You are saying because Killzone is an FPS it followed Halo..

Well, if thats the case, Halo followed Goldeneye. Goldeney was an FPS, and allowed split screen 4 people to play.

OH Halo also copied the idea of getting medals after the game from Goldeneye as well.

All that banter is just dumb. That's not the reason why they don't sell.

They don't sell because of marketing. Nobody really understands how great Uncharted and Killzone are because Sony doesn't throw it in user's faces enough.

Uncharted 2 destroys any Tomb Raider game I've seen, they are no where near the same game, or even comparable. The only thing that MIGHT be comparable is the story line or something... and Killzone 2 u arent even fighting aliens?? How is that a Halo game? 



Naraku_Diabolos on 09 September 2010
Zipper said:

Sony has been in the console business for 15 year. 

They've created 3 amazing consoles, two of them being amazingly popular and one the best selling home console in the world. They own the most amazing developers, I believe today Sony is only second to Nintendo in  quality when it comes to first party titles. They created dozens franchises, some of them more popular than others yet only one of them - Gran Turismo, has been extremely popular and with Gran Turismo 5 releasing soon, we will see if the franchise is still popular as it was before.

I'm trying to think why, in 15 years, they couldn't make at least one extremely popular franchise among the dozens they've created? Even back in the PS2 era, Sony created some of the best titles on the system, but they still weren't crazy popular

Titles that are critically acclaimed - Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone 2 - Why do they fail to reach their sales potential? It obvious the potential is there

Take Uncharted 2 for example. It the most critically acclaimed of the bunch, it has multiplayer, co-op and I can't take of a game that is more easy to market - yet it failed to make an impact and dropped of the NPD for good after one month of sales which weren't extremely good anyway

Why do titles like Gears of War (for some reason the eastiest title to compare to Uncharted) do so much better?

Why do titles like Killzone 2 which had a huge amount of hype and belongs to the most popular genre on consoles today failed to sell the millions everyone thought it will?

It an interesting topic I think we should discuss

You have to take in consideration that some games sell towards a certain demographic, the price of a console (and the afforablility of the game), and mass appeal of characters (the characters appeal to certain age groups and demographics). Yet you make a very valid point with Gears of War selling more. It is possibly due to the X360 having more consoles sold, and with more consoles being sold, there's more word-to-mouth on people referring the game to their friends and the like.

Make no mistake, Sony does create unique IPs, but some of them just don't take off. It's like that with movies and toys. It's both trial and error with marketing. Once the idea takes off and something is marketed right, then it will come mainstream.

There's also the point in which Sony has no mascots. Sony has a lot of ideas on their IPs, but they have never taken off. It's not due to marketing or anything, but it could be with preferences that people have. With mascots such as Mario and Sonic, they were all mainstream before Sony even entered the market. There was Crash Bandicoot, but Sony sold that character to Universal (I remember the developer started with a V, I forget who) Games.



Michael-5 on 09 September 2010
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Activision doesn't own Bungie. I'd suggest paying close attention before claiming someone needs to get their facts straight.

And, look up what terms? Doesn't matter who an owned IP is developed by, it's still considered an in-house title if it is owned by the manufacturer. Nobody else can do anything with it. Sure, many of these IPs are developed by an outside studio. But Team Ninja developed Other: M, 3rd party developed, 1st party IP. Same goes for titles such as resistance, Halo (now), and inFAMOUS.

Bungie signed a 10 year publishing deal with Activision Blizzard this year you know that? They also separated from Microsoft. Activision doesn't own Bungie, but neither does Microsoft. After Reach 343 Studios is taking over Halo development, and Bungie is working on a new IP, to be published by Activision Blizzard, for both the PS3 and 360.

I do my research, Activision doesn't own Bungie, but Bungie is independent and on a 10 year publishing contract with them.

As for 2nd and third party, your mixing up the terms. Go look them up. Halo: Reach is technically second party now, same with Resistance, Gears of War, and Pokemon :O!

You should really keep watch of the contradictions because you just said that Activision owned Bungie. And yes, I know all about their ten-year partnership (which still doesn't mean ownership).

Also, I'm not the one mixing anything up. Halo is a 1st party IP, period. Resistance is 1st party. Gears of War is a 3rd party IP that Microsoft publishes (same case with HEAVY RAIN regarding Sony). There really is no "2nd Party", although the terminology is used from time to time by Sony.

Okay well sorry about saying Activision owns Bungie, what I wanted to focus on was that Bungie has gone independant from Microsoft. So if they made a future Halo game (which they won't), then it would be 2nd party.

Halo up to ODST is 1st Party, Halo Reach is 2nd Party, Resistance is 2nd Party since Sony does not own Insomniac, Gears is 2nd Party, and so is Heavy Rain.

Look up under Wikipedia, there is a difference between 2nd and 3rd party developers. Remedy for example (makers of Heavy Rain), are second party, Game Freak (Pokemon) second Party, Level-5 is a second party developer for multiple consoles. There is a difference. Left 4 Dead is third party, developed and published by someone else then Microsoft, significantly different from Alan Wake. Valve can release Left 4 Dead for PS3 if they choose too, but Remedy cannot have Sony publish a PS3 version of Alan Wake.

P.S. Resistance retribution was developed and published by Sony, thats a 1st party resistance game.

Oh dear, there's a TON wrong here.

a. HEAVY RAIN is owned by a 3rd party dev called Quantic Dream. The IP is only published by Sony, but still 3rd party.

b. Wiki? Really? You know they tend to be rather inaccurate themselves, correct?

c. An IP doesn't change it's status between iterations, no matter who the developer is, unless the company who owns it is picked up by another company. Otherwise, Halo 3 ODST, Halo: Reach....Halo whatever, are all 1st party, all owned by Microsoft.

d. Gears of War is NOT 2nd Party, it is 3rd, published by Microsoft. HEAVY RAIN is NOT 2nd party, it is 3rd, published by Sony. Resistance (sounding like a broken record now) is Sony's IP. It's 1st party, no matter who develops it.

At this point, you're doing more harm to your argument than good.

a.I did not know that, does that mean Heavy Rain may end up being released on the 360, like Mass Effect 2 did for PS3? (P.S. I did say I don't know wheather Heavy Rain was 2md or third party remember?)

b.Just suggested it to show you a list of second party devs.

c. Halo is a 1st party franchise, I agree, but since Bungie has separated from MS for a short period of development time on Reach, it's technically a 2nd party game. Just an interesting fact.

d. Resistance, developed by Insomniac is 2nd party. Sony owns the IP, but not the developer. dunno who owns the Gears IP, I really think MS owns it, and that would make it second party. I don't like how people say Resistance is 1st or 2nd party, but Gears isn't. It's in the same situation, Insomniac is developing a multiplatform title now you know?

How am I doing any harm to my point? I'm not saying anything wrong. Eiash, your so harsh.

Not about being harsh, it's about being real. Halo being a "2nd party IP" isn't fact. In fact, it's quite wrong. Epic Games owns the Gears IP - it's 3rd party. Resistance is Sony's, meaning they can do whatever they please with the IP. You have to understand that that means it's a 1st party title, which is to be developed by a 3rd party dev (as of now).

You don't have to like if people say Resistance is 1st party and Gears isn't, facts are facts. Gears belongs to Epic, not Microsoft - 3rd party. Resistance belongs to Sony, not Insomniac - 1st party.

Okay assuming Epic owns the Gears IP, Gears is then a 3rd party exclusive, Halo: Reach is 2nd party as Microsoft isn't developing it, nor do they own the company that does. You can still say Halo: Reach is 1st party because during most of the development time, Bungie was owned by MS. I don't care, but I don't see either being wrong (or important).

Resistance is 2nd Party. Nintendo owns the rights to Pokemon, but does not own GameFreak, and Pokemon is second party, how is this different. If you Wikipedia it, you can see most people agree with me, Resistance is 2nd party. Please stop on this topic now, it's pointless.

Facts are facts, Resistance is second party, and I simply don't know about Gears of War. Last I heard MS either has a contract for exclusivity, or it's a MS owned IP.

Pokemon belongs to Nintendo, but it's still a second party game when Game Freak makes it. You need to leanr what second party is. If Insomniac owned the IP, and Sony doesn't own Insomniac, the game would be third party. Since it's Sony's IP, but being developed by a non in-house developer, it's second party.

Simple as that.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
VXIII on 09 September 2010
CGI-Quality said:

Not about being harsh, it's about being real. Halo being a "2nd party IP" isn't fact. In fact, it's quite wrong. Epic Games owns the Gears IP - it's 3rd party. Resistance is Sony's, meaning they can do whatever they please with the IP. You have to understand that that means it's a 1st party title, which is to be developed by a 3rd party dev (as of now).

You don't have to like if people say Resistance is 1st party and Gears isn't, facts are facts. Gears belongs to Epic, not Microsoft - 3rd party. Resistance belongs to Sony, not Insomniac - 1st party.

What's the 2nd party then ? could you name some games so I can understand this correctly ?



myabsolution on 10 September 2010
Michael-5 said:

Okay assuming Epic owns the Gears IP, Gears is then a 3rd party exclusive, Halo: Reach is 2nd party as Microsoft isn't developing it, nor do they own the company that does. You can still say Halo: Reach is 1st party because during most of the development time, Bungie was owned by MS. I don't care, but I don't see either being wrong (or important).

Facts are facts, Resistance is second party, and I simply don't know about Gears of War. Last I heard MS either has a contract for exclusivity, or it's a MS owned IP.


That is actually very incorrect information...

Halo ODST and Halo Reach were both made during which time Bungie was independant. Bungie became Indie literally a week after Halo 3 launched back in September 2007 and Microsoft and Bungie had been discussing the seperation plans many months prior to that. The majority if not all of the work on Reach has been post-Halo 3 launch, ala Indie work. Microsoft never made them make either ODST or Reach while they were a part of Microsoft, Bungie willingly CHOSE to do such at their own discretion. Hell, their inital response after announcing ODST/Recon was that it would be their last Halo game, which of course it wasn't, as they just couldn't bring themselves to leave the series just yet, so they opted to make Reach and have that be their swan song.

The term 2nd party doesn't even really make any sense and serves no actual purpose other than to confuse and give incorrect facts.

Halo: Reach is a 1st party game, its a Microsoft franchise. Doesn't matter who develops the games. Same for Crackdown.

Under the same criteria, Resistance is a first party franchise. Sony-only, yet made by someone not owned by the publisher.

As for Gears of War. It is entirely 100% owned by EPIC games. that franchise is their own. They must like what deal/relationship they have with MS. It is a 3rd Party game, non-Microsoft franchise.



Michael-5 on 10 September 2010
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Activision doesn't own Bungie. I'd suggest paying close attention before claiming someone needs to get their facts straight.

And, look up what terms? Doesn't matter who an owned IP is developed by, it's still considered an in-house title if it is owned by the manufacturer. Nobody else can do anything with it. Sure, many of these IPs are developed by an outside studio. But Team Ninja developed Other: M, 3rd party developed, 1st party IP. Same goes for titles such as resistance, Halo (now), and inFAMOUS.

Bungie signed a 10 year publishing deal with Activision Blizzard this year you know that? They also separated from Microsoft. Activision doesn't own Bungie, but neither does Microsoft. After Reach 343 Studios is taking over Halo development, and Bungie is working on a new IP, to be published by Activision Blizzard, for both the PS3 and 360.

I do my research, Activision doesn't own Bungie, but Bungie is independent and on a 10 year publishing contract with them.

As for 2nd and third party, your mixing up the terms. Go look them up. Halo: Reach is technically second party now, same with Resistance, Gears of War, and Pokemon :O!

You should really keep watch of the contradictions because you just said that Activision owned Bungie. And yes, I know all about their ten-year partnership (which still doesn't mean ownership).

Also, I'm not the one mixing anything up. Halo is a 1st party IP, period. Resistance is 1st party. Gears of War is a 3rd party IP that Microsoft publishes (same case with HEAVY RAIN regarding Sony). There really is no "2nd Party", although the terminology is used from time to time by Sony.

Okay well sorry about saying Activision owns Bungie, what I wanted to focus on was that Bungie has gone independant from Microsoft. So if they made a future Halo game (which they won't), then it would be 2nd party.

Halo up to ODST is 1st Party, Halo Reach is 2nd Party, Resistance is 2nd Party since Sony does not own Insomniac, Gears is 2nd Party, and so is Heavy Rain.

Look up under Wikipedia, there is a difference between 2nd and 3rd party developers. Remedy for example (makers of Heavy Rain), are second party, Game Freak (Pokemon) second Party, Level-5 is a second party developer for multiple consoles. There is a difference. Left 4 Dead is third party, developed and published by someone else then Microsoft, significantly different from Alan Wake. Valve can release Left 4 Dead for PS3 if they choose too, but Remedy cannot have Sony publish a PS3 version of Alan Wake.

P.S. Resistance retribution was developed and published by Sony, thats a 1st party resistance game.

Oh dear, there's a TON wrong here.

a. HEAVY RAIN is owned by a 3rd party dev called Quantic Dream. The IP is only published by Sony, but still 3rd party.

b. Wiki? Really? You know they tend to be rather inaccurate themselves, correct?

c. An IP doesn't change it's status between iterations, no matter who the developer is, unless the company who owns it is picked up by another company. Otherwise, Halo 3 ODST, Halo: Reach....Halo whatever, are all 1st party, all owned by Microsoft.

d. Gears of War is NOT 2nd Party, it is 3rd, published by Microsoft. HEAVY RAIN is NOT 2nd party, it is 3rd, published by Sony. Resistance (sounding like a broken record now) is Sony's IP. It's 1st party, no matter who develops it.

At this point, you're doing more harm to your argument than good.

a.I did not know that, does that mean Heavy Rain may end up being released on the 360, like Mass Effect 2 did for PS3? (P.S. I did say I don't know wheather Heavy Rain was 2md or third party remember?)

b.Just suggested it to show you a list of second party devs.

c. Halo is a 1st party franchise, I agree, but since Bungie has separated from MS for a short period of development time on Reach, it's technically a 2nd party game. Just an interesting fact.

d. Resistance, developed by Insomniac is 2nd party. Sony owns the IP, but not the developer. dunno who owns the Gears IP, I really think MS owns it, and that would make it second party. I don't like how people say Resistance is 1st or 2nd party, but Gears isn't. It's in the same situation, Insomniac is developing a multiplatform title now you know?

How am I doing any harm to my point? I'm not saying anything wrong. Eiash, your so harsh.

Not about being harsh, it's about being real. Halo being a "2nd party IP" isn't fact. In fact, it's quite wrong. Epic Games owns the Gears IP - it's 3rd party. Resistance is Sony's, meaning they can do whatever they please with the IP. You have to understand that that means it's a 1st party title, which is to be developed by a 3rd party dev (as of now).

You don't have to like if people say Resistance is 1st party and Gears isn't, facts are facts. Gears belongs to Epic, not Microsoft - 3rd party. Resistance belongs to Sony, not Insomniac - 1st party.

Okay assuming Epic owns the Gears IP, Gears is then a 3rd party exclusive, Halo: Reach is 2nd party as Microsoft isn't developing it, nor do they own the company that does. You can still say Halo: Reach is 1st party because during most of the development time, Bungie was owned by MS. I don't care, but I don't see either being wrong (or important).

Resistance is 2nd Party. Nintendo owns the rights to Pokemon, but does not own GameFreak, and Pokemon is second party, how is this different. If you Wikipedia it, you can see most people agree with me, Resistance is 2nd party. Please stop on this topic now, it's pointless.

Facts are facts, Resistance is second party, and I simply don't know about Gears of War. Last I heard MS either has a contract for exclusivity, or it's a MS owned IP.

Pokemon belongs to Nintendo, but it's still a second party game when Game Freak makes it. You need to leanr what second party is. If Insomniac owned the IP, and Sony doesn't own Insomniac, the game would be third party. Since it's Sony's IP, but being developed by a non in-house developer, it's second party.

Simple as that.

No sense in arguing with someone who ignores facts. My work here is done.

Now thats just an insult...

Anyway I agree arguing is stupid.

However we clearly disagree on what defines a second party title, so for the sake of these forums, lets just leave it at that. Please no more insults.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 on 10 September 2010
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:
CGI-Quality said:

Activision doesn't own Bungie. I'd suggest paying close attention before claiming someone needs to get their facts straight.

And, look up what terms? Doesn't matter who an owned IP is developed by, it's still considered an in-house title if it is owned by the manufacturer. Nobody else can do anything with it. Sure, many of these IPs are developed by an outside studio. But Team Ninja developed Other: M, 3rd party developed, 1st party IP. Same goes for titles such as resistance, Halo (now), and inFAMOUS.

Bungie signed a 10 year publishing deal with Activision Blizzard this year you know that? They also separated from Microsoft. Activision doesn't own Bungie, but neither does Microsoft. After Reach 343 Studios is taking over Halo development, and Bungie is working on a new IP, to be published by Activision Blizzard, for both the PS3 and 360.

I do my research, Activision doesn't own Bungie, but Bungie is independent and on a 10 year publishing contract with them.

As for 2nd and third party, your mixing up the terms. Go look them up. Halo: Reach is technically second party now, same with Resistance, Gears of War, and Pokemon :O!

You should really keep watch of the contradictions because you just said that Activision owned Bungie. And yes, I know all about their ten-year partnership (which still doesn't mean ownership).

Also, I'm not the one mixing anything up. Halo is a 1st party IP, period. Resistance is 1st party. Gears of War is a 3rd party IP that Microsoft publishes (same case with HEAVY RAIN regarding Sony). There really is no "2nd Party", although the terminology is used from time to time by Sony.

Okay well sorry about saying Activision owns Bungie, what I wanted to focus on was that Bungie has gone independant from Microsoft. So if they made a future Halo game (which they won't), then it would be 2nd party.

Halo up to ODST is 1st Party, Halo Reach is 2nd Party, Resistance is 2nd Party since Sony does not own Insomniac, Gears is 2nd Party, and so is Heavy Rain.

Look up under Wikipedia, there is a difference between 2nd and 3rd party developers. Remedy for example (makers of Heavy Rain), are second party, Game Freak (Pokemon) second Party, Level-5 is a second party developer for multiple consoles. There is a difference. Left 4 Dead is third party, developed and published by someone else then Microsoft, significantly different from Alan Wake. Valve can release Left 4 Dead for PS3 if they choose too, but Remedy cannot have Sony publish a PS3 version of Alan Wake.

P.S. Resistance retribution was developed and published by Sony, thats a 1st party resistance game.

Oh dear, there's a TON wrong here.

a. HEAVY RAIN is owned by a 3rd party dev called Quantic Dream. The IP is only published by Sony, but still 3rd party.

b. Wiki? Really? You know they tend to be rather inaccurate themselves, correct?

c. An IP doesn't change it's status between iterations, no matter who the developer is, unless the company who owns it is picked up by another company. Otherwise, Halo 3 ODST, Halo: Reach....Halo whatever, are all 1st party, all owned by Microsoft.

d. Gears of War is NOT 2nd Party, it is 3rd, published by Microsoft. HEAVY RAIN is NOT 2nd party, it is 3rd, published by Sony. Resistance (sounding like a broken record now) is Sony's IP. It's 1st party, no matter who develops it.

At this point, you're doing more harm to your argument than good.

a.I did not know that, does that mean Heavy Rain may end up being released on the 360, like Mass Effect 2 did for PS3? (P.S. I did say I don't know wheather Heavy Rain was 2md or third party remember?)

b.Just suggested it to show you a list of second party devs.

c. Halo is a 1st party franchise, I agree, but since Bungie has separated from MS for a short period of development time on Reach, it's technically a 2nd party game. Just an interesting fact.

d. Resistance, developed by Insomniac is 2nd party. Sony owns the IP, but not the developer. dunno who owns the Gears IP, I really think MS owns it, and that would make it second party. I don't like how people say Resistance is 1st or 2nd party, but Gears isn't. It's in the same situation, Insomniac is developing a multiplatform title now you know?

How am I doing any harm to my point? I'm not saying anything wrong. Eiash, your so harsh.

Not about being harsh, it's about being real. Halo being a "2nd party IP" isn't fact. In fact, it's quite wrong. Epic Games owns the Gears IP - it's 3rd party. Resistance is Sony's, meaning they can do whatever they please with the IP. You have to understand that that means it's a 1st party title, which is to be developed by a 3rd party dev (as of now).

You don't have to like if people say Resistance is 1st party and Gears isn't, facts are facts. Gears belongs to Epic, not Microsoft - 3rd party. Resistance belongs to Sony, not Insomniac - 1st party.

Okay assuming Epic owns the Gears IP, Gears is then a 3rd party exclusive, Halo: Reach is 2nd party as Microsoft isn't developing it, nor do they own the company that does. You can still say Halo: Reach is 1st party because during most of the development time, Bungie was owned by MS. I don't care, but I don't see either being wrong (or important).

Resistance is 2nd Party. Nintendo owns the rights to Pokemon, but does not own GameFreak, and Pokemon is second party, how is this different. If you Wikipedia it, you can see most people agree with me, Resistance is 2nd party. Please stop on this topic now, it's pointless.

Facts are facts, Resistance is second party, and I simply don't know about Gears of War. Last I heard MS either has a contract for exclusivity, or it's a MS owned IP.

Pokemon belongs to Nintendo, but it's still a second party game when Game Freak makes it. You need to leanr what second party is. If Insomniac owned the IP, and Sony doesn't own Insomniac, the game would be third party. Since it's Sony's IP, but being developed by a non in-house developer, it's second party.

Simple as that.

No sense in arguing with someone who ignores facts. My work here is done.

Now thats just an insult...

Anyway I agree arguing is stupid.

However we clearly disagree on what defines a second party title, so for the sake of these forums, lets just leave it at that. Please no more insults.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Michael-5 on 10 September 2010
myabsolution said:
Michael-5 said:

Okay assuming Epic owns the Gears IP, Gears is then a 3rd party exclusive, Halo: Reach is 2nd party as Microsoft isn't developing it, nor do they own the company that does. You can still say Halo: Reach is 1st party because during most of the development time, Bungie was owned by MS. I don't care, but I don't see either being wrong (or important).

Facts are facts, Resistance is second party, and I simply don't know about Gears of War. Last I heard MS either has a contract for exclusivity, or it's a MS owned IP.


That is actually very incorrect information...

Halo ODST and Halo Reach were both made during which time Bungie was independant. Bungie became Indie literally a week after Halo 3 launched back in September 2007 and Microsoft and Bungie had been discussing the seperation plans many months prior to that. The majority if not all of the work on Reach has been post-Halo 3 launch, ala Indie work. Microsoft never made them make either ODST or Reach while they were a part of Microsoft, Bungie willingly CHOSE to do such at their own discretion. Hell, their inital response after announcing ODST/Recon was that it would be their last Halo game, which of course it wasn't, as they just couldn't bring themselves to leave the series just yet, so they opted to make Reach and have that be their swan song.

The term 2nd party doesn't even really make any sense and serves no actual purpose other than to confuse and give incorrect facts.

Halo: Reach is a 1st party game, its a Microsoft franchise. Doesn't matter who develops the games. Same for Crackdown.

Under the same criteria, Resistance is a first party franchise. Sony-only, yet made by someone not owned by the publisher.

As for Gears of War. It is entirely 100% owned by EPIC games. that franchise is their own. They must like what deal/relationship they have with MS. It is a 3rd Party game, non-Microsoft franchise.

So what does second party mean then, and why does that term even exist? I don't disagree with what you are saying, but if the IP is owned by the console maufacturer does that mean that Lost Odyssey was a 1st party title, and that Demon Souls was also first Party? What about games like Disgaea, they've seen DS remakes.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results