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

Forums - Gaming - Wii first party library vs PS3 first party library?

 

Wii first party library vs PS3 first party library?

PS3 1st party library 175 46.05%
 
Wii 1st party library 178 46.84%
 
Both 17 4.47%
 
Xbox 360 1st party library (vote me) 9 2.37%
 
Total:379
mibuokami on 31 March 2011
RolStoppable said:
mibuokami said:
RolStoppable said:

Your rebuttal doesn't add much considering that I already mentioned a similar example with Level 5's Professor Layton series. Demon's Souls is a first party game in Japan and a third party game in the rest of the world. Sounds odd, but that's how it is.

This thread is about first party games, not first party studios.

I saw your example, and I merely place mine at the extreme end, it simply doesn't make sense to say that any game published by Sony is automatically a Sony first party game in the conext of the OP. Otherwise games like ghostbuster would be first party in Europe when it even exist as a mutliplat!

But that's the case, as odd as it may sound. Ghostbusters (PS3) is a Sony game in Europe, not an Atari one. Just like Call of Duty is a Square-Enix game in Japan, not an Activision one.

Ok, i think this is simply a disagreement on definition. You're more than likely right on a technical level but when speaking to most gamer, the term first-party generally referes IPs owned by the console manufactorer or internally developed games, and I read the op as the later.




Around the Network
BMaker11 on 31 March 2011
oniyide said:

@bmaker11 sales shouldnt affect how or if a person enjoys a game

Didn't say it should. Just that it was one of the factors in the OPs reasons for which first party VGC thinks is better



BMaker11 on 31 March 2011
CGI-Quality said:
mibuokami said:
RolStoppable said:

But that's the case, as odd as it may sound. Ghostbusters (PS3) is a Sony game in Europe, not an Atari one. Just like Call of Duty is a Square-Enix game in Japan, not an Activision one.

Ok, i think this is simply a disagreement on definition. You're more than likely right on a technical level but when speaking to most gamer, the term first-party generally referes IPs owned by the console manufactorer or internally developed games, and I read the op as the later.

What you're saying is right though. Even though Sony published Ghostbusters in EMEAA, it's not their IP. Square may publish CoD in Japan, but it's not their IP. How these companies split the money made is not up to us to decide, but where to place an IP is easy, because if it is owned by a company that manufacturs consoles, the IP is 1st Party.

Demon's Souls was published by Atlus outside of Japan, yes, but it's SCE's IP. If you were to include it with one of your 3 games to tout as a Sony IP, you'd be fine, unlike HEAVY RAIN, which was published by Sony everywhere, but isn't their IP.

Is the fact that the "sequel" is called Dark Souls why it's able to be multiplatform?



BMaker11 on 31 March 2011

I think at this stage in the game, it's all about a screwed up perception by many. As stated earlier by someone, GT5 is an 84 on Metacritic, but for some reason it's lambasted (despite being continually supported and having so many improvements through updates) and didn't "meet expectations". On the other, NSMBWii is an 87 and Mario Kart Wii is an 82, but everyone thinks those are the greatest things since sliced bread.

If that kind of perception makes Nintendo's first party, in 2011, better than Sony's...well, I weep for us as gamers, if there's that kind of discretion over a few point scores that are generally agreed upon in the gaming community



Ail on 31 March 2011

Wii wins sales hands down.

The issue with the Wii library however is that there are only 2-3 good titles at most every year.

While the PS3 third party titles sell much less, there are enough of them , covering enough genres to catter to the needs of  a wide ranges of gamers. That and pretty much every quarter there are 1-2 decent PS3 title released so even if there was no third party support ( which is not the case at all), that is enough for some gamers...

 

Look at 2010 for example :

MAG

God of War 3

MLB 10 The Show 

Modnations Racers

Heavy Rain

GT5

LBP2

 

On the other hand you get Nintendo with very little third party support that on top of this releases too few good first party titles. 

 



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Seece on 31 March 2011

1. PS3, I don't see how Nintendo is even remotely diverse tbh ...
2. PS3, again easy choice.
3. can't speak for gameplay (motion doesn't auto make it better ...) graphics, obviously PS3.
4. Wii obviously.
5. ? no idea
6. Wii ..



 

dsister on 31 March 2011

I would of maybe said Sony had inFamous and LBP been first party, yet sadly they aren't. So Sony's first party is kind of bland imo, and Nintendo easily takes the win :D 



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

dsister on 31 March 2011
TT Makaveli said:

PS3...first of all cause im a fanboy and second of all because i like change...


You cite change for one of the reasons why you like the PS3 more... even though it's used the same controller for the last 3 gens..? 



Sig thanks to Saber! :D 

mantlepiecek on 31 March 2011
dsister said:

I would of maybe said Sony had inFamous and LBP been first party, yet sadly they aren't. So Sony's first party is kind of bland imo, and Nintendo easily takes the win :D 


????????????????????????????

Both are first party. LBP is owned by Sony and made by Media molecule which is owned by Sony.

inFamous is owned by Sony and made by Sucker Punch who are second party, but infamous can't be published on any other platform(unless Sony wants it) because the IP is owned by Sony.

That makes it a first party game. Something like heavy rain is not first party strictly but infamous is. Sony can easily hire another developer(a first party developer) to develop the game, but they have more faith in Sucker Punch.



dsister on 31 March 2011
mantlepiecek said:


????????????????????????????

Both are first party. LBP is owned by Sony and made by Media molecule which is owned by Sony.

inFamous is owned by Sony and made by Sucker Punch who are second party, but infamous can't be published on any other platform(unless Sony wants it) because the IP is owned by Sony.

That makes it a first party game. Something like heavy rain is not first party strictly but infamous is. Sony can easily hire another developer(a first party developer) to develop the game, but they have more faith in Sucker Punch.

I have always counted first party as games made by first party studios. Neither Media Molecule or Sucker Punch were first party at the time of those games specific releases 



Sig thanks to Saber! :D