I feel this is needed.
Outside the videogame industry, if one referred to “the company in the first party,” it would mean “my company,” or maybe “the first company in this particular case study.” “First party,” “second party,” etc., are simply sometimes less confusing than “me,” “you,” and “he.”
It is possible the present-day use of the terms “first party” and “third party” within the videogame industry dates back to the legal proceedings between Atari and Activision in the early 80s. Activision was a publisher with no formal connection or relationship with Atari; they were “a third party to Atari.” Atari was also a third party to Activision. But discussions of these cases would likely put Atari in the first party, saying things like “a third party to Atari can release games for the 2600…” I would guess that if one were to look at the games industry discussions of the 80s, they would find that from these roots, eventually:
“First party” came to refer to any console maker and their games, and
“Third party” to any independent publisher and their games.
And so in a technical sense there is no such thing as a “second party developer.” Either a console maker owns a controlling stake in a developer or they don’t, with everything else being moot. However,
“Second party” has come about as an informal term to refer to the games developed by an independent company but published by a console maker, and the developers who work exclusively within such an arrangement.
When making a “big list o’ games” for your analysis, ask yourself if adding that middle category for “second party” is necessary. In many cases, especially when examining or predicting general trends, the fact that a console maker is publishing a game, and so putting their weight behind it, is the most relevant fact.
"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."
Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.
