Heh, what do you know, I guess I meant the EAD teams.
What I learned from this is they still should just leave the Rated 'M' games to actual third party devs like Rockstar.
They should just continue doing what they do best and that's developing games they know how to do.

As Bungie could not make a game for Sony or Nintendo, but that is now no longer the case. Were they any less 3rd party then than they are now? No, they were at best 2nd party (by colloquialism).

According to Wikipedia, and it makes sense, those are all 3rd party studios bound by contract with Nintendo on specific 1st party IPs (if even that) or for specific periods. Nintendo has alot of control over them because of the shares they possess in those studios, but these are still not 1st party, they are at best 2nd party. (I've always called them 2nd party) Technically they are 3rd party, as 2nd party is a type of 3rd party.

Having said that, there is a difference between a 1st party IP and a 3rd party IP. That's why, when you said this

"2nd party refers to a 3rd party game that Nintendo publishes (think Geist from n-Space).  Stuff like Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day would still be considered first party.  ",

it fails because Perfect Dark is property of Rare, and now Microsoft (Nintendo's direct competitor), so how in the world is Perfect Dark or CBFD 1st party? It's at best 2nd party by colloquialism, 3rd party by definition.

The same holds true for Insomniac games, and held true for Bungie. At any time these studios can change direction ,as has happened many times, even in the case of 49% ownership, since in the end, 49% is not 51.

"External first party studios would be those not fully owned but do have a controlling share...such as those I listed above."

You can say so, and we would understand what you mean, but having your own definition of something doesn't help the industry. If wikipedia, being a collaboration by multiple individuals in the industry, specified that the qualifier 1st party was bound to ownership and acquisition (in the case of an "external" studio), then how would you convince me that your definition is more solid, and who in the industry supports your claim?

--------------- Also ----------------

1st party studios cannot make IPs that are not property of the parent company. The same cannot be said about the examples you listed, if Rare gives us any lessons to learn from.

Try looking in the talk section of that Wiki page.  You'll see others also saying that 1st party is valid by controlling shares.   And since the published definition isn't sourced to anything specific, the current definition displayed is also just some guys personal definition.  I could go in and make the changes to the definition myself but since no actual definitive source exists ont he amtter, it will get changed back as per Wikipedia rules.  And contesting it would either result in no change or get the entire page deleted since it's an unsourced page.  So why bother?

The one I'm giving you isn't just my own but the definition used by many other people in the media and the developers and publishers I work with every day.

I could easily at this point start video gaming journalism. I would have to quit my day job though.

I guarantee you that I've always called such companies 2nd party studios and would continue the trend.

Tell me though, how much did Rare (non-Nintendo) shareholders own before getting bought out by MS? 51%? Was Nintendo majority shareholder up until that point?

If so, how were they able to create IPs that Nintendo did not keep if they were first party? That tells me they were not first party, and at best 2nd party by colloquialism.

Rare published Conker and Perfect Dark themselves.  Nintendo didn't own that IP because they didn't publish it.   And if you are going to ask about Killer Instinct, that IP is in such limbo between Nintendo, Rare and Midway (now defunct) that I doubt we'll ever see the IP again unless the legal issues are alleviated.  Banjo carried over with Rare because Nintendo sold their rights to it.

Okay Viper, maybe if the game is published by the studio itself the games are property of the publisher in most such cases, but even then, how could a 1st party studio publish its own games and retain rights to its own IPs if the studio is fully owned? These kind of things don't happen in full acquisition or ownership (majority share).

Also, to be really picky, you did tell pswii60 they were 1st party, despite the valid point you bring. 

You know, I don't want to harp on you, but you have to understand after all these years of hearing the media call Rare a 2nd party in the 64 and cube days, I was just taken aback.

I agree with all the sentiments here (especially the SF vs MK). But what if a theme turns you right off?

What if movies can appeal to kids without displaying kiddy themes (like disney classics)? Why revert to clichés? No wonder kids think that non-violent games are undesirable, because they have yet to play a non-violent game that isn't undesirable.

and as usual you are attacking me without addressing the point i've made.

Never change.

And as usual you're horribly ambiguous. Mind quoting some posts?

he knows what i'm talking about and my post was directed at him 

on the other hand i find it amusing though that you didn't ask him that