Yes, they are. But bonds don't always last, as you can see with Insomniac. According to your logic Atlus and Bandai Namco are second party developers to Nintendo... I can assure you they are not.

When the company does a game for another, it's second party. Doesn't mean they have to be second party for only one company for everything they produce. That's up to the contract that binds their work. Insomniac issecond party to Sony for Ratcher & Clank games, while being third party for games like Sunset Overdrive. One is a second party game due to the IP being owned by Sony while the other is simply a third party exlusive still owned by the studio that created the game.

They're still independant. Not owned by the first party. 

Hmm, if those are all releasing in 2016 (possible, but unlikely thanks to a few hold-outs and NMS seemingly releasing this year), then that is impressive.

What's even more impressive is that this doesn't include third-party exclusives.

this

it would be impressive if that was like the roster for 2016 or something but the reality is more than a few of those will probably be delayed or not come out until like 2017 (the robot dinosaur one? ehhh we'll see when it's released)

it's not as if they have more exclusives than, say, Nintendo with their Wii U, especially when you consider a portion of those titles are on the PC (considering the growth of the PC market, which is far ahead of that of consoles, its pretty relevant)

I know what kind of territory i'm stepping into but..a couple of things

1, Nintendo did not "carry" the Wii U anywhere other than to its grave

2, I assume that, as usual, that logic stems from the idea of Nintendo being "game makers" as opposed to Sony and MS who aren't; been seeing that idea more and more often. Well then maybe they should stick to that? And..just make games..instead of consoles. If that's what they are, after all. Then they won't have to try (and fail) to carry anything like some martyr. And releasing only a couple of games here and there won't be an issue either because other publishers do that and do fine because they just..make games, instead of having to carry their own platform.

3, if a game comes to PS, that's already being "carried by Sony". Why? Because something was appealing enough for them to want to make the game for the system. A system designed, marketed and organised by Sony. In summary, if Sony does what Nintendont, they don't have to " carry" anything because content creators will flock to their platform, something that's essential for someone in the business of..running a platform. Hence, number 2 above.

Also, I'm not a kid, I'm a squid.

True, but Nintendo didn't abandoned Wii U console and users after bad sales after 2 years like Sony did with Vita.

Really? Seems like they're getting ready to get rid of the WiiU to me.

That doesn't say much, you know, considering the massive library of the predecessors. Even then, plenty of exclusives have been released so far.

At worst Nintendo will relase games for Wii U for onother full year, thats 4 full years of Nintendo suport and would be only one year less than usualy Nintendo consoles have suport. So it not exactly same situation with Vita that Sony stopped to supported only after around 2 years.

Helldivers

Oreshika: Tainted Bloodlines

Invizimals: The Resistance

MLB 15: The Show

Resogun

Soul Sacrifice Delta

CounterSpy

R&C Collection

Sly Collection

The Unfinished Swan

God of War Collection

Freedom Wars

Murasaki Baby

Hohokum

No Heroes Allowed

Destiny of Spirits

Dead Nation

Games from 2014. Not big games like on the WiiU but not dissimilar in numbers.