I gotta say the other guy is right. Mario + Rabbids is third party. It is a collaboration between Nintendo and Ubisoft and to allow Ubisoft to use the Mario franchise they required Ubisoft follow their rules but that in no way makes it second party.

2nd party doesn't have anything to do with how much a third party communicated with or got direction from a console maker about a particular game like the Mario + Rabbids mashup. 2nd party refers to a company not a specific game. It generally means the console maker owns a large enough amount of the company to get to be in charge of what platforms their games come out on. So 2nd party games only come from 2nd party studios.

A first party game is developed by first party studios, a second party game is developed by second party studios, a third party game is developed by third party studios. Mario + Rabbids is developed and published by Ubisoft - it is entirely a third party game, though obviously the licensing is shared between the two franchises so neither Nintendo nor Ubisoft would be able to make a sequel without the other's approval. Every game Ubisoft makes is third party.

Thats not the definition of second party at all.At least, thats not the definition everyone(95% of users here and everywhere) and by default, I use.A second party game entails that the company comissioning the game, which is always either Sony, MS or Nintendo, has ownership over the game in some form or another, be it because they financed the game, said game uses IP of the company that commissioned the game, or both.But the ones developing the game are not owned by MS, Nintendo, or Sony.They were merely "hired" to develop the game.So in another words: Company A owns the game because they either payed for it or their IPs is being used in the game, but a second company, company B, is developing it.

By your definition of second party, Monolith would be a second party developer, Intelligent Systems would be a second party developer.Retro Studios would be a second party developer.Insomniac would be a second party studio.But neither of them are.In the case of the first three examples, they are first party studios, because they are a part of Nintendo, they are 100% owned by them.In the case of Insomniac, they are independant and the only reason they make exclusive games either for Sony or for MS, is because they were paid for the development and exclusiveness of the game for said company.Another example would be Ratchet and Clank.Insomniac always developed these games, but Sony actually owns the IP, but Insomniac isnt part of Sony, nor does Sony owns any part of them, at least not significantly.

Quote taken from Wikipedia:(which are written by the public, and thus a good measurement of how the public interpret what second party games are)

"Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios who take development contracts from platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.^[7] These studios may have exclusive publishing agreements (or other business relationships) with the platform holder, but maintain independence so upon completion or termination of their contracts are able to continue developing games. Examples are Insomniac Games (originally a 2nd party for Sony), Bungie (originally a 2nd party for Microsoft) and Rareware (originally a 2nd party for Nintendo)."

I really though it was obvious what Second party games were.Guess I was wrong.

"In the case of the first three examples, they are first party studios, because they are a part of Nintendo, they are 100% owned by them."...um what? You said I'm trying to argue that studios that are 100% owned by the console maker are 2nd party? uhhh yeah i don't think you read what I wrote.

1st party studios are owned by the console maker.

2nd party studios are ones in which a console maker has a significant enough ownership to be able to direct what platforms their games come out on or in some way have serious control over the direction of the studio through their significant ownership of it, or can also simply be they sign a contract to only make games on that company's systems. Basically they are bound to a console maker despite not being wholly owned by the console maker.

3rd party studios are not owned by a console maker in any significant amount so they have complete autonomy to make games for whatever platform they choose.

Ubisoft is a third party developer. They collaborated with Nintendo on Mario + Rabbids. It's a game developed and published by a third party, therefore it is a third party game, but includes licenses from a console maker. Like how Soul Caliber 2 that came out on Gamecube was not a second party game simply because it had Link in it, that is just Nintendo allowing that third party to use their licensed character in their game, it doesn't magically make Soul Caliber a second party game, just like it doesn't magically make Mario + Rabbids a second party game. Your definition of "if you use a console maker's IP in the game it is a 2nd party game" would mean the Soul Caliber 2 was a 2nd party game. Sorry but that is just plain wrong.

It would seem you don't even know what you thought was obvious to everyone.

I hope this is good enough for a sequel. Maybe the start of its own series. It was so well done.

Well it is safe to assume that Mario gave it a good push and marketing by Nintendo for this title was also very well. But that doesn't mean you need Nintendo IPs for success. Octopath traveler is trying to reach into the same regions.

Yeah, but Rabbids Lands was utter crap. Compare at least to the Wii-titles.

You completly misunderstood why I took Smash as an example 

Totally agree that Mario helped push the sales and that it isn't necessary to have Nintendo IP to do good.

But I still couldn't find how much better would it do being multiplat without mario versus exclusive with mario, I'm more towards the second being bigger.

It seems that you didnt understand what i said.If second party games can only be, and I quote:

"2nd party studios are ones in which a console maker has a significant enough ownership to be able to direct what platforms their games come out on or in some way have serious control over the direction of the studio through their significant ownership of it, or can also simply be they sign a contract to only make games on that company's systems. Basically they are bound to a console maker despite not being wholly owned by the console maker."

How can Insomniac be independant and yet still makes games that are not only exclusive to a system, but are from IPs that are owned by other companies, like Ratchet and Clank?Or the most recent example Spiderman, which is exclusive to PS4 but the right for the game lies with Marvel?(I think, correct me on this if Im wrong).Not only that, but Insomniac went to create an exclusive game for XBox by the name of Sunset Overdrive, which MS owns the IP.Yet they still maintained their independance, and can develop games for whatever platform they wish.The answer?Because second party games can be contract based, in the sense that a developer can be hired to develop one game for that system/company and after that, have no more obligations with that said system/company.Simple as that.There are obviously more examples out there, though Im not really in the mood to search for them.

And to give you a reference, yet again, of what a third party exclusive would be: ZombiU was a thrid party exclusive, because Nintendo had zero ownership over the game, so much so that it released on several systems.Same for Insane Trilogy.Octopath Traveler is probably on the same boat.Square, if he does wish, could release on other systems.Thgird party games are free from the schackles of a system.Second Party games arent.

Oh and I mentioned Monolith, Inteligent systems and Retro because people keep mistaking them for second party developers, which they arent.Though that you wouldnt be able to differenciate them from first party studios, so I though to include them in your example.

So with those things said, we arrive on the conclusion that, by this point in time, I have written over three times already: Ubisot is a third party developer, but for Kingdom Battle, they signed a contract to make a game exclusive to the Switch, due to the use of the Mario IP, whcih in turn made the game a second party game, even if the studio is not owned, not even a tiny bit, by Nintendo.Its as simple as that.I cant see how thats confusing, really.Shouldnt be surprised really, with all the definitions people have added to the word exclusive....

And dont confuse having extra content with having a game built around an IP.Your Soul Calibur example does not fit in the second party category simply because that content is the equivalent of an DLC.Hell, its not even that.Its more like a small update to add some costumes.Its like the Diablo 3 port to the Switch.The game itself revolves around the Diablo 3 IP.But it just so happens to have a little bonus.Kingdom Battle revolves mostly around the Mario IP, and thus it is linked to Nintendo by default, making it a second party game.

Maybe because your example was horrible?