Sorry to butt in here, and I may be wrong, but I don't think there really is a "definition" of what "second party" means in this regard.

Typically, the term has been used to describe a studio where a majority stake is owned by a certain publisher. This often let's the publisher tell the studio what to do (to a certain degree) and where to publish their games. Yet the studio remains essentially self-managed, and typically has rights in place to either buy shares back, or negotiate a complete buy-out deal with a different party altogether.

This is what happened with RARE, for instance. Majority (but not dominant) stake held by Nintendo for many years, but they had the right to negotiate the deal with Microsoft for a full purchase of the studio. Many studios are in similar constellations with Nintendo or other publishers.

I do not remember seeing a game production by itself be called "second party," when the parent company is entirely separate from Nintendo, but maybe I'm just old.

Oh yesh, I'm aware it's an uneven comparison.

Only mentioning it because of how hard Ubi shot themselves in the foot with their contributions to the Wii U launch.
They forced out a vapid, broken mini game collection, and shat on their most legendary designer's ambitions.

This time, they allowed a serious creator the time and budget to manifest his dream game. And it pays off.

No. You said "there is Nintendo characters in it so it must be a second party title". Smash contains characters from Bandai Namco, Sega, Square Enix or other companies, but neither Bandai Namco nor Square are second party companies

I dont mean that what you say its wrong.Quite the contrary, I do agree with you.What I am saying is that, alongside that definition, a game that can be considered second party(developed by someone that Nintendo dosent own but the game is exclusive to that system or to the company that commissioned it and always will be because of a contract) even if it is developed by an independant company.Im not saying that said company is a second party developer, but rather the game falls in the second party category, because of all the reasons posted before.And thats the case for Kingdom Battle, because of the use of the Mario IP.

First of all, Smash is a first party games.Nintendo owns the IP, the game is developed by them, even if they outsource some of it.Lets just get that of the way.

Having said that, I dont understand what your point is.Nintendo is developing the game, and they hired Bandai to help with the development.So its a first party game, plain and simple.About the part of using non Nintendo characters: First, most of the characters in the game is from Nintendo, so the game hardly revolves around third party characters.Second, Nintendo didnt commissioned to Square nor Bandai the game, nor do they dictate where the game needs to be release or its exclusiveness.They only have rights to that character, and nothing else.In Kingdom Battle case, the game will only be release where Nintendo wants it to be release.It is out of Ubisoft hands.

It's just a cross-over to a Rabbids gamr, not a Mario game, Nintendo doesn't own the Rabbids licence, Ubisoft only does, that's it. It's a third-party exclusive, like Octopath is. The game is developped and published by Ubisoft. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to discuss it, no one over the internet considers it as a second party title except you.

Heh, you know you have won the argument when you see exagerrations like this.

Anyhow, I think i have made my point pretty clear and defended my stance quite effectively.If you do have any other doubts about how or why Kingdom Battle is a second party game, just read thorugh my previous posts.

No, it was just basic nonsense. Cause it's what you think, but in this case what you think doesn't matter, facts are more important.

Aynway, if you want to think it's a second party title, go ahead, I won't spend more time to say the opposite.

I appreciate the classification you are looking to distinguish here. Mixed IP rights often come with certain caveats. Consider for a moment, however, whether Namco could have gotten away with releasing the version of Soul Calibur II featuring Link as a playable character on PS2 or Xbox. And then, whether this legal situation of the game by itself ought to classify it as second party.

"Second party game" as a descriptor mentions a second party, and then a game. However there is no second party present in that IP holder constellation. Or the one responsible Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle. I feel like utilizing this already disputed term the way you are looking to use it might be detrimental to clarity. And might earn you more arguments than anything else.

Probably, but I feel that calling Kingdom Battle a third party game is more of a disservice than the definition I just said.

I do appreciatte this discussion with you.In contrast to others, you have been very pleasant to talk with and gave sound arguments.For that, I thank you.