After reading the thread here, I honestly feel like you aren't correct in your interpretation of what a third party game is and what a first party game is. A game that is owned by the console maker is a first-party game. Suggesting otherwise means the likes of Kirby, Smash Bros, most Mario spin-off titles, Earthbound, and a bunch of other games aren't first party games. In addition, for many of these games that are developed by outside studios also receive the assistance of Nintendo and the head producer or director is often a Nintendo employee (i.e. Links Awakening remake has Eiji Aonuma, a Nintendo employee, as the lead producer). 

Suggesting that any game not developed by a first-party studio is considered a third-party game is also inconsiderate of the fact that outsourcing is incredibly common in the industry too. Horizon: Zero Dawn was outsourced for some of it's production, but no one would argue that Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't a first-party game. 

Much like a first party studio is a studio that is owned by the console manufacturer, a first party game is a game owned by the console manufacturer. Games like Bayonetta 2 are not first-party games because the property isn't owned by a console manufacturer. Arguing otherwise just muddies the waters too much and we end up with a long list of games everyone would have considered first-party but aren't due to very particular technical reasons. 

After reading the thread here, I honestly feel like you aren't correct in your interpretation of what a third party game is and what a first party game is. A game that is owned by the console maker is a first-party game. Suggesting otherwise means the likes of Kirby, Smash Bros, most Mario spin-off titles, Earthbound, and a bunch of other games aren't first party games. In addition, for many of these games that are developed by outside studios also receive the assistance of Nintendo and the head producer or director is often a Nintendo employee (i.e. Links Awakening remake has Eiji Aonuma, a Nintendo employee, as the lead producer). 

Suggesting that any game not developed by a first-party studio is considered a third-party game is also inconsiderate of the fact that outsourcing is incredibly common in the industry too. Horizon: Zero Dawn was outsourced for some of it's production, but no one would argue that Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't a first-party game. 

Much like a first party studio is a studio that is owned by the console manufacturer, a first party game is a game owned by the console manufacturer. Games like Bayonetta 2 are not first-party games because the property isn't owned by a console manufacturer. Arguing otherwise just muddies the waters too much and we end up with a long list of games everyone would have considered first-party but aren't due to very particular technical reasons. 

An IP may be owned by Nintendo, the game being owned by them because of it, but it’s a third party developer creation. The credit obviously goes to the third party developer for making said game, even if the game isn’t theirs.

I am not arguing the ownership of the IPs. I’m explaining how a first party publisher or console maker can’t take credit for a game created and developed by a third party.
And that those third parties are hired usually because they have design sensibilities and expertise that are outside the framework of said first party. Hence why it is nonsense to claim any of the big 3 could survive without third parties.

Although MS just might. With their near infinite ressources and now that they own so many different studios and publishers.

You’re starting to get my point.

Yeah. You correct, all 3° party. Thread here is Nintendo owned studios vs playstation owned studios. Imho,  Partners should not be included, no Bloodborne and the likes for Sony and no Bayonet, pokemon etc. for Nintendo 

I explained to you the difference between a first party IP and a third party developed game.

Ratchet & Clank were third party games from an IP owned by Sony prior to their acquisition of Insomniac.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don’t know why you keep crying over all this.

I've already understood your point, but these games are still first party products. Regardless of whether or not you agree. 

Nin own Smash Ultimate, Yoshi's Crafted World, Link's Awakening remake, Fire Emblem, Metroid Dread, WarioWare, Astral Chain, Mario Golf and Tennis and Pokémon IP so they're 1st party. Sega own Bayonetta, it is not 1st party.

Again, Zelda and Mario IPs were created by Nin, so Link Awakening and Mario Tennis are 3rd party games by your logic? Where did you get that definition? From your own thinking?

The distinction is made for the post I originally responded to. I think my point is clear. And if you understand it, but don’t like my wording, feel free to call those games whatever you want. The point stands that neither of the big 3 could survive without the output of third parties, wether the games they make are owned by the console maker or not.

You’re starting to get my point.

Dude I think everyone gets what you're saying you're the one not getting what everyone is telling you.