By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - PlayStation Studios and Nintendo Entertainment Planning and Development - Which is the better first party group?

Hynad said:

Another one not getting it.

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. 



Around the Network

I honestly think that this thread has gone on for far too long. I don't think that you can say with absolute certainty which one is better because they are both very high quality and it really matters what your subjective preference is. Arguing that Sony is better or Nintendo is better is just fuel for the fanboys. Which can be fun, I suppose.



Doctor_MG said:
Hynad said:

Another one not getting it.

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. 

Yeah they are all first party games. As for the games developers.. its depends on what internal and external sources are used. Greg Miller from IGN did an interview with Insomniac and asked a similar question and asked what contributes towards a first party game.. they thought of themselves as 'second party' when they were an independent devs.

Where he asks them "second or third party":

Insomniac Games: Sony Interactive Entertainment is the publisher of the game. It's 1st Party.

Greg Miller then comes into and asks:

That's how it works? I thought they had to own the studio to be first party. Wouldn't this be second party?

Which Insomniac responds:

Insomniac Games: 2nd party doesn't really technically exist except to indicate outside studio doing a 1st party game

Which then Greg Miller asks:

...so Spidey is First AND Second?

And Insomniac responds, with an example for another franchise they developed for Sony

Think of it more as inclusionary. Ratchet is a 1st party game. Insomniac is 2nd party developer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/gkmkda/what_is_the_term_second_party_what_is_first_party/



Doctor_MG said:
Hynad said:

Another one not getting it.

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.



Hynad said:

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.

Nintendo owns that game and that property, it's a first party product. The credit goes to both. Without the involvement of the manufacturer the game wouldn't have been created to begin with.  

Also, you didn't address my points on outsourcing or the fact that Nintendo is pretty much always actively involved in development (such as my example with Links Awakening or Metroid: Dread). Horizon: Zero Dawn, Halo: Infinite, Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, the Perfect Dark reboot...all of these games are outsourced to other non-first party developers during development. This does not change that they are first party products. 

Nintendo could live without third party products where MS and Sony can't. This is evident in game sales. Nintendo could not live without third party developers because Nintendo utilizes them to increase their output, but those products are still first party because of the points above. 



Around the Network
Doctor_MG said:

Nintendo could live without third party products where MS and Sony can't. This is evident in game sales. Nintendo could not live without third party developers because Nintendo utilizes them to increase their output, but those products are still first party because of the points above. 

You’re starting to get my point.



Hynad said:

You’re starting to get my point.

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



Manlytears said:
Kakadu18 said:

So Smash Ultimate, Yoshi's Crafted World, Link's Awakening remake, Fire Emblem, Metroid Dread, WarioWare, Astral Chain, Mario Golf and Tennis and all Pokémon games are all third party games?

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 

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.

Hynad said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

By your logic; Super Smash, Zelda Link's Awakening remake, Fire Emblem, Metroid Dread, Astral Chain, all Pokémon games are 3rd party games.

I guess if a new Uncharted, Killzone or Horizon get made by 3rd party studio, then they are 3rd party games. Tell that to Sony fans and let see how many people will agree with you.

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.

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?

Last edited by HoangNhatAnh - on 24 February 2022

Doctor_MG said:
Hynad said:

You’re starting to get my point.

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

HoangNhatAnh said:
Manlytears said:

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 

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.

Hynad said:

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.

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.



Hynad said:
Doctor_MG said:

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

HoangNhatAnh said:

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.

Hynad said:

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.

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.

If Nin own the IP, then they're 1st party no matter what. Top selling games of Nin system are 1st party. Switch has 3ds + Wii U 1st party games combined, they can survive even without 3rd party games. Sure, not selling as much as it is curently, but just 50-60mil units are enough to survive each gen. And Sony, without 3rd party games, well...