Well, actually they have. Nes/Snes. FF 1 till 6 were on Nes(part 1-3) and Snes (part 4-6)... Then it went to Sony so it actually aint no second party game. Also, im guessing Kingdom hearts is coming to Wii, why u asking?! -Square-enix and Nintendo have (once again) a good relation. Result: FF: 3, FF: 12, DQ: 9, DQ: Monster joker. Wii is also selling quite good now, result: -Dragon quest: Masked queen & ToM... -FF: Chrystal bearers (nintendo exclusive ff spin-off). And: DISNEY has opened an exclusive Nintendogame development studio. And nintendo funded SQ-E to open a new studio (dont know the name exactely) Result: Mario hoops 3 on 3 basketball.

Regrettably, the 3rd installment of Xenosaga is the last, so we won't see anymore from that series (for how long, who knows). Squaresoft said some time ago to expect a wider distribution of their titles across various platforms, so outside of Final Fantasy series on PS3 (for now) we have no idea what platform most other titles are going to appear on. Probably something to do with Square-Enix's recent license of the newer Unreal Engine. :o Soul Calibur... was looking to be going back to a multiplatform release, but with that Sony-Namco dealing going on now, it's looking doubtful.

... Another thing: Why PS2 won over XBOX/NGC. And why PS3 (maybe!) won't. PS2 sold good in its first 6 months. Result, more sold units then competitors -> more 3th party support, because userbase is bigger -> More games, more people who prefer it above other consoles = more people buying it then the other consoles -> More sales, more games. That circle goes round and round. PS3: Dont see that happening there; -High development costs: Devs need more sales to payback dev-costs. -Not selling too well (in comparison to Wii) in its launchperiod. -More a future machine, (almost) no-one cares about Blu-ray right now, maybe in 3 years or so. But then Wii's has (maybe) established a bigger userbase and Nintendo can (maybe/possibly) bring a cheeper/better machine on the market. Point of this one is: DVD is good, for now, cause i don't need no HD pre-rendered movies. I like em how they are now (look at Tekken, they look nice on the PS2) Wii has the same momentum as the PS2 had. -Its cheaper to develop for. -More hardware units sold, so more chance for 3th party devs of selling more games. -More games sold and cheaper development costs equals: More profit. -Still capable of nice (graphical games): Doesn't RE:4 look nice, and so does Rogue galaxy (NGC) And Chronicles of riddick: Escape from butcher bay (XBOX). -New controller: Might speak to a wider audience (Like DS...?!) Im guessing Wii will win it on the 3 year run. Where PS3 will start to make its comeback in September 2008. Eventually ending in this: 1) Wii & PS3 come out (almost) equally, X360 ends 3th. This is only when FF: 13 and the other good PS3 games manage to get the PS3 out of its valley. 2) PS3 is too far behind of Wii (and possibly X360) So it won't be that much of a sale succes in comparison to PS2 (and partially PS1),... Then Ps3 has a problem. Microsoft and Nintendo can bring a better machine on the market, while Sony has millions (maybe even billions) of Losses in this generation. Then Wii and X360 will have most 3th party support (All named above, circular 3th party choice of development platform)... -StarcraftManiac.

There is no such thing as "second party." If a game is being published by the first party, its a first party game. If its being published by the third party, its a third party game. Its acceptable as a slang term for games developed by third parties and published by first parties, or for the third party developers in such a close-knit relationship. But these cases are fairly rare (get it?), and you should still list the games as either first or third. At the least, most of those 17 games listed as "second party" are third party titles. MGS? FF? KH? Tales? Could leave in a second if the developers so chose. Until you've seen footage of a game, don't bank on it.

You miss what I have said. FF 1-6 were ported to the PS line and other than FFXI which was an MMO from the get go when has a FF been ported off of a PS console to another one? Erik you are right but second party is used to describe a title/dev relationship. If you want to ignore second party as a description you might as well do away with first and third party and start referring to them as in-house or independent. MGS 2 made an apperance on the xbox but notice how the game had a different titled and the content was touted as it being different. MGS2 as it stood, could not have been ported and konami could have been sued. Yes they own the rights but "MGS2 Sons of Liberty" was contracted for the PS2 only while they were able to get away with releasing "MGS2 Substance" This is sort of like how disney, due to wording in contract, was able to say that Toy Story 2 did not go up for Pixars obligation to disney. Research it and if you can prove me wrong by all means do so. But while I was in school for computer animation this was brought up in me game design class and I tried to research this for better understanding. This is the type of contracts and behavior that freelancers were warned about. Name the FF, MGS, KH and tales in name that were ported over. No alterations just the same game and then come back and tell me.

------------------------------------------------------------------ MGS 2 made an apperance on the xbox but notice how the game had a different titled and the content was touted as it being different. MGS2 as it stood, could not have been ported and konami could have been sued. Yes they own the rights but "MGS2 Sons of Liberty" was contracted for the PS2 only while they were able to get away with releasing "MGS2 Substance" ------------------------------------------------------------------ By and large the reason this is done is because each console maker wants to be able to claim some level of exclusivity. They'll make it worth their while to add some content. I imagine Sony is buying exclusivity on MGS4, and I imagine Konami has maintained every bit of the publishing rights on everything MGS related. Why even give Sony a foothold in that area?

Yea you got it just right! Thats what I was talking about above. The First MGS was published by sony. When they realized what they had on thier hands konami published all the future iterations. I am sure though that exclusives of that nature will hit the PS3 first and over time have to be altered so the can maximize profits on the title. They can go the carunteed money way by selling the limited rights to port the game to a smaller dev then reap royalty profits.

Random fact: MGS was originally going to be on 64, PS1, Saturn and PC.

It, like Final Fantasy 7/8/9 ended up being ported to the PC ... An advanced port of MGS was produced for the Gamecube ... What I have been saying is that third-party development can never be counted on to be exclusive (and you can't even count on a port) until the game has been completed. I honestly suspect that XBox 360 and PS3 fans will be remarkably disapointed with E3 this year because many 'Exclusive' games for both systems will no longer be exclusive, and very few new third party exclusive titles will be announced. This is because neither system is meeting their sales targets and development costs are too high to risk an exclusive game on a system with a small userbase.