While they're not first party, they are still 100% Nintendo games, saying otherwise would be like saying Halo wasn't Microsoft... RKFSI don't think anyone is, I think its just more of a discussion as to what constitutes a first party game and what doesn't. At least, thats what I am taking it as. :) And it actually seems rather civil at the moment for system wars, makes a good change. :D
Metroid Prime and Pokemon are NOT nintendo first party games.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="jack_russel"]you've gotta be joking, you honestly think metroid prime and pokemon aren't first party nintendo games? thats not what second party is. you have your terms mixed up.1SleepyGitNo, [metroid prime] is not first party. Metroid: Zero Mission and Fusion were however. I'm not kidding, I know what I'm saying. Pokemon isn't made by Nintendo, it's made by game freak. However, Nintendo themselves own Game Freak. They are the publisher and handle the liscensing deals if someone wishes to have anything like merchandise and other products with Pokemon. Pokemon games to my knowledge have always been second party. That doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't own the Pokemon liscense though. Same with Sony and their deal on Insomniac's Ratchet or Resistance. Naughty Dog and so on. They are still second party devs though, because even if Sony owns them, and they develop games for Sony, doesn't make them Sony's first party. :lol: Retro are indeed a second party, good on ya. However, the Metroid franchise is owned by Nintendo, and so while the Prime series is second party the original games and ownership of the actual franchise is first party. Pokemon is also second party, don't get what the argument there is about. we just proved that retro is first party, OOPS!!! Its not I'm afraid to say. While it is wholly owned by NIntendo, it is still classed as a separate company, not a division of Nintendo, in the same way Silicon Knights were owned by Nintendo but were not a part of them, and Lionhead Studios is owned by Microsoft but is not a division of them. They have their own management, though they are subservient to the company that owns them. The definition of a second party developer is of a company that is owned by the company that developed the console, while first party refers to games that are made in house by the parent company for its own console, and third party refers to any independant developer that makes games for consoles that it does not own and often has to pay licensing fees for, though they may also have exclusivity deals with. Silicon Knights was not first party, like Retro is. Hal (from SSB) could leave Nintendo tomorrow, but SSB would have to stay with Nintendo.
[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="jack_russel"]you've gotta be joking, you honestly think metroid prime and pokemon aren't first party nintendo games? thats not what second party is. you have your terms mixed up.1SleepyGitNo, [metroid prime] is not first party. Metroid: Zero Mission and Fusion were however. I'm not kidding, I know what I'm saying. Pokemon isn't made by Nintendo, it's made by game freak. However, Nintendo themselves own Game Freak. They are the publisher and handle the liscensing deals if someone wishes to have anything like merchandise and other products with Pokemon. Pokemon games to my knowledge have always been second party. That doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't own the Pokemon liscense though. Same with Sony and their deal on Insomniac's Ratchet or Resistance. Naughty Dog and so on. They are still second party devs though, because even if Sony owns them, and they develop games for Sony, doesn't make them Sony's first party. :lol: Retro are indeed a second party, good on ya. However, the Metroid franchise is owned by Nintendo, and so while the Prime series is second party the original games and ownership of the actual franchise is first party. Pokemon is also second party, don't get what the argument there is about. we just proved that retro is first party, OOPS!!! Its not I'm afraid to say. While it is wholly owned by NIntendo, it is still classed as a separate company, not a division of Nintendo, in the same way Silicon Knights were owned by Nintendo but were not a part of them, and Lionhead Studios is owned by Microsoft but is not a division of them. They have their own management, though they are subservient to the company that owns them. The definition of a second party developer is of a company that is owned by the company that developed the console, while first party refers to games that are made in house by the parent company for its own console, and third party refers to any independant developer that makes games for consoles that it does not own and often has to pay licensing fees for, though they may also have exclusivity deals with. wikipedia lists a "second party" as "a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer." retro isn't not separate from nintendo, where as silicon knights always was seperate.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.yoshi_64
MS owns Bungie and Rare, but I do know they aren't first party. Rare even still is allowed to make games for the Nintendo handhelds. Bungie I know has other games on the mac they owned, not by MS either. I think the Halo liscense could be owned by MS, but that I'm not sure of. However, Gamefreak and Retro are still second party devs by Nintendo.
you are wrong i dont know about gamefreak but retro is a nintendo first party as nintendo created this developer. this developer would not exist if nintendo did not put them together.
[QUOTE="jack_russel"]Mario and Luigi: partners in time for the DS is also second party going by wikipida
Wikipida Link-RPGamer-
A game developed by a second party doesnt make the title itself second party (or in reality third party software). These are not the same subject, Nintendo publishes and owns the IP (Mario & Luigi, Kirby etc.).
Yep, Ratchet the title itself is 1st party even though Insomniac is 2nd. Same goes with Camalot's Sport games.[QUOTE="RKFS"]While they're not first party, they are still 100% Nintendo games, saying otherwise would be like saying Halo wasn't Microsoft... 1SleepyGitI don't think anyone is, I think its just more of a discussion as to what constitutes a first party game and what doesn't. At least, thats what I am taking it as. :) And it actually seems rather civil at the moment for system wars, makes a good change. :D I know, it's nice that we're just talking about it without bashing consoles and flaming eachother, this is nice.
[QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="jack_russel"]you've gotta be joking, you honestly think metroid prime and pokemon aren't first party nintendo games? thats not what second party is. you have your terms mixed up.jack_russelNo, [metroid prime] is not first party. Metroid: Zero Mission and Fusion were however. I'm not kidding, I know what I'm saying. Pokemon isn't made by Nintendo, it's made by game freak. However, Nintendo themselves own Game Freak. They are the publisher and handle the liscensing deals if someone wishes to have anything like merchandise and other products with Pokemon. Pokemon games to my knowledge have always been second party. That doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't own the Pokemon liscense though. Same with Sony and their deal on Insomniac's Ratchet or Resistance. Naughty Dog and so on. They are still second party devs though, because even if Sony owns them, and they develop games for Sony, doesn't make them Sony's first party. :lol: Retro are indeed a second party, good on ya. However, the Metroid franchise is owned by Nintendo, and so while the Prime series is second party the original games and ownership of the actual franchise is first party. Pokemon is also second party, don't get what the argument there is about. we just proved that retro is first party, OOPS!!! Its not I'm afraid to say. While it is wholly owned by NIntendo, it is still classed as a separate company, not a division of Nintendo, in the same way Silicon Knights were owned by Nintendo but were not a part of them, and Lionhead Studios is owned by Microsoft but is not a division of them. They have their own management, though they are subservient to the company that owns them. The definition of a second party developer is of a company that is owned by the company that developed the console, while first party refers to games that are made in house by the parent company for its own console, and third party refers to any independant developer that makes games for consoles that it does not own and often has to pay licensing fees for, though they may also have exclusivity deals with. wikipedia lists a "second party" as "a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacturer." retro isn't not separate from nintendo, where as silicon knights always was seperate. Whoops, I just looked into it and it seems that I have made a fool of myself. :) Sorry about that, had a look into it and apparently owning a company 100% does mean its first party, I always assumed that first party was just the parent company. Well, we all know what assumption is the mother of. ;) Might spend some time looking into this some more to see where else I went wrong lol. Thanks for the correction! :D
This is true. They are second party. Pokemon is developed by GameFreak, not Nintendo, and Metroid Prime is developed by Retro, not Nintendo.nyoroismthey're developed by second party and first party games... same with the donkey kong series
[QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.InfamousC
MS owns Bungie and Rare, but I do know they aren't first party. Rare even still is allowed to make games for the Nintendo handhelds. Bungie I know has other games on the mac they owned, not by MS either. I think the Halo liscense could be owned by MS, but that I'm not sure of. However, Gamefreak and Retro are still second party devs by Nintendo.
you are wrong i dont know about gamefreak but retro is a nintendo first party as nintendo created this developer. this developer would not exist if nintendo did not put them together.
Looking on wikipedia (making sure I don't mess up again lol), it appears that Retro was a second party first, but was then bought wholly by Nintendo, but yeah its a first party developer. :$ Of course, that might be wrong as the guy who founded it may have done so on behalf of nintendo or something, I ain't assuming nothing now. :D[QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="jack_russel"][QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="jack_russel"]you've gotta be joking, you honestly think metroid prime and pokemon aren't first party nintendo games? thats not what second party is. you have your terms mixed up.1SleepyGitNo, [metroid prime] is not first party. Metroid: Zero Mission and Fusion were however. I'm not kidding, I know what I'm saying. Pokemon isn't made by Nintendo, it's made by game freak. However, Nintendo themselves own Game Freak. They are the publisher and handle the liscensing deals if someone wishes to have anything like merchandise and other products with Pokemon. Pokemon games to my knowledge have always been second party. That doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't own the Pokemon liscense though. Same with Sony and their deal on Insomniac's Ratchet or Resistance. Naughty Dog and so on. They are still second party devs though, because even if Sony owns them, and they develop games for Sony, doesn't make them Sony's first party. :lol: Retro are indeed a second party, good on ya. However, the Metroid franchise is owned by Nintendo, and so while the Prime series is second party the original games and ownership of the actual franchise is first party. Pokemon is also second party, don't get what the argument there is about. we just proved that retro is first party, OOPS!!! Its not I'm afraid to say. While it is wholly owned by NIntendo, it is still classed as a separate company, not a division of Nintendo, in the same way Silicon Knights were owned by Nintendo but were not a part of them, and Lionhead Studios is owned by Microsoft but is not a division of them. They have their own management, though they are subservient to the company that owns them. The definition of a second party developer is of a company that is owned by the company that developed the console, while first party refers to games that are made in house by the parent company for its own console, and third party refers to any independant developer that makes games for consoles that it does not own and often has to pay licensing fees for, though they may also have exclusivity deals with.After Nintendo bought out Retro, Nintendo went through and replaced all of Retro's management with their own. Also, in order to work at Retro, you have to go through Nintendo's HR department. Retro went from being 3rd party to first party.
exactly...Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.
A second-party is a company that develops exclusively for a console maker, with the console-maker publishing. SK used to be an example of this, and Insomniac is currently a good example.Â
Teufelhuhn
[QUOTE="1SleepyGit"][QUOTE="RKFS"]While they're not first party, they are still 100% Nintendo games, saying otherwise would be like saying Halo wasn't Microsoft... jack_russelI don't think anyone is, I think its just more of a discussion as to what constitutes a first party game and what doesn't. At least, thats what I am taking it as. :) And it actually seems rather civil at the moment for system wars, makes a good change. :D I know, it's nice that we're just talking about it without bashing consoles and flaming eachother, this is nice. Yeah, now if only we could get the rest of system wars to follow suit lol.
[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.yoshi_64
MS owns Bungie and Rare, but I do know they aren't first party. Rare even still is allowed to make games for the Nintendo handhelds. Bungie I know has other games on the mac they owned, not by MS either. I think the Halo liscense could be owned by MS, but that I'm not sure of. However, Gamefreak and Retro are still second party devs by Nintendo.
Anything that Bungie might have owned, M$ NOW OWNS. Bungie is 1st party, as is RARE. They are Wholly Owned.
Retro is 1st party, as is Naughty Dog.
Insomniac however, is 2nd party, as is Hudson.Â
[QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.SolidTy
MS owns Bungie and Rare, but I do know they aren't first party. Rare even still is allowed to make games for the Nintendo handhelds. Bungie I know has other games on the mac they owned, not by MS either. I think the Halo liscense could be owned by MS, but that I'm not sure of. However, Gamefreak and Retro are still second party devs by Nintendo.
Anything that Bungie might have owned, M$ NOW OWNS. Bungie is 1st party, as is RARE. They are Wholly Owned.
Retro is 1st party, as is Naughty Dog.
Insomniac however, is 2nd party, as is Hudson.Â
Isn't hudson second party to konami? so it's like a second party to a third party...weird.[QUOTE="SolidTy"][QUOTE="yoshi_64"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]Nintendo owns Retro and Gamefreak, the same way MS owns Bungie. Therefore the games they make are first-party.jack_russel
MS owns Bungie and Rare, but I do know they aren't first party. Rare even still is allowed to make games for the Nintendo handhelds. Bungie I know has other games on the mac they owned, not by MS either. I think the Halo liscense could be owned by MS, but that I'm not sure of. However, Gamefreak and Retro are still second party devs by Nintendo.
Anything that Bungie might have owned, M$ NOW OWNS. Bungie is 1st party, as is RARE. They are Wholly Owned.
Retro is 1st party, as is Naughty Dog.
Insomniac however, is 2nd party, as is Hudson.
Isn't hudson second party to konami? so it's like a second party to a third party...weird.
Right.
Another time this happened is when Rainbow Studios was a 2nd Party for Sony and M$. Crazy.Â
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment