How?
Gamespot rumor: Big third-party Xbox One exclusive at E3
- Thread starter nbnt
- Start date
- Status
ZehDon
Member
Hush. Hush, I say!
No, but I wouldn't cry like a baby about it.
JimiNutz
Banned
What if they are simply funding games that a third party wouldn't normally take a risk on?
Is that such a bad thing then?
MS aren't paying to prevent you from playing a game....
El-Pistolero
Member
If I were to guess, I would go with Cyberpunk 2077 and a new Epic game. Two exclusives that would make enough waves...
Shenmue 3 would take a lot of time and sell poorly; but it would be nice for its fans...
Shenmue 3 would take a lot of time and sell poorly; but it would be nice for its fans...
Because Nintendo would push more hardware.
If it's funded by Microsoft, it's normally a 1st party title. Examples from different 1st parties: Project Zero 4, Beyond 2 Souls, Heavy Rain, Wonderful 101.
If it's a third party exclusive, it's either because the 3rd party wants to do so or because Microsoft gave them some financial incentive to keep the game from other platforms. When did it happen that Microsoft funds a game from an external studio and does not publish itself and thus not making it a 1st party title? I can't remember any example.
1st Course
Member
This announcement of announcement trend needs to stop. Shit is beyond annoying at this point.
I do. They needed funding and Microsoft stepped in. Sony refused. If that didn't happen, the game wouldn't have been released at all. So it was going to be an Xbox exclusive or nothing.
3rd party developed, 1st party published
But people will continue to mangle the terms and say 2nd party
It's a 1st party title as it's funded and published by Microsoft.
Second. Any external studio publishing under a console maker's label is 2nd party, AFAIK. Titanfall was published under EA with a publisher-console contractual exclusivity clause. That would be third party.
HORRORSHØW
Member
interesting. never knew insomniac was MS-owned.
The MAIN difference between 2nd-party and a 3rd-party game is the platform-holder is the publisher with a 2nd-party game. While a 3rd-party publisher, publishes a 3rd-party game.
The MAIN difference between 1st-party and a 2nd-party exclusive game is a developer owned by the platform-holder develops a 1st-party game. While a 3rd-party developer, develops a 2nd-party game. Both 1st-party & 2nd-party games are published by the platform-holder.
Black Republican
Member
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
A game is coming out, guys. Get excited.
But they don't own the studio or the IP. I'm pretty sure it's 2nd.
Well, you can see how that worked out for them with Wii U. And if someone thinks, that Bayonetta will sell 2-3 mil. Wii U's, they are crazy.
Same can be applied to developer of the 3rd party game? Why push new IP/established franchise only to one console? I just don't see reasoning behind it.
shinra-bansho
Member
This is where the confusion/contention seems to arise though. I don't think it's commonly taken that something that's first party published is a "third party exclusive" regardless of IP ownership. I think that most would take Heavy Rain, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, The Wonderful 101, Lego City Undercover as first-party games based on their being published by the respective first-party vendors.
A headline like this (to my mind) would imply something like Titanfall.
Q
Queen of Hunting
Unconfirmed Member
could also be devils third ? havent heard much since thq when to shit and Itagaki has always been close with microsoft
second party.
It's contracted development by a publisher to an outside studio. (meaning that the publisher ownly owns copyrighted material relating to the IP, not necessarily technology or assets)
first party is work owned and developed by the publisher. (meaning they own all assets and production capabilities and liability for work)
Would a Hunter x Hunter action rpg exclusive to XB1 make you buy one?
Give this man a Job. The game would take 10 years to releases sadly
mysteriousmage09
Member
The deal was MS would have timed exclusivity for their lending a hand with the project. Then they threw more money at EA beyond the initial deal to make sure it never goes to PS3 or PS4, and even Respawn had no idea that it happened. Do I need to post Vince's tweet?
ajim
Member
dat first post sweetness
Depends on the game. If Nintendo locked up Half-Life 3 and Fallout 4 as Wii U exclusives, they'd probably sell more hardware.
And as for the developers, getting funding from publishers for new IP is hard. If they can get more funding from a console maker for exclusivity, they'll sometimes take it.
Grimløck;113864206 said:
They aren't, they are a third party developer. That doesn't matter though as all games funded and published by a 1st party are essentially 1st party titles. No need to suddenly invent new terms or to resurrect old terms such as 2nd party. It's not about the development studio that determines whether it's a 1st party title or a third party title.
Another example: Brownie Brown, a Nintendo subsidiary, made Fantasy Life for Level 5. That game is no 2nd party or even 1st party title, it's a 3rd party game.
I guess according to Phil Spencer, they would be 1st since the game is both published and funded by MS.
I've always considered games like SO be 2nd party though since they are independent and are not owned by any of the platform holders. 1st to be owned, funded, and published by the platform holders and 3rd to be independently funded and published.
It doesn't matter if they own the studio or whether they don't. Microsoft is a 1st party. If they fund and publish a title, it's always a 1st party title.
WooHooAlex
Member
Shenmue 3 would be a really, really expensive title for Microsoft to secure as an exclusive.
Seems unlikely IMO.
maquiladora
Member
Interested to see what this is (if true).
no its not. Because they dont necessarily own assets or content, only the distribution and publishing rights. Otherwise games like Mass effect would never have been able to go 3rd party.
The 2nd party term needs to die already.
1st and 3rd party = 1st and 3rd person. There is no 2nd person.
Wasn't that just a communications fail? They didn't know the exclusivity agreement extended to the life of the title, they just thought it was for a window.
Pretty much irrelevant anyway, as the agreement was between EA and Microsoft. Respawn had nothing to do with it at all. It's Respawn's IP but EA has multi-year publishing rights to it, so they can sell it to who they want.
Wrong!! It DOES NOT matter who funded the game or who owns the IP, as long as a platform-holder published game is developed by a 3rd-party developer, it's a 2nd-party game.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
No, First Party is any game published by MS/Sony/Nintendo. Second Party means they only distributed the game.
I'd think Phil Spencer would know what he's talking about.
Make your own games!
They are. They're also funding games from great industry talent. Win win, and great news for Xbox One owners.
Perfect. If funding the game so it exists and is focused on the consoles strengths then its absolutely fine. I haven't read one convincing argument against this, apart from the butthurt because MS has money to spend.
I don't think that's correct, dude. That's what the term '2nd party' means.
thats my point. 1st party is ownership of content and assets, 2nd is ownership of publishing and distribution only, 3rd is supplier.
Phantom Dust is a first party game even though it wasn't distributed my MS.
Shanks D Zoro
Banned
I juat don't see this happening. You would have to be foolish not to release on the PS4 or MS must have paid a lot of money for exclusivity. Or maybe they are paying for production of an old IP like Shenmue
OneEyeTwoHead
Banned
- Status