Dinstruction
Neo Member
It might be The Behemoth's fourth game. It's already known to be an Xbox One exclusive.
Gamespot rumor: Big third-party Xbox One exclusive at E3
- Thread starter nbnt
- Start date
- Status
MS's official Ryse page cites Crytek GmbH as the sole owner of the Ryse trademark and characters.
It's possible to actually separate aspects of an IP and for them to have different owners, so it's impossible to say MS owns no aspect of the IP, but it seems unlikely if they don't own the name or characters.
Fair enough. I think it's also safe to say the Ryse franchise will also stay on the Xbox One with Microsoft publishing each one.
carpediemdp
Member
DayZ.
Forgot all about that. I cannot wait to see whatever they're working on. he's came so far since newgrounds. :')
I would say almost certainly, yeah.
RPGCrazied
Member
Resident Evil 7 probably, but has to be timed. No way that doesn't come out for PS4 after a period of time.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
As much as I would love a third Kotor, isn't the series non-canon now? Though maybe an anniversary edition of the first and second would be possible, as Phil Spencer suggested.
Ryse not 1st party
Killer Instinct not 1st party
Sunset Overdrive not 1st party
Quantum Break not first party
D4 not first party
Crimson Dragon not first party
DR3 not first party
Titanfall not first party
To be first party the developers would have to be a division of the company[MS].
Star Wars and Fallout make no sense. They aren't going to kneecap sales for anything but an absurd amount of money, and even MS isnt going to cut checks that big. It will be a new IP or a niche IP by a developer for hire thin on prospects or hurting for cash. Ninja Theory, Mercury Stream, Capcom, Konami, Platinum, etc
Tenchi Ryu
Banned
Or a reboot following Episode 7's plot.
There was only one patch from what I recall, and that was primarily some bug fixes and TF2 issues -- as has been said, PS3 orange box is a perfectly fine way to play the game and nowhere near the disparity we're seeing between current gen multiplats.
On topic, the text implies it's unexpected so I doubt it's a major IP like some are saying (hoping)...
I know what it's NOT going to be...Castle Crashers 2
ugh, sadly. we can wish, though.
chicagocubsfan
Member
I doubt it.
Yeah, it was only one. But if it fixed the framerate issues, cool. But it was a pretty big issue.
lmao, nobody's saying the disparity is comparable to this gen's.
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Other than Titanfall (and DR3?) How are those not first party? MS owns the IPs for KI, Quantum Break, and Crimson Dragon, and published the others.
Edit: didn't see the last part, the studios may be third party, but the games are first party.
relying on what a bunch of people would guess isn't really evidence...?
maybe not to the public, but definitely to each other, lawyers, and patent offices. i trust that a lot more over pr stuff.
people are free to use colloquial terms as they see fit. i'm just not going to lie to them when they ask a question determining what the differences between things are.
Huh. Didn't the dev say he was interested getting Day Z stand-alone onto console?
Because MS does not own any of those developers. Those are 2nd party games.
IMO this has hurt MS a lot in the past with its big games. Its biggest games last gen were halo and gears. They had no control of the studios that were making these games. Now they have new teams working on these titles.
To be first party they have to be made by MS own studio. Its really simple. MS is just the publisher of those games. I do not know if we really know who owns some of those IPs. Most of the time the deals are only for a certain number of games. Like gears was only for a couple of games but MS went back and brought the whole IP.
shinra-bansho
Member
Colloquial use isn't evidence of colloquial use?
In the context of this thread, when one asked what first and third party are, is IP ownership the most appropriate delineation to inform someone of?
Is the public use of the term not a good gauge of meaning when the term is used publicly by a media outlet, who presumably isn't privy to any legal proceedings or embargoed IP filings? I'm not entirely sure how exactly these terms would arise in legal filings to begin with, considering the term "third party exclusive" doesn't have any defined legal meaning as far as I'm aware. Is there some filing or ruling to point to that defines these?
I don't particularly think the courts or patent offices care whether an IP is owned by a console vendor or not. An IP owned by EA is an IP owned by EA, an IP owned by Sony is an IP owned by Sony, an IP owned by Respawn is an IP owned by Respawn; regardless of who makes or doesn't make a hardware platform.
In the event that Spencer tells people that they've got some "first party exclusives like Ryse and some second party exclusives like Dance Central" does one tell people that Spencer is lying?
yeah, but I doubt we would hear about it at E3 considering the state of the PC version. Plus MS has Undead Labs's MMO.
This is the MS game I'm most interested it, without question.
I doubt we see it this year, but I really can't wait.
Before State of Decay launched, I was doubting it but after playing it, I cannot wait to see what they do with an MMO. It'll be really interesting to see how that develops, but I hope we hear about it some time in 2015.
All but the last two are first party titles as they were published by Microsoft. You don't need to own a studio, to have them make a game for you. You can call the devs that made them third party studios, but they're not third party games. First party == published by the platform holder. Third party == not published by the platform holder.
What you going to call Titanfall and Destiny? Fourth party?
I really do not get what hard to understand.
1st party game are made by teams are own by MS
2nd party made by out side teams. most of the time published MS[likely always, too lazy to look it up] 2nd party is likely at least funded by MS for the game[titanfall].
3rd party made by out side team and publish by out side publisher.
As i have said this has hurts MS before with Halo and gears. Since they couldnt control the team making these games they had to switch to new teams. Maybe in the end the games will not fall off....
2nd Party is only used when referring to a studio. Games are always referred to as 1st party or 3rd party, with the former consisting of games coming from 1st and 2nd party studios.
Would you consider Pokemon to be a 2nd party game?
Astral Dog
Member
Isnt this rumor kind of vague? i mean, anyone can say that Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo will announce an exclusive third party game at E3
Tenchi Ryu
Banned
Thread title should reflect that this particular exclusive should be, according to Gamespot's source, unexpected and a megaton.
Second party, was just a term made up, to help people differentiate between the Platform holder owned studios and independent studios, working under the first party umbrella. People can refer to Insomniac and Epic as second party developers all they like, It doesn't change the fact that Gears, Resistance and Sunset Overdrive are first party games.
Regardless of the 'is second party a thing' issue, that concept of owning a studio is kind of worth addressing.
Owning a studio is only valuable if the studio is happy to be owned. Some people were surprised when MS 'allowed' Bungie to leave. While MS owned that studio name, the building they were in, and the PCs they had, they didn't own the staff. There were no doubt contracts in place, but if the studio had decided they wanted out, they could have gone if MS allowed it or not. What value does the Bungie name hold when all of their fans know they've left and formed a new studio?
MS didn't own Bungie (for most of last-gen) or Epic, but owning them wouldn't have really benefited them unless those people wanted to be owned. Sony own Naughty Dog, and that seems like a very valuable thing, but if all TLoU team quit and formed Wicked Mutts what would the husk of a studio do for Sony?
Save for immorally long term contracts for staff, a studio is only valuable as long as the team are happy.
Owning a studio is only valuable if the studio is happy to be owned. Some people were surprised when MS 'allowed' Bungie to leave. While MS owned that studio name, the building they were in, and the PCs they had, they didn't own the staff. There were no doubt contracts in place, but if the studio had decided they wanted out, they could have gone if MS allowed it or not. What value does the Bungie name hold when all of their fans know they've left and formed a new studio?
MS didn't own Bungie (for most of last-gen) or Epic, but owning them wouldn't have really benefited them unless those people wanted to be owned. Sony own Naughty Dog, and that seems like a very valuable thing, but if all TLoU team quit and formed Wicked Mutts what would the husk of a studio do for Sony?
Save for immorally long term contracts for staff, a studio is only valuable as long as the team are happy.
Ambition
Member
I know what it's NOT going to be...Castle Crashers 2
That would make me buy an xbone in a second.
By who?
I has always seen game as 1st, 2nd or 3 party game.
Sure it is 2nd party made game. Someone could buy out that company. Im sure nintendo own enough of that company that it wouldnt happen.
Really getting off topic.
Gears was not even owned by MS until this years. Right now we could have this "first party game" on ps4.
2nd party not made up it been around long as i can remember. I do not get why this is a big deal. Likely just for "list wars"
MikeE21286
Member
It wouldn't make any sense, but it has already happened in the past. REmake, RE0 and RE4 (at least in the beginning) say hi.
Not that I want this to happen. The way I see it there's two kinds of exclusives: the ones you fund (they're ok in my book) and the ones you pay to prevent other people from playing. As long as it's something like bayonetta 2 (a game that would never exist without someone footing the bill) I'm okay with it.
That being said, we're not in 2004 anymore, game development costs have risen and it would be dumb for ANY company to make their AAA franchise exclusive. Doubly so if you're betting on the "wrong horse". The money hat would have to be astronomical and wouldn't make any sense. I can see a Platinum game being exclusive, but never a RE 7 or ME. Not even Dragon's Dogma 2.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Yup. I want to say it starting coming about when Rare got big, back in the SNES/N64 days, to differentiate between them and Nintendo internal. Reality is that it doesn't really matter. It's all about who is publishing. That's either the platform holder or the third parties.
If Gears went to PS4, it would have either been a first party game (if Sony published) or a third party game (if EA or EPIC or whoever else bgot the rights and brought it over).
You're confusing a "second party" dev, with a second party game. If it's published by a platform holder, it's a first party game.Are you honestly saying Halo ODST and Reach were not first party titles. Come on man.
funkystudent
Member
Wouldnt be shocked. They could make a deal and make it powered by azure.
This and LOL and No Mans Sky would be a decent exclusive downloadable lineup.
Big indies. None of that small time garbage Sony has. /ArthurGies
Im not confused. And i really dont care. I call it like i have for decades with the "made up" terms. lol
I have been very clear in my logic. Im not going to keep going in circles. This is very off topic.
Using that logic. Bonderline 2 is a sony first party title.... lol
Sony is just the publisher of this title for the vita.
Exploratory
Banned
I don't think that word mea- aw forget it.
Ninja Scooter
Member
If Sony publishes it then it is. For them and their business that's all that matters.
The Albatross
Member
Rumors, meh, w/e
LilWayneSuckz
Member
Judging by this trademark, Crytek owns the IP. They filed for it in May of 2011
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:yd1k06.2.6
Yea StuBurns pointed it out to me. Thanks though.
carpediemdp
Member
Yes, he did.
My thoughts exactly, and one of the reason I think this will be MS exclusive, hopefully timed.
it's not useful in disproving reality. i really don't care if a big crowd thinks the playstation 4 has no games. as long as the playstation 4 has literally two games, the big crowd is wrong, and ignorant- perhaps willfully so.
in the context of asking a question and looking for an honest answer, then yes. i acknowledged the colloquial usage and its history, and then informed the person of what it means outside of its outdated and incorrect usage.
the media really should be better educated, actually. if a lot of people in the media call the wii u a wii attachment, that doesn't disprove reality where it's actually a video game console.
they probably should inform him that he's at the very least ignorant, especially given his high level position.
- Status