geary
Member
That means that in 5 years, Returnal 2 can be made by another developer exclusive for PS.The developer is third party, the software is first party.
Last edited:
That means that in 5 years, Returnal 2 can be made by another developer exclusive for PS.The developer is third party, the software is first party.
Yep. Like Gears from Epic to Coalition or Bungie to 343 with Halo.That means that in 5 years, Returnal 2 can be made by another developer exclusive for PS.
But they don`t own the developer.
Yep. Can be an in house-product or another contract work with a 3rd party at that point.That means that in 5 years, Returnal 2 can be made by another developer exclusive for PS.
I´m done with you troll playing dumb.. Ignored.Oh so Returnal is a developer now?
Just something to think about... How long since Jimbo took over, how long since the Returnal deal got approved?Bubububut Jason Schreier said Sony doesn't like risks!!!! He has insider sources damnit!!
Yes, but 'Apple software' or not, it is developed by a third party developer.If Apple paid to develop the apps, it's apple software, if not, its X company software
It doesn't matter who owns the IP... And again, you just assume that you know the intricasies of the deal between Housemarque and Sony. Its not like these exclusivity deals are the same in every instance.Jesus christ you people are fucking stupid
Returnal is not owned by the third party, therefore it is not a third party game
This is basic english
Well, I haven’t seen a AAA rogue-like before so it may count as risky simply for that.It's pretty sad that you can show a publisher something that looks fun and a bit different(let's be honest it's in no way groundbreaking) it's considered risky. Returnal looks super fun. Hope it does well.
Wow Bo_Hazem how many returnal threads have you made now? Cant wait to see your same enthusiasm when goty halo infinite releases
Reading the op it doesn't seem like this has a real AAA budgetWell, I haven’t seen a AAA rogue-like before so it may count as risky simply for that.
Also, every new IP with AAA budget is risky especially for devs that haven’t even made a single AAA game.
Technically this is correct, but no one ever uses the phrase 'first party software' when alluding to IP ownership rights.The developer is third party, the software is first party.
Yes, but 'Apple software' or not, it is developed by a third party developer.
It doesn't matter who owns the IP... And again, you just assume that you know the intricasies of the deal between Housemarque and Sony. Its not like these exclusivity deals are the same in every instance.
Yep. Can be an in house-product or another contract work with a 3rd party at that point.
I´m done with you troll playing dumb.. Ignored.
Is Returnal a first party game or a third party game?
I have no answer to that. I don’t really know how much their budget it without them divulging it.Reading the op it doesn't seem like this has a real AAA budget
Well, Bayonetta 2 is considered first party by Nintendo themselves. As long as it’s licensed and published under their name, that seems to be the case. They don’t own the ip nor the developer here.Technically this is correct, but no one ever uses the phrase 'first party software' when alluding to IP ownership rights.
My point is that you are stretching the term(s) first/third party to mean something it is not intented to:Sony owns the copyright and trademark for returnal
That makes Returnal a first party IP
That's litterally just the argument here
Same with Apple. Not sure what point you're trying to make here
My point is that you are stretching the term(s) first/third party to mean something it is not intented to:
"That makes Returnal a first party IP"
- This distinction is just something you make up. First/Third party is meant to distinguish between internal and external relationship of units, of operation, within an organization.
Don't try to spin. Returnal is a game 100% funded by Sony. If what Schreier said had any merit a game like Returnal wouldn't exist now.Are they Sony first party? That is what people are talking not funding tiny games. Do we need to go over the first party release list coming upcoming yet again? Remasters and sequel city that people gave other companies shit for doing the same thing.
Dude. Stop taking the bait. Nothing from them is gonna change what the definition means actually.How am I stretching anything? I'm using it as it's intended in its simplest form
Which is
First party refers to the hardware manufactuer which is Sony
Third party refers to the external developer which is Housemarque
If a piece of software is owned by the first party, that makes it ding ding first party software
Dude. Stop taking the bait. Nothing from them is gonna change what the definition means actually.
Yeah I would call returnal second partyHow am I stretching anything? I'm using it as it's intended in its simplest form
Which is
First party refers to the hardware manufactuer which is Sony
Third party refers to the external developer which is Housemarque
If a piece of software is owned by the first party, that makes it ding ding first party software
Sorry, I only see it referenced as a 'primary Nintendo Product(s)'?I have no answer to that. I don’t really know how much their budget it without them divulging it.
Maybe you think so because it only has 75 developers? I actually don’t know how many developers it needs to meet the standard AAA game.
Well, Bayonetta 2 is considered first party by Nintendo themselves. As long as it’s licensed and published under their name, that seems to be the case. They don’t own the ip nor the developer here.
Same deal with Spiderman which Marvel owns and is licensed to Sony.
This isn’t the case with other games published by Nintendo in west because they are published in Japan by other companies. Bayonetta, Spiderman and Returnal will be published an licensed worldwide wholly by Nintendo and Sony.
That is how you are stretching the term. You keep insisting that it is meant to describe IP copyrights.How am I stretching anything? I'm using it as it's intended in its simplest form
Which is
First party refers to the hardware manufactuer which is Sony
Third party refers to the external developer which is Housemarque
If a piece of software is owned by the first party, that makes it ding ding first party software
Maybe.Yeah I would call returnal second party
That’s from an earning’s report. All games here are published by Nintendo.Sorry, I only see it referenced as a 'primary Nintendo Product(s)'?
what did he say?All I will say is fuck Jason Schiehehsjdy. Clickbait cunt.
Good Job House marque.
From OT....
Although we managed to release one of the best reviewed new game of 2017 according to metacritic, we were certainly left disappointed with the sales leading me to declare #arcadeisdead and ending our long standing commitment to the arcade genre. Giving up on the genre didn’t mean that we’d be giving up on our deep commitment to fast-twitch action gameplay. Instead, we wanted to take on the challenge to figure out how we could translate our arcade 2D gameplay expertise into a 3rd person action game. On the other hand, it was still very uncertain, if we’d be able to move past the prototype phase and convince Sony to keep on funding a new, unproved concept. The concept was ridiculously ambitious and looking back we as a company really weren’t totally appreciating the challenge ahead of us and how hard it could be to tackle it.
In the age when game publishers are taking less and less creative risks, we are truly thankful to our publishing partner Sony, who has given us an opportunity to work on something very risky and has given fantastic support during the whole project. We are forever grateful for having this opportunity.
Is Returnal a first party game or a third party game?
Sorry, I only see it referenced as a 'primary Nintendo Product(s)'?
That is how you are stretching the term. You keep insisting that it is meant to describe IP copyrights.
Like, can't you at least provide some sort of evidence for your claims? So far, Haggard has provided plenty of sources that refutes your claim.
I think "risky" is a bit exageratted, tho the game looks promising.
Another AAA franchise added to the stable I think, this one totally different to the others. Great to see
I think this is a somewhat emotional statement from the developer, which is rather unusual. I really appreciate it. But I'm not sure whether HM just showing it's honest gratitude or them trying to get closer to Sony hoping to get bought eventually or ... their good bye letter to Sony.
Just a feeling, but Sony seems to not use it's full advertising/marketing power for this game. They have done more for R&C in the last days then for Returnal.
And here "YALL" go. Now all of a sudden nothing is risky in the gaming industry.
And here "YALL" go. Now all of a sudden nothing is risky in the gaming industry.
Linear, third person, over the shoulder, sad Dad (Mom) game where you shoot thousands of underpowered AI enemies and watch cutscenes occasionally.
Inb4 "its too expensive, pass" and "ugh, what's wrong with her face? Pass" comments leaking into this thread.
On topic:
I'm happy for them. They deserve a shot at joining the big leagues, and I'm glad they have been given just that.
I fully agree, Sony should buy Housemarque and I hope they have secured the option in their contract because otherwise I would fear that HM current success could make them a lucrative target for other Platforms.Sony should buy Housemarque if HM is up to it.
This will bring a lot of goodwill riding on the possibly not only a great game but well received game critically. I'm worried that Jim is still waiting for the sales number to open Sony's wallet.
Bullshit. It's their first AAA so had to grow and work in a different workflow, and it's their more expensive game ever, it's a new IP, it's the first time they make a narrative 3rd person over the soulder camera game with cinematics and so on, and it's mixes for the first time that with bullet hell arcade gameplay, and also mixes that with roguelike features. And on top of that the main character is an old, ugly lady.I think "risky" is a bit exageratted, tho the game looks promising.
This isn't a tiny game, it's a AAA game. It's a 6 year long project where robably over 1000 people worked on it. In this kind of games the lead studio staff is 10% or less the total amount of people who worked in the game.Are they Sony first party? That is what people are talking not funding tiny games. Do we need to go over the first party release list coming upcoming yet again? Remasters and sequel city that people gave other companies shit for doing the same thing.
It's PlayStation Studios game, so technically 1st party game. A 1st party company publishes and funds, a 3rd party studio develops. Which is commonly known as 2nd party.No it isn`t.
Housemarque is not a Sony studio.
Returnal is a "Sony funded" 3rd party PS exclusive.
Please tell me one single PS2 game that mixes AAA 3rd person over the soulder camera action game with bullet hell shooting arcade gameplay mixed with roguelike and horror stuff and so on. For me it's something new, I never saw it before.He thought so generic .. avatar shooting things .. If we continue to adore simple games with PS2 gameplay, this will be the only thing we will continue to get.
Well, as usual Bloomberg was spreading lies throwing shit to Sony. This game is one of many facts and examples that Sony also bets on smaller teams, new IPs and risky concepts an different ideas other than sequels of their few best selling AAA blockbusters.Sony definitely felt the PR pressure from Jason Schreiers article lol. Jim Ryan, Hermen Hulst and now Returnal dude are doing some funky interviews.
Not that I mind it much, but it is indeed funny.
Returnal reviews today. I hope it can get a good a really good score (like higher than 75) and the game looks fresh and would be a welcome addition to console exclusives we currently lack so much (from all 3 main players !).
A sequel of a successful game is always way less risky than to create a new AAA IP, because there's an existing fanbase there who will buy the game and you know that prety likely unless it's garbage they will like. On top of that, the sequel already has a solid base regarding gameplay, features, story, setting, characters, world building and so on.Another thing I disagree with in these topics in general is the assumption that being creative and innovative is always more risky than sticking with what you know.
I don't think this true at all e.g. I think if guerilla and suckerpunch released sequels to killzone and infamous would have been more risky than what they ended up doing.
What if in this timeline both games underperformed would we being seeing guerilla and suckerpunch restructuring instead of expanding?
We saw this with days gone and the order 1866 both games criticised for not innovating and now we're not seeing sequels. No doubt it can go the other way like with Death Stranding but its difficult to know how a game will be received until its released