Fabieter
Member
That's a new one but whatever.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pushsquare, “Reaction: PS5 Livestreams Are No Longer Speaking to the Fans Who Built the Brand”
- Thread starter ArtHands
- Start date
That's a new one but whatever.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I don't really remember anyone considering it 1st party, or Mass Effect. People knew it was different from Halo.
Are you two shitting me right now?
"Gears of War 3 is also remarkable in that it's a first party Microsoft game that supports stereoscopic 3D"
Page 2 | Digital Foundry vs. Gears of War 3
The smart money says we're nine months away from the reveal of brand-new Xbox hardware, that major advances in visual t…
www.eurogamer.net
Why are people trying so hard to redefine what a first party game is?
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I mean, everyone has been in pretty clear agreement on 1st party the whole time I've been gaming up until just the last year or two so I think it's really other people redefining things. Everyone knows the difference between Gears 1-3 and Gears 4-5.Are you two shitting me right now?
"Gears of War 3 is also remarkable in that it's a first party Microsoft game that supports stereoscopic 3D"
Page 2 | Digital Foundry vs. Gears of War 3
The smart money says we're nine months away from the reveal of brand-new Xbox hardware, that major advances in visual t…
Why are people trying so hard to redefine what a first party game is?
Fabieter
Member
Are you two shitting me right now?
"Gears of War 3 is also remarkable in that it's a first party Microsoft game that supports stereoscopic 3D"
Page 2 | Digital Foundry vs. Gears of War 3
The smart money says we're nine months away from the reveal of brand-new Xbox hardware, that major advances in visual t…
Why are people trying so hard to redefine what a first party game is?
So someone else used it the wrong way too. Gears was a third party exclusive just like rise of the ronin. When Sony buys the IP from koei than it will be 1p like gears is rn.
Woopah
Member
One point I would make here is that, at launch, Sony did not provide the team or tech/engine for Spiderman 2018 because they didn't own them. What Sony did own was the publishing rights.
It was a similar deal to Bayonetta 3, which is also a first party game even though Nintendo doesn't own the tech, team or IP.
Technically Marvel could buy the publishing rights from Sony and publish the game elsewhere (we saw this happen with Wonderful 101), but i think that's very unlikely at this point.
Both Gears and Rise are first party, because they are published by the platform holder. It is not required for the publisher to own the IP, engine or team to make something first party. Same way for the several Nintendo first party games where Nintendo doesn't have 100% ownership of the IP.
Fabieter
Member
We are doing new rules now. Octopath 1 was published by Nintendo outside of Japan so it was 1p outside of Japan like really? Do we need new rules to apologise the shit japanese 1p support of Playstation.
You right now:
Yeah right, it's one thing to say you define first party as something else but it's another to say "I don't really remember anyone considering it 1st party" unless you were living under a rock.
What's even more bizarre is that you yourself entered the "xbox one had the worst first party support" thread and listed Ryse and Sunset Overdrive. Two IPs not owned by MS but first party games:
Mind explaining that one considering it's all very clear to you that it's about the IP?
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Just speaking casually, wanted an excuse to talk about what I was playing in that particular thread. I don't think Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, Recore are 1st party. They're 2nd party. Everyone knows they were 2nd party too because everyone criticized MS heavily for not having more 1st party that entire generation. Gears 1-3 was 2nd party, Gears 4-5 are 1st party. Halo is 1st party. Rise of the Tomb Raider and Ninja Gaiden 2 were timed 3rd party deals.
Forza was a IP created on Xbox, associated with Xbox, exclusive to Xbox, but not made by a 1st party studio until they got bought officially, like Kirby for Nintendo basically. Those are the only ones that get a little sticky sometimes, like Smash Bros. for Nintendo. It's created from the start to represent Nintendo, but it's made by studios they don't own like HAL and Namco. Same goes for the new MS Flight Simulator, using a legacy MS IP but made by Asobo so technically 2nd party. Same goes for Metroid Other M made by Team Ninja.
As for Sony stuff, it seems like Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade are 2nd party. Final Fantasy 7 and 16 are timed 3rd party deals.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
You right now:
Even Phil Spencer called it first party, Peter Moore at MS even called Alan Wake and Too Human first party games (because they published it) . It's you who's using the definition wrong.
Yeah right, it's one thing to say you define first party as something else but it's another to say "I don't really remember anyone considering it 1st party" unless you were living under a rock.
What's even more bizarre is that you yourself entered the "xbox one had the worst first party support" thread and listed Ryse and Sunset Overdrive. Two IPs not owned by MS but first party games:
Mind explaining that one considering it's all very clear to you that it's about the IP?
Alan wake was owned by ms at release. I dont know what too human is. Its not 1p. Do a thread if you wish.
Woopah
Member
When Nintendo reported the sales of its products to investors, it included the Western sales of Octopath Traveller in the list of first party million sellers. Just like it did for Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity and Fire Emblem: Three Hopes, which are also titles Nintendo didn't publish in Japan.
With Stellar Blade and Rise of Ronin, Sony themselves published the game everywhere. This is the same thing that Nintendo did for Astral Chain and Bayonetta 3, which are specifically referred to as first party titles by Nintendo.
It not about making new rules. Its about applying the rules the same way as they always have been.
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Not the IP. The IP belonged to Remedy since 2005 (5 years before release) and has always belonged to them:
ALAN WAKE Trademark of REMEDY ENTERTAINMENT OYJ - Registration Number 3846619 - Serial Number 78574816 :: Justia Trademarks
Computer game software for communication devices; computer game software and computer game programs enabling users to play games with mobile phones and personal digital assistants; computer software and programs enabling users to use communication devices to simultaneously access databases and...
trademarks.justia.com
Microsoft published the game though which is what the term first party means. They owned the published game. Not the IP. I don't want to create a thread about anything but you're doing mental gymnastics in this one.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
2nd party is basically just a type of 1st party game. When companies like Nintendo or Sony report their sales figures, these types of games are included under 1st party. There isn't a separate "2nd party" sales figure.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I've heard many people say this (only in the last 1-2 years literally) but I don't like this definition or agree with it. I just think it confuses the issue and obscures information. 2nd party is a very tight knit arrangement with the platform, but it's not the same thing as a studio that they own. I find that distinction important and worth highlighting no matter what their reports say.
chilichote
Member
I don't understand. There were a lot of interesting games there, even if it wasn't the best State of Play so far (at least for me). Sure, Concorde was presented as being far too important, but the rest was varied and certainly didn't miss the target audience...!
Fabieter
Member
No it wasn't. Not the IP. The IP belonged to Remedy since 2005 (5 years before release) and has always belonged to them:
ALAN WAKE Trademark of REMEDY ENTERTAINMENT OYJ - Registration Number 3846619 - Serial Number 78574816 :: Justia Trademarks
Computer game software for communication devices; computer game software and computer game programs enabling users to play games with mobile phones and personal digital assistants; computer software and programs enabling users to use communication devices to simultaneously access databases and...
Microsoft published the game though which is what the term first party means. They owned the published game. Not the IP. I don't want to create a thread about anything but you're doing mental gymnastics in this one.
I never saw people use it that way like ever. So yea whatever. Let's excuse their weak Japanese efforts.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
Obscures information in what way?
All Smash Bros. games have been first party, regardless of who developed them. Luigi's Mansion 2 and 3 were always first party games, even when NLG were independent.
Certainly there are different types of first party game, where the ownership of the IP or development team are different. But that doesn't change the classification.
Think of it this way. Both Nier Automata and Final Fantasy XV are third party games. Do you think this confuses the issue and obscures the information that Square Enix don't own Platinum Games? If it did then we'd have to start referring to Nier Automata as fourth party or something.
I just showed you it being used like that and you just deflected with a false fact that the IP was owned by Now. Now that I show you it was and always has been owned by Remedy you're back to people didn't use it like that? You're arguing in circles here.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
You honestly could refer to it as 4th party if you wanted and I wouldn't be all that opposed to it. Same with Sekiro. It's just that no one uses that term currently, but I wouldn't object to it in theory.
I explained what I thought so it should be clear. Calling everything exclusive a 1st party massively obscures those "different types" you concede exist in sentence 3. That's my issue, and I just don't consider those games 1st party. Never will.
Last edited:
coffinbirth
Member
You just described 2nd party.
"Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios that take development contracts from platform holders and develop games exclusive to that platform, i.e. a non-owned developer making games for a first-party company."
People have been getting this wrong since forever, hahaha.
Woopah
Member
You can of course do that personally, but it doesn't change the reality that those games are first party.
Out of curiosity, how would you personally classify these first party games at launch:
Kirby Star Allies
Fire Emblem Warriors
Smash Bros. Ultimate
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Astral Chain
Pikmin 4
Bayonetta 3
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
Studios can be considered second party yes. Platinum Games for example can be called a second party Nintendo developer, even though Astral Chain and Bayonetta 3 are both first party games.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
PS3 and PS4 era Sony had a bunch of defacto japanese exclusives like Persona, Falcom games, Disgaea, Yakuza, Drakengard, etc. This kept a lot of PC gamers buying Sony consoles.
Those days are now long gone. Sony’s first party output is not much different from Ubisoft or any other big western AAA publisher and the games all come to Steam anyway. Not really all that enticing of a proposition IMO.
Those days are now long gone. Sony’s first party output is not much different from Ubisoft or any other big western AAA publisher and the games all come to Steam anyway. Not really all that enticing of a proposition IMO.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
2nd party for everything but Pikmin 4. Kirby is as deeply 2nd party as it can get, but HAL is still independent.
If I'm mixed up on Pikmin 4 it's just because I haven't looked into it that closely. Looks like it was made with Nintendo EPD, but also Eighting whoever that is. That sounds like 1st party but some elements outsourced. I don't think partial outsourcing changes it unless core design elements are made outside of 1st party staff. I'd have to look at that one. If Eighting did design and make the game, then I'd say it's 2nd party which would explain why it took a decade honestly.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
Seems like I was wrong about ms owning alan wakes ip but one dude from 15 years ago calling a third party exclusive first party when we didn't use it that way like ever is something.
The general use was
1p developed by an owned company, ip owned by the pub.
2p developed externally but owned by the publisher
3p exclusive either moneyhatted or pubs didn't see a reason to publish it on another platform
Was rise of the tomb raider 1p to Microsoft toox why did people bitch about its exclusivity if that's the case.
coffinbirth
Member
1st party games, 2nd party agreement, yup.
Woopah
Member
That's why I included Pikmin 4 as it is an interesting one. Its a collaboration between EPD 10 and Eighting, which is an external studio (the Director of the games comes from Eighting, not Nintendo).
So I guess under your system it would be 1.5 party or something like that haha
Either way, all of them are officially first party.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Honestly, yeah lol. Same with Star Fox Zero. It's a game shaped by Miyamoto and Platinum. Both were controlling core aspects of design. Same with Metroid Dread. Same with Luigi's Mansion 2.
Again, arguing in circles. One person was in fact 3 I just gave examples of after you said that 1 person was using it wrong: Richard Leadbetter from DF, Phil Spencer, Peter Moore, the list goes on. Woopah gave you more too with Nintendo ones.
Woopah
Member
Exactly, development is collaborative.
As another interesting case, we have SRD. They worked with Nintendo on numerous games for 4 decades, but were independent until 2022- https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/SRD
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I think it's collaborative sometimes, and especially with Nintendo who has a history of inserting directors and producers into external studios in a unique way. I don't really think Gears 1-3 was collaborative, or Quantum Break. I think those were 2nd party.
Woopah
Member
Even on the original Gears you had roles like the Executive Producer, Senior Art Director, Senior Design Director, Director of Prodution and others being held by Microsoft employees. It was collaborative too.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
That is interesting. If I'm willing to call Kirby 2nd party, I'll stick to Gears 2nd party as well. It's not some kind of insult, I just like to try and keep track of who is making what. I get there's outsourcing and contributions more than ever before now, but I still think unless it is core game design elements at a fundamental level I'd just call that outsourcing. On Gears I'd just have to learn more about it and what kind of things the two companies learned from each other during production. The Iwata Asks stuff was the best.
Fabieter
Member
So we agree rise of the tomv raider was 1p in 2016 and PlayStation fans were redcioulous for shitting on ms to bring their 1p games to PlayStation. Got it!
If you want to be silly about it then sure go for it. People weren't angry that it was a first party game they were angry that they couldn't play the sequel of an IP they likely played primarily on another device and nothing else. Like Woopah said Bayonetta 3 is the same and you see far less anger towards it. Nobody moans about new IPs like sunset overdrive, Ryse, Rise of the Ronin or whatever. Doesn't change the fact that MS published the game on xbox. It was a first party game to them. Square Enix published the other console versions and Feral did Mac and Linux releases. Sony consider MLB a first party game. Somebody else does the xbox release. That's first party to you though, right? If you want to get into nuances there are nuances that muddy things but a first party game is one that is published by that party.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
So that means the whole termology is meaningless. Let's go back to the point where it started. I want more japanese sony owned games from them. Build different Japanese franchises on the platform
In terms of a game being an available game on a specific platform it's meaningless. There are third party games that remain exclusive forever. There are first party games that go to other platforms published by somebody else. There are third party games that are first party in specific regions. Where it isn't meaningless is when you're discussing "developing first party Japanese games" because then you're talking about funding games from a specific region and suggesting it isn't happening, that's a lie, it still is happening. That's still happening like it was years ago with Level 5 or some other studio. First party Japanese games are being made by Sony.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
So let's say what we got an Iwata asks type thing giving details on "This idea came from a Microsoft employee and was implemented by Epic employees" and "this was some work done by Epic employees and here's how Microsoft employees improved it"
Why does it matter in the end?
To give an example, I'm playing a loving Octopath Traveller 2 right now and loving it. I know that some work was done by Team Asano, owned by SE, and some was done by Acquire, not owned be SE. In terms of how we classify the game, it doesn't really matter who did which bits of work.
By Bayonetta 3 it was exepcted, bt there was a whole lot of anger over Bayonetta 2.
Bayonetta 2 - WiiU (Director: Yusuke Hashimoto, Pub: Nintendo, Supervision:Kamiya)
http://www.platinumgames.co.jp/release/bayonetta2.html Press Release: http://platinumgames.com/2012/09/14/bayonetta-2-joins-the-wonderful-101-on-wii-u/ On September 13, 2012 Bayonetta 2 was announced as an exclusive title under development for the Wii U during the Nintendo Direction...
Its completely fine to want more Japanese-made games from Sony, as long as we also acknowledge that there are two Japanese-made first party Sony games in 2024.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I just like to keep track of who is making what and try to be accurate. That's honestly it.So let's say what we got an Iwata asks type thing giving details on "This idea came from a Microsoft employee and was implemented by Epic employees" and "this was some work done by Epic employees and here's how Microsoft employees improved it"
Why does it matter in the end?
To give an example, I'm playing a loving Octopath Traveller 2 right now and loving it. I know that some work was done by Team Asano, owned by SE, and some was done by Acquire, not owned be SE. In terms of how we classify the game, it doesn't really matter who did which bits of work.
By Bayonetta 3 it was exepcted, bt there was a whole lot of anger over Bayonetta 2.
Bayonetta 2 - WiiU (Director: Yusuke Hashimoto, Pub: Nintendo, Supervision:Kamiya)
http://www.platinumgames.co.jp/release/bayonetta2.html Press Release: http://platinumgames.com/2012/09/14/bayonetta-2-joins-the-wonderful-101-on-wii-u/ On September 13, 2012 Bayonetta 2 was announced as an exclusive title under development for the Wii U during the Nintendo Direction...www.neogaf.com
Its completely fine to want more Japanese-made games from Sony, as long as we also acknowledge that there are two Japanese-made first party Sony games in 2024.
I do feel that there is a recent effort to obscure exactly that. Not you necessarily. Some people just have their own definitions.
Last edited:
Fabieter
Member
With the difference that they don't control the future of the franchises. For all we know rise of the ronin 2 could be a pc exclusive (theoretically) and sony couldn't do anything about it while sony had full control over releasing dark cloud 2 as an exclusive.
So let's say what we got an Iwata asks type thing giving details on "This idea came from a Microsoft employee and was implemented by Epic employees" and "this was some work done by Epic employees and here's how Microsoft employees improved it"
Why does it matter in the end?
To give an example, I'm playing a loving Octopath Traveller 2 right now and loving it. I know that some work was done by Team Asano, owned by SE, and some was done by Acquire, not owned be SE. In terms of how we classify the game, it doesn't really matter who did which bits of work.
By Bayonetta 3 it was exepcted, bt there was a whole lot of anger over Bayonetta 2.
Bayonetta 2 - WiiU (Director: Yusuke Hashimoto, Pub: Nintendo, Supervision:Kamiya)
http://www.platinumgames.co.jp/release/bayonetta2.html Press Release: http://platinumgames.com/2012/09/14/bayonetta-2-joins-the-wonderful-101-on-wii-u/ On September 13, 2012 Bayonetta 2 was announced as an exclusive title under development for the Wii U during the Nintendo Direction...
Its completely fine to want more Japanese-made games from Sony, as long as we also acknowledge that there are two Japanese-made first party Sony games in 2024.
Rise of the ronin and Astro bot or where are we?
So why is IP ownership important to you but a game being first party is meaningless? Yes the IP Rise of the Ronin can decide to go PC exclusive but normally when a game releases the sequel comes to that audience who bought the first because they're more likely to be interested in the sequel. Sometimes they even complain if it doesn't like they did with Tomb Raider. You don't need to be concerned about a hypothetical and deny the reality now though. That playstation are funding first party Japanese games right now.
Woopah
Member
Interesting. Who do you think is making effort and why do you feel it is recently?
If we go back a few years for instance, I don't remember it being the consensus that Mario Party 8 and Paper Mario TTYD were not first party games , but Mario Party 9 and Mario Kart Double Dash were first party.
Or that Jak & Daxter was a first party game, but Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus was not.
These were all seen as first party games from my memory.
Yes those two. I think its fine to say something like "Sony is giving us these two games, but I wish there were more and I'd like to see them announce some Japanese games for 2025"
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
I'll just keep that to myself to keep this thread civil. Really no point in pointing fingers at people to start drama over stuff like this.
nial
Gold Member
Let's not kid ourselves, 1P/2P discussions have always existed and have always been stupid, but they were never pushed this way UNTIL THIS VERY YEAR. And it's very fucking obvious why that is happening.
all due to Sony having more externally-developed games this year, that's it, am I right?
Punished Miku
all due to Sony having more externally-developed games this year, that's it, am I right?
Punished Miku
nial
Gold Member
No, he's saying that it's literally the same situation as Rise of the Ronin and Stellar Blade (it's not). It's much more akin to Final Fantasy XVI.
What I was saying is that no company is stupid enough to let the IP owner do whatever they want with a game they funded and produced.
Under what I'm saying, no, Sony has never done that.
Danjin44
I don't think you should focus this much on the IP aspect, and more on the fact that PlayStation Studios is very much willing to produce Japanese RPGs.
Fabieter
Member
It's more valuable to me as a user. But it doesn't matter anyway. Once switch 2 releases sony will see what will happen on the software side. Most people mainly interested in japanese games will almost stop playing playstation.
nial
Gold Member
I would be embarrassed if this weak as fuck response was all I have to say.
Woopah
Member
They'll be some transion to Switch 2, but Japanese games will still sell well on PS5.
Doom85
Gold Member
Just like Switch 1, a lot of those games will run noticeably better on PlayStation, and plenty of people use the portability not much if at all. I’m not saying plenty of people might not switch over (forgive the pun), but most people? Nah.
