Nope.
The entry industry said what I’m explained to you.
The only person that tried to spin it like you say was the Uncle Phil due their lack to release first party games
Even so he corrected himself that they need to own the IP to be first party.
What really is first party nowadays? Definition of first/second/third party games.
- Thread starter Etifilio
- Start date
The entry industry said what I’m explained to you.
The only person that tried to spin it like you say was the Uncle Phil due their lack to release first party games
Even so he corrected himself that they need to own the IP to be first party.
You forgot ConcordYep, that's a great point, and we still get people who want to downplay Sony do exactly that.
Quick math, this year alone Sony had 7 first party games release on PS5 :
TLoU part 2 remastered
Helldivers 2
Stellar Blade
Rise of the Ronin
Until Dawn
Astro Bot
Lego Horizon Adventures
I might be missing some.
But then you get people that say these aren't "really" first party games, so they cut out HD2, Stellar Blade, RotR and UD, because they are not made by a Sony owned studio or Sony doesn't own the IP.
And then you get people who will also remove the remasters and remakes, so we end up with Astro Bot and Lego Horizon, and they'll have the gall to call this year barren
And they'll ignore the third party console exclusives too for good measure (FF7 Rebirth, Wukong, Silent Hill 2).
But yeah a lot of this is around letting off steam around whatever grievances they have (focus on live service games, slow development times), or just a lack of common sense.
Every time you post you expose your idiocy and delusion.It doesn’t matter at all if you said just to trigger people.
It is false
Others people will read and and know you are just talking shit.
It's like corresponding with a bot (which struggles to deliver coherent sentences).
I remember you getting hammered on GAF for exactly that.
Dude, I'm a gamedev since almost 20 years ago with many friends in many top companies, I'm in multiple game preservation groups and opened a gaming history related museum exhibition last week. I know what I'm talking about.
If we use publishing, which is distinct from ip, and studio. We also get into issues, crash bandicoot was published by playstation, the ip owned by Universal Interactive Studios(led by mark cerny) created by naughty dog.
Also publishing differs per region, ff7 release in the west was also Sony.
Bloodborne, is published by playstation. People wouldn't call that a first party game.
Bayonetta is created by platinum, owned by them only published by nintendo.
Marvel's Ultimate Alliance 3, published by nintendo, created by Team Ninja.
Doesn't really hold that definition, but alo notice how fluid your definitions are. Which was my point, if we have 3 categories yet many fall in both, because you could make the argument for multiple and if add the element of time a game can fall into all three categories, Alan Wake for example.
Like the Mr. Xbox Senior Engineer that replied me with false claim to make a narrative to most powerful only true RDNA2 console in world lol
I mean you saying your position or how much time you worked on the industry doesn’t backup your words true.
If that was the case Aaron should be the most trustworthy person in the world.
The fact non-first party games are published by Sony already kills anything you are trying to fight for…
This endless 1st party/2nd/3rd party debate is totally meaningless because there's no consensus and each platform holder have their own definition.
Just drop this shit.
You sure lack a lot of industry knowledge with your experience and you being a chat bot, not even knowing what's the difference between 1st and 3rd party.
Everybody with a little bit of sane logical thinking would see how wrong the publishing/platform factor is with following sentences:
Call of Duty is a Playstation first party title in Japan.
PlayStation is porting their 3rd party games to other platforms.
LEGO Horizon is a PlayStation 1st party title only on PlayStation.
@Muddasar explained it perfectly:
The owner of an IP is the 1st party. No matter the platform, publishing, season etc. Final Fantasy is a SE 1st party title. Alan Wake is a Remedy 1st party title. Dark Souls is a Bandai Namco 1st party title.
Of course they are 3rd party games on the respective platforms they are played on, but it doesn't mean they suddenly aren't games of the corresponding IP owner.
Last edited:
It's about publishing and storefront. If it's the same entity on both, we can say without a doubt it is a first party game on that storefront.
Crash Bandicoot was a first party game on PS1.
FF7 was a first party game on PS1 except in Japan (I think it was published by SE there).
Bloodborne is a first party game on PS4 and PS5. If it gets ported to Steam, it will be a third party game there.
Etc.
Studio ownership and IP ownership have nothing to do with first or third party.
We're in too deep to pull out now.
This endless 1st party/2nd/3rd party debate is totally meaningless because there's no consensus and each platform holder have their own definition.
Just drop this shit.
That's incredibly asinine. Alan Wake is a Remedy "first party" game? Let me ask you, what storefront does Remedy have? What third party games does Remedy have?
I wouldn't have called you that, but I admit I thought it since you said Call of Duty is a PlayStation 1st party title in Japan.
Of course, it's their IP. Same as Control, but not Quantum Break, as that one is a Xbox 1st party title.
None, they don't need to have one to have 1st party titles.
None, 3rd party titles by definition belong to someone else. If it were Remedy's games, they would be 1st party.
The whole "first party" and "third party" term comes from the publisher in relation to the storefront. Remedy doesn't have first or third party games because they don't have a storefront. GOG only have third party games because they don't publish as far as I'm aware.
It's funny, because we've been saying MS is going third party because they are porting their games to other storefronts, like PSN and Nintendo. I guess you think they simply going more "first party"?
Storefront/platform only determine the relation between platform holder and "seller". A PlayStation game is 3rd party for Steam users, but still a PlayStation 1st party title.
I think you are mixing both up, thous the clear confusion. Hope you will grasp it soon.
MS and PlayStation are going 3rd party because they are porting their 1st party titles elsewhere. They still remain THEIR 1st party titles elsewhere, regardless of where they are sold and if they are sold as 3rd party games there.
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with platforms or storefronts.
It is simply perspective. No different to First Person/Third Person.
We do this cause we have been trained look from Platform/Storefront holders perspective. So we consider Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft or even Valve as First Party.
So saying Microsoft is going Third Party is correct because they are releasing their First Party games on a Third Party Platform.
But it is no different to Square Enix releasing their First Party games on a Third Party Platform.
First Party = Me
Third Party = Someone else
Video game developer - Wikipedia
It doesn't specify publishing.
Video game developer - Wikipedia
Rare (company) - Wikipedia
Rare was always touted as the definition of second party developer. if it's just publishing it would be first-party, following that logic. thus xbox bought a Nintendo first party studio?
Let's continue with publishing as first party, Minecraft is co-published by the platform holders, Nintendo for switch.
So Minecraft is first party for all the platform holders?
Octopath traveler was published by nintendo outside of Japan. Is that game a first party?
Octopath Traveler - Wikipedia
Mass effect was published by xbox, thus according to you first party. until they became a third-party ip.
So your definition is at odds with wikipedia definition. Doesn't matter which definition you'll use. Each game has it's own story with own deals and contracts, games fluidity go between different definitions through time. Making the terms and this discussion kinda pointless.
Last edited:
You're even talking to a developer exposing your lack of knowledgeNope… just expose yourself
The opposite lolYou're even talking to a developer exposing your lack of knowledge
You are saying something that is wrong with tons of examples going against you.
Even so you keep coming here trying to insult people.
1st party - published and developed by hardware maker for their own platform
3rd party - makes games for all platforms. Not owned by hardware manufacturer.
2nd party - partially owned by hardware maker. Only handful still exist.
Bloodborne is Sony published and owned but still a third party developed game. Second party relationships are often passed in favor of contracts like this.
Spider-man is first party developed and published but licensed brain dead marvel junk from Disney; a third party entity.
Yes, Sony should never again license from Disney and hopefully the agreement ends with X-men. I doubt Sony will ever give this up tho; not after Tobey’s spider-man… they probably want to renew and more especially if their Marvel stuff starts popping off while it continues to crater in film and tv.
3rd party - makes games for all platforms. Not owned by hardware manufacturer.
2nd party - partially owned by hardware maker. Only handful still exist.
Bloodborne is Sony published and owned but still a third party developed game. Second party relationships are often passed in favor of contracts like this.
Spider-man is first party developed and published but licensed brain dead marvel junk from Disney; a third party entity.
Yes, Sony should never again license from Disney and hopefully the agreement ends with X-men. I doubt Sony will ever give this up tho; not after Tobey’s spider-man… they probably want to renew and more especially if their Marvel stuff starts popping off while it continues to crater in film and tv.
Last edited: