• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Platinum says it’s proud of Bayonetta 3 and wants to show it, but the decision is up to publisher Nintendo

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,801
5,783
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
an early concept for a sequel to Bayonetta was originally dismissed by Sega, meaning Bayonetta was basically dead at that point because Sega didn't see it as profitable enough.

if Nintendo wasn't desperate for Wii U exclusives we would have never seen Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta 2.

Nintendo reanimated the IP due to desperation, it's that easy... Sega threw the IP in the trash, Nintendo pulled it out... very easy concept.

and platinum can't make a Bayonetta game without Sega's OK either, because Sega owns the rights to the IP, as you can see by the fact that they are credited in Bayo 2 and 3 with the small print: "Licensed by SEGA"
True, no lies detected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX

MagnesG

Banned
Apr 20, 2019
3,101
2,492
515
Lol! You're the one who doesn't understand it. Nintendo paid to get these games as exclusives, which is the definition of a money hat, full stop:

If not moneyhatted by Nintendo, that team would be making a multiplatform game, or another money hatted game for this or another 1st party as it was the case of Scalebound or Babylon's Fall.

The concept of a game/dev/publisher being moneyhatted isn't related at all to if the game would have existed or not without that money. It is only related to a platform holder paying a 3rd party publisher/dev who also makes games for other platforms to get an exclusive game from them.
That definition mention about gaining an unfair advantage from a group of people by the act of paying. What is the "unfair" advantage for Bayo2 & Bayo3 situation here? They basically funded the development, more like a 2nd party contract in short.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: coffinbirth

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,801
5,783
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
That definition mention about gaining an unfair advantage from a group of people by the act of paying. What is the "unfair" advantage for Bayo2 & Bayo3 situation here? They basically funded the development, more like a 2nd party contract in short.
The 'unfair advantage' part isn't in the part of the gaming context definition that originated it. It's in the general topics part that evolved from it, notice they are separated.

I think there is nothing unfair on money hatting a 3rd party exclusive. As you say it's very similar to getting a 2nd party exclusive. The main difference typically is that in the 1st party exclusive is the publisher and keeps the IP while in the 3rd party is the 3rd party who publishes the game and keeps he IP, but there are many different cases. Like when in a 2nd party they give the IP to the dev, or allow them to port it to other systems, to moneyhat for a console exclusive instead of a full one, or for a timed exclusive instead of a total exclusive, or things like that.
 
Dec 22, 2019
735
535
295
nintendo went up to every jp devs and publisher in japan and ask them what they wanted in the switch and allowed all of them to pitch what ever ideas they had and if it was good or pretty reasonable they would help fund it. Platnum got the same offer as other JP devs and thats why there game like bayo, astral chain are exclusive to the switch and how wonder ful 101 became a thing.
 

Marty-McFly

Member
Jul 2, 2021
1,374
3,513
465
please understand...
Is there anything actually bad about this unless you're somebody who wants to see games well before they release?

I prefer the whole shadow dropping game announcements a few months before release trend emerging at Ninty.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Jun 1, 2014
9,088
8,650
770
Sony paid Capcom to get Street Fighter V as their exclusive, so it's also a moneyhat too. To moneyhat is to pay someone to get an exclusive for them, independently if that game was going to exist or not.

In the case of Street Fighter V, Capcom had financial issues so without Sony's money they would have needed to wait a couple of years or so to save money to make it. Sony appeared, funded the game and on top of that funded and published the USFIV PS4 port, and put half a Billion dollars on the table for SFV eSports prizes.

And yes, back then Sega, MS or Sony didn't want to pay for these games probably because they saw the sales of the first one and thought they were too bad for them. So wouldn't have existed until some of them or Nintendo would have paid it. Maybe the sales of the first one were enough for Nintendo compared to their 3rd party games, counting both exclusives and multis.
So you do understand the difference. SFV would have existed anyway, while Bayo 2 and 3 exist only because Nintendo paid for it. There really isn't anything more to say.
 

Porcile

Member
Oct 23, 2012
5,608
2,026
770
Still people arguing about something related to Bayonetta 2's exclusivity even after nearly 10 years.

Will we ever see such a legendary and deliciously salty game announcement ever again??
 
Last edited:

Bragr

Member
Jun 24, 2020
1,557
3,347
510
What's interesting is that they are saying they are on the "final stretch". I get the sense that Nintendo doesn't want to show it until it's done, while Platinum feels it's nearing completion and is aching to show it off.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,808
2,963
445
Still people arguing about something related to Bayonetta 2's exclusivity even after nearly 10 years.

Will we ever see such a legendary and deliciously salty game announcement ever again??
Some people just refuse to accept that Bayo is a niche title. That there isn't enough fans to justify it being multiplat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub Boss
Aug 16, 2012
9,894
5,096
1,100
31
North West, UK.


The dream is dead lads.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: ProgenitorCastle

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,905
2,769
795
While the game is taking much longer than anyone anticipated and the waiting sucks, if they are confident the project is going well i trust Platinum Games and Nintendo to know best when it should be shown. hopefully soon. From their comments it seems they will show it close to release like Nintendo does with many games and recently Metroid Dread
 

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,905
2,769
795
an early concept for a sequel to Bayonetta was originally dismissed by Sega, meaning Bayonetta was basically dead at that point because Sega didn't see it as profitable enough.

if Nintendo wasn't desperate for Wii U exclusives we would have never seen Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta 2.

Nintendo reanimated the IP due to desperation, it's that easy... Sega threw the IP in the trash, Nintendo pulled it out... very easy concept.

and platinum can't make a Bayonetta game without Sega's OK either, because Sega owns the rights to the IP, as you can see by the fact that they are credited in Bayo 2 and 3 with the small print: "Licensed by SEGA"
People still complaining about this after so many years is so pitiful, SEGA initially started development on a Bayonetta sequel, until they changed their strategy drastically, cancelling projects including Bayonetta 2, Platinum pitched the game to different publishers, all of them refused until Nintendo stepped in.

Nintendo didn't moneyhat anything, from who? SEGA already canceled it, no other wanted it yet Nintendo is the one investing millions of dollars into the Bayonetta series, at least a third game should come out eventually, yet fanboys still complan ts exclusive to Switch
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Was the Switch still the NX when this thing got announced? I can't understand how a game like this, on Switch only, can possibly be this far behind.
The Game Awards 2017. At that point Nintendo was announcing games that were in early development to get people excited. Apart from Zelda, they are not doing that now anymore. The vast majority of their titles are revealed and then released in under 18 months (and the majority in less than a year).
Nintendo paid Sega to get Bayo 2 as exclusive, so it's a money hat.
Nintendo paid Sega to get Bayo 3 as exclusive, so it's another money hat.

When a first party pays a third party to get an exclusive for them (game that otherwise would have been multi, would have been made later or woulndn't have existed) it's a money hat. Nintendo, Sony and MS moneyhat 3rd parties all the time. Same goes with Epic to get PC store exclusives, or even the same Sega back when they were a first party.


Bayonetta 1 and 2 didn't have great sales in WiiU or Switch. I don't expect Bayonetta 3 to get great sales. DMC5 sold 4.5 units, GoW 2018 sold over 10 millions in a year or so. I expect Bayonetta 3 to sell maybe 3 millions maximum.
The difference is that Bayonetta 3 isn't a third party exclusive but a first party game. It's a Nioh situation rather than a FFXVI situation.
 

Captain Toad

I advertise for PlayStation. For free.
Dec 1, 2020
4,571
12,668
640
The difference is that Bayonetta 3 isn't a third party exclusive but a first party game. It's a Nioh situation rather than a FFXVI situation.
Doesn't Sega still own the IP? Platinum isn't owned by Nintendo. How is this a first-party game?
 

Captain Toad

I advertise for PlayStation. For free.
Dec 1, 2020
4,571
12,668
640
Nintendo is paying for the game 100%. Is Spiderman not a first party Sony game?
Spider-Man is made by Insomniac, a Sony first-party studio. Last I checked, Nintendo hasn't bought Sega or Platinum Games. Nor do they even own the Bayonetta IP.

I'm not arguing that Bayonetta 3 isn't a Switch exclusive. But, it's not a first-party game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ssringo

Porcile

Member
Oct 23, 2012
5,608
2,026
770
Spider-Man is made by Insomniac, a Sony first-party studio. Last I checked, Nintendo hasn't bought Sega or Platinum Games. Nor do they even own the Bayonetta IP.

I'm not arguing that Bayonetta 3 isn't a Switch exclusive. But, it's not a first-party game.

As far as I remember Spiderman was released on PS4 before Insomniac was bought out by Sony. So what was your definition of the game in 2018?

A first party game is a game that is owned and controlled by the platform holder. It has nothing to do with who owns what studio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Withnail

coffinbirth

Member
Apr 13, 2021
355
390
280
Lol! You're the one who doesn't understand it. Nintendo paid to get these games as exclusives, which is the definition of a money hat, full stop:

If not moneyhatted by Nintendo, that team would be making a multiplatform game, or another money hatted game for this or another 1st party as it was the case of Scalebound or Babylon's Fall.

The concept of a game/dev/publisher being moneyhatted isn't related at all to if the game would have existed or not without that money. It is only related to a platform holder paying a 3rd party publisher/dev who also makes games for other platforms to get an exclusive game from them.
 

coffinbirth

Member
Apr 13, 2021
355
390
280
That definition mention about gaining an unfair advantage from a group of people by the act of paying. What is the "unfair" advantage for Bayo2 & Bayo3 situation here? They basically funded the development, more like a 2nd party contract in short.
This guy is clueless, don't even bother.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Doesn't Sega still own the IP? Platinum isn't owned by Nintendo. How is this a first-party game?
Because Nintendo is the publisher.

Same as how Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 is first party even though Nintendo doesn't own those characters or Team Ninja. Or that Spiderman PS4 was first party even though Sony doesn't own the character or (at the time) Insomniac. Same with Fire Emblem and Kirby games too.

Nintendo lists Bayonetta 3 as a first party release in its official documents, and it's sales will be counted as first party sales.
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
Again with this discussion?Bayo 2 and 3 are second party games.

Nintendo, the platform holder, publishes and funds the game, hence the exclusivity.But they don't own the IP, so outside of the games they directly fund, they cant do anything with Bayonetta without permission.

That's why its a second party game.I don't understand the recent trend of trying to bury the term.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Again with this discussion?Bayo 2 and 3 are second party games.

Nintendo, the platform holder, publishes and funds the game, hence the exclusivity.But they don't own the IP, so outside of the games they directly fund, they cant do anything with Bayonetta without permission.

That's why its a second party game.I don't understand the recent trend of trying to bury the term.
Because there's too many definitions of 2nd party and, in Nintendo's case, not a term they use.

It's very easy to know what Nintendo's first party games are because Nintendo releases a list of all announced first party games every quarter. Bayonetta 3 is always on that list.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,808
2,963
445
Again with this discussion?Bayo 2 and 3 are second party games.

Nintendo, the platform holder, publishes and funds the game, hence the exclusivity.But they don't own the IP, so outside of the games they directly fund, they cant do anything with Bayonetta without permission.

That's why its a second party game.I don't understand the recent trend of trying to bury the term.
Technically 2nd party is an invented term that game forums come up with. it doesn't exist in the eyes of game publishers and platform holders.

I like to consider it like Square root of negative 1. Something that is imaginary, but useful for the purpose it is designed for. It tells us certain things without needing to explain full sentences of who owns what.
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
Technically 2nd party is an invented term that game forums come up with. it doesn't exist in the eyes of game publishers and platform holders.

I like to consider it like Square root of negative 1. Something that is imaginary, but useful for the purpose it is designed for. It tells us certain things without needing to explain full sentences of who owns what.
Most terms in gaming are made up, either by the audience or by the developers.Hell, game genres dont tecnically exist but we use them to simplify discussion.Metroidvania was something gamers came up with, but that now everyone uses it, because its a term that simplifies discussion, as I said.And it certainly is easier and simpler to remember than Search Action, the "official" genre description created by someone either inside Nintendo or Konami, can't quite remember.

I know that very few games qualify in the spectrum of second party, but I feel like it has a simple enough definition that helps shorten discussion and helps labeling things overall.
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
Because there's too many definitions of 2nd party and, in Nintendo's case, not a term they use.

It's very easy to know what Nintendo's first party games are because Nintendo releases a list of all announced first party games every quarter. Bayonetta 3 is always on that list.
Metroidvania isn't a term they use exactly either, because "officially" the genre's name is Search Action, but nobody calls them that.

I just think that people make too much noise over something so simple.Second party is the middle ground between first and third party.You own the game, but not the IP.Its simpler than calling Bayonetta first party and just getting angry a few years later when Bayo 4, a "first party" game, is announced for other platforms.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Metroidvania isn't a term they use exactly either, because "officially" the genre's name is Search Action, but nobody calls them that.

I just think that people make too much noise over something so simple.Second party is the middle ground between first and third party.You own the game, but not the IP.Its simpler than calling Bayonetta first party and just getting angry a few years later when Bayo 4, a "first party" game, is announced for other platforms.

I think the simpler thing to do is just not get angry. Nintendo provides us with a complete list of all upcoming first party releases, so not sure why there should be any argument about it. If they say its first party its first party. Doesn't make sense to say that Nintendo doesn't know what there own first party games are.

Now there are different types of first party games. Ones where the platform holder owns the development studio and ones where they don't. Ones where they fully own the IP, partially own the IP, or don't own the IP at all. But they all fall under the 'first party' umbrella. Otherwise we could say that Kirby, Fire Emblem, Pokémon, Smash Bros. Spiderman, Wolverine and MLB The Show aren't first party games. I don't think that's accurate.

Also as an aside, Nintendo does use the term Metoridvania.
 
Last edited:

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
I think the simpler thing to do is just not get angry. Nintendo provides us with a complete list of all upcoming first party releases, so not sure why there should be any argument about it. If they say its first party its first party. Doesn't make sense to say that Nintendo doesn't know what there own first party games are.

Now there are different types of first party games. Ones where the platform holder owns the development studio and ones where they don't. Ones where they fully own the IP, partially own the IP, or don't own the IP at all. But they all fall under the 'first party' umbrella. Otherwise we could say that Kirby, Fire Emblem, Pokémon and Smash Bros. aren't first party games and I don't think that's accurate.

Also as an aside, Nintendo does use the term Metoridvania.
All those IPs you mentioned are first party because Nintendo owns the IP, regardless of who develops it. I don't think nobody would say Luigi Mansion 2 and 3 to be third party just because Next Level wasn't an internal Nintendo dev(at the time).

The term second party is used by exactly the reason you just listed: To avoid having to explain what kind of "first party" the game is.To avoid confusions we have nowadays like the word exclusive.Nowadays, the term exclusive comes with a myriad of caveats.Ir no longer means that it belongs to one place, and you would understand right away what it means.No, now you gave to look at what exactly it is exclusive to.

So we use terms like second party to diminish these kinds of confusion.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
All those IPs you mentioned are first party because Nintendo owns the IP, regardless of who develops it. I don't think nobody would say Luigi Mansion 2 and 3 to be third party just because Next Level wasn't an internal Nintendo dev(at the time).

The term second party is used by exactly the reason you just listed: To avoid having to explain what kind of "first party" the game is. To avoid confusions we have nowadays like the word exclusive.Nowadays, the term exclusive comes with a myriad of caveats.Ir no longer means that it belongs to one place, and you would understand right away what it means. No, now you gave to look at what exactly it is exclusive to.

So we use terms like second party to diminish these kinds of confusion.
But Nintendo doesn't own the Kirby IP and Fire Emblem IP and it doesn't fully own the Pokémon IP or Smash Bros IP. How much of an IP does a company have to own for it to be first party? Would you therefore say that Spiderman 2, Wolverine and MLB The Show on PS5 are not first party games. To me they definitely are.

It is the same as your exclusive analogy:

Is Forespoken a different type of exclusive to Returnal. Yes. Does that mean Forespoken isn't an exclusive? No.
Is Bayonetta 3 a different type of first party release than BOTW? Yes. Does that mean Bayonetta 3 isn't a first party release? No.
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
But Nintendo doesn't own the Kirby IP and Fire Emblem IP and it doesn't fully own the Pokémon IP or Smash Bros IP. How much of an IP does a company have to own for it to be first party? Would you therefore say that Spiderman 2, Wolverine and MLB The Show on PS5 are not first party games. To me they definitely are.

It is the same as your exclusive analogy:

Is Forespoken a different type of exclusive to Returnal. Yes. Does that mean Forespoken isn't an exclusive? No.
Is Bayonetta 3 a different type of first party release than BOTW? Yes. Does that mean Bayonetta 3 isn't a first party release? No.
Its simple.Does Nintendo, Sony or MS share of the IP big enough to prevent it from being released elsewhere?If the answer is Yes, then its first party.If the answer is no, then its second party.

Its that simple.People just complicate stuff needlesly.Pokemon (mainline) will never release elsewhere because Nintendo owns enough of it(names, the Pokemon Company, etc) that makes it locked to its system.Same for kirby, FE and Smash.

But you can't say the same for Bayonetta.Hence why its second party.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Its simple.Does Nintendo, Sony or MS share of the IP big enough to prevent it from being released elsewhere?If the answer is Yes, then its first party.If the answer is no, then its second party.

Its that simple.People just complicate stuff needlesly.Pokemon (mainline) will never release elsewhere because Nintendo owns enough of it(names, the Pokemon Company, etc) that makes it locked to its system.Same for kirby, FE and Smash.

But you can't say the same for Bayonetta.Hence why its second party.
Nintendo doesn't own any of Kirby or FE though (as far as I'm aware). What they do own is the rights to the game. The don't own the Bayonetta IP but they do own the rights to Bayonetta 2 and Bayonetta 3. Its exactly the same situation as Kirby and Fire Emblem. Do you believe that Spiderman and Wolverine are not Sony first party games?

Also first party has nothing to do with games releasing elsewhere. The Ori games being released on Switch doesn't mean the Xbox versions are no longer first party releases. MLB the Show releasing on Xbox doesn't mean the PlayStation versions are not first party releases.

Can Sega release Bayonetta 3 elsewhere? We have no idea. Their contract with Nintendo isn't public, so by your definition we have no way of knowing if Bayonetta 3 is 2nd party or not.

If you want things to be simple, lets just use the simple definition of the term Nintendo themselves use. By trying to bring IP ownership and exclusivity into it you are making things more complicated not less.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,801
5,783
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
The difference is that Bayonetta 3 isn't a third party exclusive but a first party game. It's a Nioh situation rather than a FFXVI situation.
Bayonetta 3 is a game developed by a 3rd party studio using a 3rd party IP because it's an IP owned by a 3rd party publisher.

But it's published by Nintendo, which makes it a 2nd party game (so technically a 1st party game too).

Nioh was published by Sony outside Japan, but it's a 3rd party IP developed by a 3rd party studio. So a pretty similar case.

A better example of full 3rd party moneyhats would be FFXVI, MHR or SFV because they are 3rd party exclusives, meaning they aren't 1st or 2nd parties because weren't published by the 1st party who moneyhatted them.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Bayonetta 3 is a game developed by a 3rd party studio using a 3rd party IP because it's an IP owned by a 3rd party publisher.

But it's published by Nintendo, which makes it a 2nd party game (so technically a 1st party game too).

Nioh was published by Sony outside Japan, but it's a 3rd party IP developed by a 3rd party studio. So a pretty similar case.

A better example of full 3rd party moneyhats would be FFXVI, MHR or SFV because they are 3rd party exclusives, meaning they aren't 1st or 2nd parties because weren't published by the 1st party who moneyhatted them.
If we say that 2nd party is a subset of 1st party, then I would agree with that statement. If someone says that Bayonetta 3 and Nioh (outside Japan) are both 2nd party games and 1st party games, then I have no issue with that. What I don't agree with is saying that Bayonetta 3 isn't a first party game when Nintendo themselves tell us that it is.
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
Nintendo doesn't own any of Kirby or FE though (as far as I'm aware). What they do own is the rights to the game. The don't own the Bayonetta IP but they do own the rights to Bayonetta 2 and Bayonetta 3. Its exactly the same situation as Kirby and Fire Emblem. Do you believe that Spiderman and Wolverine are not Sony first party games?

Also first party has nothing to do with games releasing elsewhere. The Ori games being released on Switch doesn't mean the Xbox versions are no longer first party releases. MLB the Show releasing on Xbox doesn't mean the PlayStation versions are not first party releases.

Can Sega release Bayonetta 3 elsewhere? We have no idea. Their contract with Nintendo isn't public, so by your definition we have no way of knowing if Bayonetta 3 is 2nd party or not.

If you want things to be simple, lets just use the simple definition of the term Nintendo themselves use. By trying to bring IP ownership and exclusivity into it you are making things more complicated not less.
As far as Im aware, all these Nintendo IPs are co-owned with Nintendo.So yes, they partly own the rights to said IPs and the definition stands.

About your second point: I think they kind of stop being first party.The whole point of calling something first or third party, a definition that we copied from other industries(as far as Im aware) is that first party is a term that describes that the platform holder of that platform is the developer of that software.The moment that dlstops being true, i.e. MS and Sony starts publishing their games in hardware they dont own/fully control, then whats the difference between calling them first party, or third party?

Whats the difference, regarding Ori on the Switch, compared to any other Square game for example?They both pay the same commission, they are both "aliens"(third party) in regards to that platform, and the companies have zero control over the platform.

The same applies to Sony games on PC.Why are we, in that situation, calling those games first party, if Sony games on PC has zero difference, in terms of definitions, compared to other third party games? From the PC hardware point of view, Sony games are as "alien" as games comming from Square, Capcom, Ubisoft, etc.

Thats the problem.People associate first party games as in belonging to the Big Three, and third party as the rest, instead of actually using their definitions to determine which term to use, because apparently thats too complicated.

The same happens with second party.I think its simple enough of a term, but apoarently people dissagre with me.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
As far as Im aware, all these Nintendo IPs are co-owned with Nintendo.So yes, they partly own the rights to said IPs and the definition stands.

About your second point: I think they kind of stop being first party.The whole point of calling something first or third party, a definition that we copied from other industries(as far as Im aware) is that first party is a term that describes that the platform holder of that platform is the developer of that software.The moment that dlstops being true, i.e. MS and Sony starts publishing their games in hardware they dont own/fully control, then whats the difference between calling them first party, or third party?

Whats the difference, regarding Ori on the Switch, compared to any other Square game for example?They both pay the same commission, they are both "aliens"(third party) in regards to that platform, and the companies have zero control over the platform.

The same applies to Sony games on PC.Why are we, in that situation, calling those games first party, if Sony games on PC has zero difference, in terms of definitions, compared to other third party games? From the PC hardware point of view, Sony games are as "alien" as games comming from Square, Capcom, Ubisoft, etc.

Thats the problem.People associate first party games as in belonging to the Big Three, and third party as the rest, instead of actually using their definitions to determine which term to use, because apparently thats too complicated.

The same happens with second party.I think its simple enough of a term, but apparently people dissagre with me.
I don't believe we know if Nintendo co-owns Fire Emblem or Kirby though. At the very least Intelligent Systems are able to register Fire Emblem trademarks without Nintendo being involved, which suggested to me that they fully own the Fire Emblem IP (but not fully own the rights to each Fire Emblem game). Therefore with your definition Fire Emblem Three Houses is a 2nd party game as its developed be an outside developer and its the developer not the publisher that own the franchise IP.

I agree with you that Horizon on PC (and other Sony games) not first party releases. They are third party releases since Sony is not the platform holder on PC.

To help us understand each other, how would you clarify the following releases (using your first, second or third party system) at the time of release:

  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Switch
  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5
  • MLB The Show 2021 on Xbox Series
  • Nioh on PS4 in Japan
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4
  • Wolverine on PS5
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch
  • Mario Vs. Rabbids on Switch in the US
 

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
I don't believe we know if Nintendo co-owns Fire Emblem or Kirby though. At the very least Intelligent Systems are able to register Fire Emblem trademarks without Nintendo being involved, which suggested to me that they fully own the Fire Emblem IP (but not fully own the rights to each Fire Emblem game). Therefore with your definition Fire Emblem Three Houses is a 2nd party game as its developed be an outside developer and its the developer not the publisher that own the franchise IP.

I agree with you that Horizon on PC (and other Sony games) not first party releases. They are third party releases since Sony is not the platform holder on PC.

To help us understand each other, how would you clarify the following releases (using your first, second or third party system) at the time of release:

  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Switch
  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5
  • MLB The Show 2021 on Xbox Series
  • Nioh on PS4 in Japan
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4
  • Wolverine on PS5
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch
  • Mario Vs. Rabbids on Switch in the US
But thats the point.We dont know. So if we look at the fact that games like FE, Kirby, etc never left Nintendo hardwaresin over 25+ years(other than the mobile initiatives that were spearheaded by Nintendo and blessed/co-deceloped by them), its safe to assume that Nintendo owns said IPs in some capacity, which would make them fall under the first party category.


  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One - First Party if MS owns IP
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Switch - Third party by definition
  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5 - First Party if Sony own the IP
  • MLB The Show 2021 on Xbox Series - Third psrty by definition
  • Nioh on PS4 in Japan - Third party as Bandai owns it.
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US - Third party as Bandai owns it.
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4 - First party(Complicated because of who owns what part of Spiderman IP regarding comic and movies, but it seems that Sony has the final say in games)
  • Wolverine on PS5 - Hard to say without knowing more on how the deal went through, but Im assuming that this would be an example of second party, as this game would be exclusive to Sony, but Marvel can do what it wants after the game.
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch - Second party.Game is exclusive, but IP can go anywhere for next games.
  • Mario Vs. Rabbids on Switch in the US - First party, because the IP depends on the Mario side, and as such will never be anywhere else.

But like we have been talking:Given that Sony and MS is willing to publish their games outside of their ecosystem, we will probably need to revisit the definitions of first and third party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssringo

Velius

Member
Dec 22, 2016
1,024
1,401
505
I can appreciate strategic releasing but Nintendo is getting really bad with it. They have the Prime trilogy ready to go. Why not just give it to us? Jesus
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
But thats the point.We dont know. So if we look at the fact that games like FE, Kirby, etc never left Nintendo hardwaresin over 25+ years(other than the mobile initiatives that were spearheaded by Nintendo and blessed/co-deceloped by them), its safe to assume that Nintendo owns said IPs in some capacity, which would make them fall under the first party category.




But like we have been talking:Given that Sony and MS is willing to publish their games outside of their ecosystem, we will probably need to revisit the definitions of first and third party.
This what I mean by your definition complicating things rather than simplifying things:

  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5 - First Party if Sony own the IP
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US - Third party as Bandai owns it.
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4 - First party(Complicated because of who owns what part of Spiderman IP regarding comic and movies, but it seems that Sony has the final say in games)
  • Wolverine on PS5 - Hard to say without knowing more on how the deal went through, but Im assuming that this would be an example of second party, as this game would be exclusive to Sony, but Marvel can do what it wants after the game.
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch - Second party.Game is exclusive, but IP can go anywhere for next games.
All these games are titles where a platform holder is publishing a game where they don't own the IP. But under your system you say one is third party, one is second party, two are first party and one we can't even tell. Also we don't know that Marvel can't go anywhere for future Spiderman titles and that MLB can't go anywhere for future baseball titles, so by your definition we can't call Spiderman, Spiderman Mile Morales, Spiderman 2 or any MLB release first party games.

We also have Mario Vs. Rabbids (a game developed by Ubisoft, published by Ubisoft and using a Ubisoft IP) labelled as first party because it also uses the Mario IP.

Whereas if we use mine/Nintendo's definition things are far simpler:
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Switch - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • MLB The Show 2021 on Xbox Series - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • Nioh on PS4 in Japan - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Wolverine on PS5 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Mario Vs. Rabbids on Switch in the US - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
(by the way I appreciate you taking the time to do these detailed replies)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Withnail

Nautilus

Member
Feb 3, 2021
191
246
225
This what I mean by your definition complicating things rather than simplifying things:


All these games are titles where a platform holder is publishing a game where they don't own the IP. But under your system you say one is third party, one is second party, two are first party and one we can't even tell. Also we don't know that Marvel can't go anywhere for future Spiderman titles and that MLB can't go anywhere for future baseball titles, so by your definition we can't call Spiderman, Spiderman Mile Morales, Spiderman 2 or any MLB release first party games.

We also have Mario Vs. Rabbids (a game developed by Ubisoft, published by Ubisoft and using a Ubisoft IP) labelled as first party because it also uses the Mario IP.

Whereas if we use mine/Nintendo's definition things are far simpler:
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Ori and the Blind Forest on Switch - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • MLB The Show 2021 on PS5 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • MLB The Show 2021 on Xbox Series - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • Nioh on PS4 in Japan - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
  • Nioh on PS4 in the US - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Spiderman 2018 on PS4 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Wolverine on PS5 - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Marvel Ultimate Alliance on Switch - First Party - published by platform holder
  • Mario Vs. Rabbids on Switch in the US - Third Party - NOT published by platform holder
(by the way I appreciate you taking the time to do these detailed replies)
Well, I honestly find your definition more confusing, because in the name of simplification, you end up "throwing" away several pieces of information that, at least for forum dwellers like us, is essencial.Like who actually owns what, who are the parties that receives the money, etc.Who are the relevant parties who actually have the final say on where the game ends up being published, etc.

I guess this is a neverending discussion, given that this subject is very subjective, especially since there are a shitton of exceptions to the rules we ourselves imposed. I will keep calling games like Bayonetta 2 and 3 second party, because I feel like it better explains the situation said games are in.
 

Woopah

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,867
2,078
410
Well, I honestly find your definition more confusing, because in the name of simplification, you end up "throwing" away several pieces of information that, at least for forum dwellers like us, is essencial.Like who actually owns what, who are the parties that receives the money, etc.Who are the relevant parties who actually have the final say on where the game ends up being published, etc.

I guess this is a neverending discussion, given that this subject is very subjective, especially since there are a shitton of exceptions to the rules we ourselves imposed. I will keep calling games like Bayonetta 2 and 3 second party, because I feel like it better explains the situation said games are in.
But that's the the simplicity of Nintendo's system. There almost no exceptions (the only one I can think of are that Pokémon games are published by the Pokémon Company in Japan). There aren't any other exceptions apart from that.

Whereas your system is more confusing because, as you said, there are the shitton of exceptions to the rules that you yourself have imposed. In terms of "who actually owns what, who are the parties that receives the money, etc. Who are the relevant parties who actually have the final say on where the game ends up being published", Bayonetta 3 and Spiderman 2018 are pretty much exactly the same. So why is one first party and one second party? Your system requires making complete guesses based on details that will likely never be made public.
 

Fortress of Regrets

Neo Member
Dec 7, 2020
41
84
135
I hope get number 3 one day and it isn't left to die/become vapor ware. I loved Bayonetta 2 which I consider an improvement over the already very good original.
 
Last edited:

killatopak

Member
Aug 29, 2013
14,945
5,437
915
Bayo is First Party.

I’ve pretty much argued the same thing on the the Returnal Thread a while back and the examples I gave were how Nintendo viewed them as such. I don’t want to post it all again so that’s my opinion on this party issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Withnail and Woopah

Withnail

Member
Dec 16, 2009
4,017
524
990
Bayo 2 and 3 are first party productions with a licensed IP. It's not complicated. Anybody calling it a moneyhat is clueless, sorry.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
13,801
5,783
1,745
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
If we say that 2nd party is a subset of 1st party, then I would agree with that statement. If someone says that Bayonetta 3 and Nioh (outside Japan) are both 2nd party games and 1st party games, then I have no issue with that. What I don't agree with is saying that Bayonetta 3 isn't a first party game when Nintendo themselves tell us that it is.
Yes, 2nd party is a subset of 1st party. 1st party games are the games published by the platform holder. 2nd party games are the games published by the platform holder but developed by a 3rd party studio they don't own.

Sometimes the 1st party publishes the 2nd party game in a certain region or platform instead of making it everywhere, and sometimes the IP of the 2nd party game is owned by the 1st party (Luigi's Mansion, Bloodborne, Death Stranding) or by a 3rd party (Nioh, Bayonetta, etc).