Topic: Who truly is a Nintendo first party? (plus boring Rev FAQ)

[Pale]

I'm normally not one to read or promote IGN but their Revolution FAQ has a seriously interesting part in it.

I have often been confused when people refer to R&D1 or EAD etc, but the FAQ includes a really interesting breakdown of what each section of the company does.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p4.html

That links right to page 4 where it starts.

I just thought it was a really interesting read and I wanted to make a thread because maybe some of the people out there that already know about this stuff can confirm that what IGN said is true, or point to a better source for this info.

[mantidor]

The confusing companies are Intelligent Systems and Retro, are they first or second party? Given the fact that Intellignet System was born from R&D1 and Retro is fully owned by Nintendo Id say they are first party, but Im honestly not sure.

[jasonditz]

Its a pretty blurry line, IMO. Like Nintendo owns a small chunk of Bandai, does that make Bandai a second party?

[The Omen]

No, because a second party is exclusive to Nintendo. (And perhaps 100% funded by Nintendo) I believe Nintendo owns the most stock in Bandai, but not a controlling percentage.  

[jasonditz]

But then, what's the difference between a second party and a first party? Why is say, Retro considered a second party and HAL considered a first party?  

[Pale]

I would consider Retro a first party as well.

[denjet78]

Okay, let me see if I can sum this up for those who still don't get it -

1st party: Completely owned and funded by Nintendo, meaning 51% stock or more. Includes but is not limited to: Retro, NST, Intelligent Systems, R&D1, HAL. There are no contracts. They are wholy owned by Nintendo.

2nd party: Under contract to create games EXCLUSIVELY for Nintendo hardware, meaning they cannot make games for anyone else. However, they are not owned by Nintendo (IE: Rare stock owned by Nintendo was only 49% which was not a controlling share). Funding and such is determined by said contract. All games made by 2nd parties remain Nintendo exclusive while under contract.

3rd party: Any external game developer. They may make certain exclusive titles or even work exclusively for Nintendo but are never under contract for complete exclusivity. The most well known case of 3rd party exclusivity being SquareSoft during the 8/16bit generations.

Right now I'm not aware of any Nintendo 2nd parties. They've only got 1st and 3rd parties. And also, as far as I know, they are the only console manufacturer that ever used 2nd party agreements. If I am wrong please correct me.

[ruby_onix]

Quote
But then, what's the difference between a second party and a first party? Why is say, Retro considered a second party and HAL considered a first party?

Here's a tip for you. "Second party" is a made up term.

Either Nintendo or the media made it up when Nintendo announced their partnership with Rare in the late-SNES days. It's a "buzzword".

There's just first party and third party. That's it. No more. (Or if you would like to know the secret, the second party is/was you.)

What we currently call a "second party" is just a third party that's acting as a "partner" of the first party. It's exact definition keeps shifting around, because it's not real, and has no solid foundation.

The current most popular definition is that a second party has less than 50% ownership/investment by the first party (which we don't always know about, like, does Nintendo still own Silicon Knights stock?), because more than 50% ownership would mean absolute control, making them "first party", and the presence of an exclusivity contract (and since when do we know the exact details of Nintendo's contracts?).

[Terranigma Freak]

WTF is IGN smoking? They have Intelligent Systems listed as working on Fire Emblem 3-7... when it's actually 1-9.

[jasonditz]

I'm more confused than ever about the distinction now. PGC lists Hudson as a 2nd party for Nintendo, when they not only release games for the PS2 and Xbox, but are also majority owned by Konami.

[ThePerm]

hudson  makes games on other systems...they jsuth vae really good ties with nintendo....

lol and maybe namco is letting bandai buy it so it can sell its stock to nintendo and give nintendo a controlling percent of the company lol...cus bandai didn't want to be taken over....

[jasonditz]

Nintendo does own a small percentage of Hudson... I guess Mario Party is also a way a throwing a profitable bone to a financially struggling company that's always supported Nintendo systems. I mean, we had a bomberman game (of sorts) even on the Virtual Boy.

Hopefully since Konami stepped up and got ahold of them they can keep some of their venerable franchises alive. I'd kill for a new Milon's Secret Castle. Better still, maybe some of those good ties between Hudson and Nintendo can rub off and we don't have to drag Konami kicking and screaming into making a console game for Nintendo that isn't total crap.

[FFantasyFX]

Terranigma Freak:

Nintendo R&D1 made the first two Fire Emblem games.  Of course, ex-R&D1 employees eventually founded Intelligent Systems, and Nintendo formed a partnership and then bought out the new company.  At some point, Nintendo exclusively handed the franchise off to Intelligent Systems.  It makes sense that it occurred with Fire Emblem 3, since R&D1 was focusing on the GameBoy at the time.  A lot of people often get confused about who created what, and it doesn't help that R&D1 and Intelligent Systems collaborated on games later on down the line.  Super Metroid was directed and designed by R&D1, but Intelligent Systems programmed the title, for instance.  The two companies are closely interlinked, but they are not the same.

Also, I'm pretty sure Nintendo owns a small stake in Hudson, and they do have a 2nd-party like agreement on the Mario Party titles.  It'll be interesting to see what happens to Mario Party now that Konami has completely bought out Hudson.

[Deguello]

They really should keep Mario Party around.  It continues to sell at least a million each year.

[Terranigma Freak]

FFantasyFX, Intelligent Systems have been making Fire Emblem games since the very first game. R&D 1 was only HELPING IS at first. Just cause R&D1 helped them doesn't mean IS didn't create it.

[Ian Sane]

"They really should keep Mario Party around. It continues to sell at least a million each year."

That's Nintendo logic.  You're putting short term profit over future marketshare and public image.  Mario Party may continue to sell but it's damaging to Nintendo's image.  Mario Party is the ultimate fuel for Nintendo critics to accuse them of rehashing.  Mario also no longer sells consoles because he's overexposed and Nintendo can never fix this problem if they continue to release Mario Party titles.  Mario needs to take a break for a little while and then go back to only one spinoff a year.  They can't do that if they keep releasing Mario Party titles.  Plus canning Mario Party would send the message that Nintendo is changing for the better.  Sure they would lose an annual best seller but a Nintendo that doesn't milk sequels to all hell would have a much better public image and would sell more console which would mean more million sellers in the long run.

I think Nintendo should make one ultimate Mario Party game for the Rev with online play.  They should make it a greatest hits affair where they combine all of the most popular mini-games from all the Mario Party games into one title.  Then they should leave the series alone until their next console.  That way they end the series on a high note, have the flexibility to bring it back if there's public demand, and by only released one mega Mario Party game they don't look like they're rehashing redundent sequels over and over again.  They could turn Mario Party from a Madden style annual rehash into a Mario Kart style one-a-console series.

[jasonditz]

Why not go an extra step and not release any Mario games at all? Think how much that would help Nintendo's image?

For all the complaining you do about there not being enough third party support for the Cube I can't believe you honestly think cutting one of the better selling third party exclusives will "sell more hardware".

Since Nintendo is not making Mario Party at the expense of other titles, but rather handed it off to a troubled third party that does a pretty good job and really needs the money. and the thing continues to sell well, there's no good reason not to keep releasing them. You kill the series and not only do you lose a popular, best selling title that a lot of people are apparently buying religiously: you also run the risk of killing Hudson, or at least pissing them off to the point that they run into Sony's arms.

 

[Don'tHate742]

I agree with Ian to a point. Nintendo needs to stop making rehashes/sequels.

There are many talented devs out there, but most get stuck with sequels which barely allow any creativity.

New IP's are so important. They are the games that become Killer Apps. They are the games that come out of nowhere and dominate. Nintendo HAS some of the best devs. in the world. That talent is going to waste on games like Mario BaseBall, or Pokemon Colloseum.

Nintendo is a company, which means profits come first, but sooner or later the market is going to be well saturated if they keep this up.

I would invest time in new games, then every once and awhile release a Mario platformer for nostalgia.  

[WesDawg]

I like the Mario Party games. They're fun. I don't mind that a new one comes out every year, and I don't think the general population does either, any more than the general population cares that a new Madden comes out every year. Last years edition added a lot of new stuff I thought too. The gaming press tries to kinda rag on 'em, but really, does the gaming press mean anything in the real world. No.

[IceCold]

"They really should keep Mario Party around. It continues to sell at least a million each year"

No. Just no. I agree wholeheartedly with Ian on this one. They're milking Mario for every penny he's worth, and he's an Italian plumber, so he's broke right now. The sports games are good, yes, but they dilute his character so much more. There is no anticipation for the next "true" Mario title, and Mario is losing his magic. The Party games just further this.

As Miyamoto said, it used to be that people said "Ah.." when they heard a new Mario was coming out. Now they say "Oh.." A lot of this has to do with the brand dilution caused by all of the damn spinoffs. It DOES and WILL come back to haunt Nintendo, and for the Revolution, I hope they minimize these games. I don't care whether they sell a million every year, it hurts Nintendo in the long term.

The best thing about the Party games is that they benefit Hudson, but still, it's not worth it.  

[Mario]

Hey, I love Mario Party, I love that they release new versions so often. I REALLY like Ian's idea of the ultimate Mario Party though. My friends and I when we play Mario Party talk about our dream Mario Party game, and it's pretty much every minigame/board/character from every game combined into one huge game, but that hasn't really been possible on GameCube, i'm hoping the Revolution storage would be big enough to hold all, I think it should, and also the graphics don't have to be super awesome or anything, because it's Mario Party, but damn.. if they released the ultimate Mario Party game on Revolution it'd be HUGE! Maybe if they wanted to milk it more they could have downloadable mini-games? Hmm, actually no, I'm against that idea. =P

Where was I? I don't know, but keep Mario Party around, because it's fun.