Will Rareware leave? New info and speculation

[Xantar]

This will probably be my last post in the GameCube forum for a while, just so you know.

I have previously stated that I firmly do not believe Rareware will stop being a Nintendo 2nd party. After reading some information, I have modified that position. But before you jump to any conclusions, read the rest of this post.

Is Rareware going to remain exclusive to Nintendo?

IGN asked this very question to Perrin Kaplan in an interview (Insider only). I will not be quoting them directly in this post, but I will paraphrase some of the points brought up.

Anyway, IGN asked if Rareware will remain exclusive to Nintendo "for the foreseeable future" by which they specifically stated that they meant "for the next few years." Perrin Kaplan's answer was a yes, and she repeated the "for the foreseeable future" phrase. She didn't say that it would be for the next few years, but I think what we can draw from this is that as far as we are concerned, Rareware is squarely in Nintendo's camp.

Will Rareware eventually turn third party?

Whoa, slow down a bit. We'll have to define what the term "third party" means in this context.

Ok. What's a third party?

For our purposes, a third party developer is a company that develops games for a system but does not have its games published by the maker of the system. Some third parties publish their own games (e.g. Capcom, Sega, EA). Some third parties have their games published by somebody other than the console manufacturer (e.g. Squaresoft whose games are published by EA).

Note that this does not have any implications for the exclusitivity of the company's games. So while Squaresoft is a third party, its games were exclusive to Sony platforms (until recently). Similarly, Factor 5 is a third party that develops exclusively for Nintendo platforms (if you don't bring LucasArts into the picture).

So a second party is a developer whose games are published by the console manufacturer?

Correct. If you look at the credits for Halo, for example, you will see that it is developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. Publishing is not something most developers can do. It requires lots of resources to purchase game media and marketing, among other things. This is why second parties have tended to be small, focused companies (although this is not always true). They don't have a marketing department, for example.

Of course, if you are a console manufacturer and you are making a deal to spend all this money distributing and marketing a game, you want the biggest bang for your buck. So, when Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft agree to publish games for their console, they make those games exclusive. They also usually buy a share of the developer, but it is not the partial ownership of the company that makes it a second party. Squaresoft, despite being 19% owned by Sony, is still a third party.

All right. So is Rareware going to be a third party?

Perrin Kaplan and Jim Merrick said that in same ways, Rareware is a third party already. Certain Rareware games have already been published by Rareware (I don't know which games, though). Some Rareware games are still published by Nintendo. In that sense, Rareware is a sort of "second and a half" party.

As to what they do in the future, nobody really knows. However, it must be kept in mind that Rareware started out as a very small company and has now grown to over 200 employees. That's still small compared to, say, Capcom, but it's pretty darn big nonetheless. The goals of a small company and the goals of a large company are very different things. Rareware has some clout now, and they may want to exercise it. So they just might decide that they want to publish all their games. Perrin Kaplan indicated that Rareware is not quite capable of doing this yet, but it could happen eventually.

What will it mean if Rareware becomes a third party?

As far as exclusitivity goes, your guess is as good as mine. They may become a Squaresoft or Factor 5 type third party developing for only one platform. They may become a Capcom or Konami type third party developing for all platforms and making some games exclusive to certain platforms. Or they may go the EA and Acclaim route and make all games available on all systems.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Rareware would use the Squaresoft and Factor 5 method. Their association with Nintendo has been good to them. They've gotten state of the art developing facilities, international renown and lots of money. For the foreseeable future, their relationship with Nintendo will be good, and I can't imagine that Rareware won't make some exclusive games for Nintendo. Moreover, unless Rareware hires a lot of new people, they won't have the resources to turn out tons of games. If they want to develop for all consoles, they will have to turn out more than their usual number of games at the cost of quality (which doesn't seem to be their style). On the other hand, if they keep up the quality, they know that they have a ready audience who will snap up their games like hot cakes. They could throw some token games to other consoles, but for the most part, I see Rareware remaining very much a Nintendo supporter.

Nintendo owns the rights to all Rareware franchises, however. Even franchises that weren't started by Nintendo themselves such as Jet Force Gemini and Perfect Dark will belong to Nintendo. Should Rareware become a third party, they will not continue developing games using Nintendo franchises except under special conditions (similar to what Squaresoft did with Mario RPG). All games with those franchises will be done by Nintendo or some other second party.

If you think about it, Nintendo can handle that. They are fully capable of taking on platformers like Banjo Kazooie. Retro Studios can probably develop a good Perfect Dark game (although we should wait for Metroid to come out before setting that conclusion in stone). The only problems I can see will be with gory platformers like Jet Force Gemini or Conker's Bad Fur Day. It's not that Nintendo can't do those games. They can. But they don't want to lose their family friendly image. In a case like that, they may have Rareware do an exclusive game or give it to another third party, depending on the demand.

In any case, Nintendo will probably hold on to its 25% share of Rareware, so we'll continue to see great games from our favorite UK developer on Nintendo platforms.

Will Rareware become a Microsoft second party?

In my opinion, no. Rareware has no reason to let that happen. If they become a third party, it will be because they want to publish their own games. Becoming a Microsoft second party would not give them that. They could potentially do it so that they are allowed to come up with one great game every year as is their practice and let somebody else handle the cost in the meantime. However, if they are big enough to publish their own games, it could be that Rareware will actually be big enough to only make one game a year anyway.

Microsoft can't afford a majority share of Rareware, of that I am fairly certain. They have other developers and even projects other than the Xbox that would be much more profitable.

Also, Perrin Kaplan specifically denied the rumor that Rareware was going to be bought out by Microsoft.

And finally, I have seen the source of the Microsoft buying out Rareware rumor. It was posted at the GA forums as a joke. People ate it up and started taking it seriously, and the originator of that post is now laughing his butt off.

In conclusion: relax, folks. No matter what happens to Rareware, Nintendo fans will most likely continue to see their games and will probably even get exclusive games.

[Ric]

:mad2:RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Why?.... WHY? Do people have this utterly stupid, completly ludicrous and un-plausable thought in their heads, Rareware will NEVER EVER EVER become 3rd party, unless in the highly unlikely event that Nintendo go bust, this of course will never happen, they completly dominate the handheld market and that alone can support a computer game developer.

Rareware are good at teasing people, they do it all the time its... its what makes them English... a sense of humor, and thats all this is, a sence of humour, I am of course referring to the christmas card that started this debate. Calm down people, Rareware are Nintendo's only mentionable development house this side of the pond and both parties intend to keep it that way.

Rare will remain second party, no worries!

[BigJustinW]

Rare already IS a third party.. they are just an exclusive third party like Square used to be.

As long as Rare has the resources to plublish thier own games, the possibility of them developing for another console is a clear and present danger.

The good part is that Nintendo owns all of Rare's big games, if Rare were to develop for another console, it wouldn't be the same Rare.

[BreakABone]

Now you see me..Now you don't

Oddly that part of the interview has been editted out by IGN.. weird

Maybe it struck a nerve with Nintendo or something

[Ginkasa]

Originally posted by BreakABone
Now you see me..Now you don't

Oddly that part of the interview has been editted out by IGN.. weird

Maybe it struck a nerve with Nintendo or something


Yeah, like that part about how its more fun to kill prostitutes than save cute things. I was going to use for my signature but I don't remember what the exact words were....

[GameKinG]

They could become a third party, but why would they want to? They seem pretty happy with nintendo, many of their games sell well and have great respect. These games also happened to be owned by nintendo. So, it seems wise of them to stay.

[Glenn the Hero]

Rareware IS nintendo. Without Rare, nintendo would be not nearly as great as it is now. If Rare leaves, I leave.

But they won't. I'm certain of that. I think the repeating of that "forseeable future" phrase was meant to REASSURE fans, not scare them.

[newname]

Originally posted by BreakABone
Now you see me..Now you don't

Oddly that part of the interview has been editted out by IGN.. weird

Maybe it struck a nerve with Nintendo or something

or maybe it was false!

darn conspiracies i tell u.

[Ric]

Originally posted by BigJustinW
Rare already IS a third party.. they are just an exclusive third party like Square used to be.

Now where in the bloody hell did you get that idea from, Rareware have been second party to Nintendo for nearly half the companies history, brush up on your research my friend.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Ric


Now where in the bloody hell did you get that idea from, Rareware have been second party to Nintendo for nearly half the companies history, brush up on your research my friend.

Maybe you need to read the interview again

[BreakABone]

Well yes Rare could become a 3rd party, but it seems to be a very iill move for the ocmpany at their current stance.

I mean Rare has a reputuion of making excellent games even if they must go through delay after delay. (Just look at SFA which has technically been in development for like 4 years) No 3rd party could really survive the Rare goes. Not only that but they like to push the graphical boundaries which takes both time and money.

Then there comes the small little nuggest that Nintendo owns all of Rare's franchises which would really hurt if they became a 3rd party. I mean even as a 3rd party they would need the rights from Nintendo to make sequels on such games as PD and Conker. I mean most 3rd parties must start from scratch but to be so recognized and not be able to give fans what they want.

[ed328]

Originally posted by Xantar

Ok. What's a third party?

For our purposes, a third party developer is a company that develops games for a system but does not have its games published by the maker of the system.

So a second party is a developer whose games are published by the console manufacturer?

Correct.

That's not necessarily true. Example: Bomberman 64. It was published by Nintendo but this hardly makes Hudson Soft a second party developer. They've also had games published by Sega and Sony too. I think it would be hard to give a concrete definition of a second party. There might be a contract or it could be that a second party is a company that takes direction from the main company like Rare does from Nintendo where a third party gets to make all decisions internally. Maybe Nintendo finances some of their projects and that makes them a second party. But it doesn't really matter how you classify Rare cause all they are working on now are Nintendo games. And if they decide to develop for another console, well Nintendo does own 25% of them so that just means $$$$$.

Extra note: There should be a smiley with dollar signs for the eyes.

[Angrist]

Originally posted by Xantar
This will probably be my last post in the GameCube forum for a while, just so you know.

I have previously stated that I firmly do not believe Rareware will stop being a Nintendo 2nd party. After reading some information, I have modified that position. But before you jump to any conclusions, read the rest of this post.

Is Rareware going to remain exclusive to Nintendo?

IGN asked this very question to Perrin Kaplan in an interview (Insider only). I will not be quoting them directly in this post, but I will paraphrase some of the points brought up.

Anyway, IGN asked if Rareware will remain exclusive to Nintendo "for the foreseeable future" by which they specifically stated that they meant "for the next few years." Perrin Kaplan's answer was a yes, and she repeated the "for the foreseeable future" phrase. She didn't say that it would be for the next few years, but I think what we can draw from this is that as far as we are concerned, Rareware is squarely in Nintendo's camp.

Will Rareware eventually turn third party?

Whoa, slow down a bit. We'll have to define what the term "third party" means in this context.

Ok. What's a third party?

For our purposes, a third party developer is a company that develops games for a system but does not have its games published by the maker of the system. Some third parties publish their own games (e.g. Capcom, Sega, EA). Some third parties have their games published by somebody other than the console manufacturer (e.g. Squaresoft whose games are published by EA).

Note that this does not have any implications for the exclusitivity of the company's games. So while Squaresoft is a third party, its games were exclusive to Sony platforms (until recently). Similarly, Factor 5 is a third party that develops exclusively for Nintendo platforms (if you don't bring LucasArts into the picture).

So a second party is a developer whose games are published by the console manufacturer?

Correct. If you look at the credits for Halo, for example, you will see that it is developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. Publishing is not something most developers can do. It requires lots of resources to purchase game media and marketing, among other things. This is why second parties have tended to be small, focused companies (although this is not always true). They don't have a marketing department, for example.

Of course, if you are a console manufacturer and you are making a deal to spend all this money distributing and marketing a game, you want the biggest bang for your buck. So, when Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft agree to publish games for their console, they make those games exclusive. They also usually buy a share of the developer, but it is not the partial ownership of the company that makes it a second party. Squaresoft, despite being 19% owned by Sony, is still a third party.

All right. So is Rareware going to be a third party?

Perrin Kaplan and Jim Merrick said that in same ways, Rareware is a third party already. Certain Rareware games have already been published by Rareware (I don't know which games, though). Some Rareware games are still published by Nintendo. In that sense, Rareware is a sort of "second and a half" party.

As to what they do in the future, nobody really knows. However, it must be kept in mind that Rareware started out as a very small company and has now grown to over 200 employees. That's still small compared to, say, Capcom, but it's pretty darn big nonetheless. The goals of a small company and the goals of a large company are very different things. Rareware has some clout now, and they may want to exercise it. So they just might decide that they want to publish all their games. Perrin Kaplan indicated that Rareware is not quite capable of doing this yet, but it could happen eventually.

What will it mean if Rareware becomes a third party?

As far as exclusitivity goes, your guess is as good as mine. They may become a Squaresoft or Factor 5 type third party developing for only one platform. They may become a Capcom or Konami type third party developing for all platforms and making some games exclusive to certain platforms. Or they may go the EA and Acclaim route and make all games available on all systems.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that Rareware would use the Squaresoft and Factor 5 method. Their association with Nintendo has been good to them. They've gotten state of the art developing facilities, international renown and lots of money. For the foreseeable future, their relationship with Nintendo will be good, and I can't imagine that Rareware won't make some exclusive games for Nintendo. Moreover, unless Rareware hires a lot of new people, they won't have the resources to turn out tons of games. If they want to develop for all consoles, they will have to turn out more than their usual number of games at the cost of quality (which doesn't seem to be their style). On the other hand, if they keep up the quality, they know that they have a ready audience who will snap up their games like hot cakes. They could throw some token games to other consoles, but for the most part, I see Rareware remaining very much a Nintendo supporter.

Nintendo owns the rights to all Rareware franchises, however. Even franchises that weren't started by Nintendo themselves such as Jet Force Gemini and Perfect Dark will belong to Nintendo. Should Rareware become a third party, they will not continue developing games using Nintendo franchises except under special conditions (similar to what Squaresoft did with Mario RPG). All games with those franchises will be done by Nintendo or some other second party.

If you think about it, Nintendo can handle that. They are fully capable of taking on platformers like Banjo Kazooie. Retro Studios can probably develop a good Perfect Dark game (although we should wait for Metroid to come out before setting that conclusion in stone). The only problems I can see will be with gory platformers like Jet Force Gemini or Conker's Bad Fur Day. It's not that Nintendo can't do those games. They can. But they don't want to lose their family friendly image. In a case like that, they may have Rareware do an exclusive game or give it to another third party, depending on the demand.

In any case, Nintendo will probably hold on to its 25% share of Rareware, so we'll continue to see great games from our favorite UK developer on Nintendo platforms.

Will Rareware become a Microsoft second party?

In my opinion, no. Rareware has no reason to let that happen. If they become a third party, it will be because they want to publish their own games. Becoming a Microsoft second party would not give them that. They could potentially do it so that they are allowed to come up with one great game every year as is their practice and let somebody else handle the cost in the meantime. However, if they are big enough to publish their own games, it could be that Rareware will actually be big enough to only make one game a year anyway.

Microsoft can't afford a majority share of Rareware, of that I am fairly certain. They have other developers and even projects other than the Xbox that would be much more profitable.

Also, Perrin Kaplan specifically denied the rumor that Rareware was going to be bought out by Microsoft.

And finally, I have seen the source of the Microsoft buying out Rareware rumor. It was posted at the GA forums as a joke. People ate it up and started taking it seriously, and the originator of that post is now laughing his butt off.

In conclusion: relax, folks. No matter what happens to Rareware, Nintendo fans will most likely continue to see their games and will probably even get exclusive games. :zzz: :yawn: Huh? Wha???


Sorry... no time!

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by ed328


That's not necessarily true. Example: Bomberman 64. It was published by Nintendo but this hardly makes Hudson Soft a second party developer. They've also had games published by Sega and Sony too. I think it would be hard to give a concrete definition of a second party. There might be a contract or it could be that a second party is a company that takes direction from the main company like Rare does from Nintendo where a third party gets to make all decisions internally. Maybe Nintendo finances some of their projects and that makes them a second party. But it doesn't really matter how you classify Rare cause all they are working on now are Nintendo games. And if they decide to develop for another console, well Nintendo does own 25% of them so that just means $$$$$.

Extra note: There should be a smiley with dollar signs for the eyes.

Exactly...

1st Party Game: Game developed, plublished, and rights owned by console maker

(Mario, almost every Sonic game, Gran Turismo)

2nd Party game: Game with rights owned by console maker, or game plublished by console maker, or both

(Mario RPG, Perfect Dark, Crash Bandicoot 1-3)

3rd party game: Game not plublished by, developed by, or owned by console maker.

(Madden, Street Fighter, WWF Games)

Square, Rare, and Visual concepts have all made 2nd and 3rd party games.... Sega has made 1st and 3rd party games... So how can you label the developers it it's not based off of the games?

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


Exactly...

1st Party Game: Game developed, plublished, and rights owned by console maker

(Mario, almost every Sonic game, Gran Turismo)

2nd Party game: Game with rights owned by console maker, or game plublished by console maker, or both

(Mario RPG, Perfect Dark, Crash Bandicoot 1-3)

3rd party game: Game not plublished by, developed by, or owned by console maker.

(Madden, Street Fighter, WWF Games)

Square, Rare, and Visual concepts have all made 2nd and 3rd party games.... Sega has made 1st and 3rd party games... So how can you label the developers it it's not based off of the games?

Argh all so confusing.. so very very confusing

I'm not too sure on this but isn't Mario Tennis a 3rd party game or is that a 2nd party game developed by a 3rd party team?

Argh this stuff is not as cut and dry as I thought.

[Yoda9864]

Well, he is my take on the different "parties" (and yes, this is way over-simplified):

1st party: The company that owns the console
2nd party: A company that has some sort of contract thingy that forces them to develop exclusively for a console
3rd party: A company that is totally independant and that can take it's games where-ever they want when-ever they want

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Yoda9864
Well, he is my take on the different "parties" (and yes, this is way over-simplified):

1st party: The company that owns the console
2nd party: A company that has some sort of contract thingy that forces them to develop exclusively for a console
3rd party: A company that is totally independant and that can take it's games where-ever they want when-ever they want

Under your definition, Rare is a third party because they can plublish thier own games... Plus they have no contract with Nintendo to make thier games exclusive. (even though the franchises they use have to stay exclusive)

But like I said before, I think it comes down to the games... there is a crystal clear difference between a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party game... but a developer can develop all three types of games at the same... NBA 2k2, and Sonic can be labeld as 2nd party (for Dreamcast) and third party (for Gamecube) games. So what "party" is Sega in?

[Shadow_Link]

BJW, you are talking complete and utter crap, how was sonic for Dc a 2nd party game?

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


Under your definition, Rare is a third party because they can plublish thier own games... Plus they have no contract with Nintendo to make thier games exclusive. (even though the franchises they use have to stay exclusive)

But like I said before, I think it comes down to the games... there is a crystal clear difference between a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party game... but a developer can develop all three types of games at the same... NBA 2k2, and Sonic can be labeld as 2nd party (for Dreamcast) and third party (for Gamecube) games. So what "party" is Sega in?
No by Yoda's definition Rare would be a 3rd party. I think a company owning about 50% of another company is pretty close to a contractual obliagation.

And even though Rare could publish their own games really don't mean they can take it anywhere they went. Like you said Nintendo opwns pretty much all their franchises, so you can't expect Rare to make PD0 or Banjo and take it to the Ps2 or X-Box.

Sonic for DC was a first party game. The game was made by Sega. Sonic Team is a development house of Sega of Japan. The 2k2 were a 2nd party game because Visual Concepts to my knowledge aren't really part of Sega's core 9 teams. I could be wrong.

[Professor S]

I believe Red Lobster owns the other 50% of Rareware, look for Perfect Dark Zero to come with a side of Popcorn Shrimp and a Diet Coke.

WHAT? :confused:

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
BJW, you are talking complete and utter crap,

Uncalled for

how was sonic for Dc a 2nd party game?

It isn't, I mean NBA 2k2...

but anyway, Sonic adventure 2 on one system is a 1st party game, and on another system is a 3rd party game... so what type of developer is Sega?

[Shadow_Link]

Sorry about that comment, got carried away by the heat of the moment :D

PLEASE FORGIVE ME!:eek:

Oh, you may have been referring ONLY to NBA 2k2, but you clearly typed:

NBA 2k2, and Sonic can be labeld as 2nd party (for Dreamcast)

Anyway, you made a typo, lets just leave it at that :D.

In answer to your pending question, Sega WAS a first party, and is NOW a third party. Your point?

[Ridley]

Originally posted by BigJustinW
but anyway, Sonic adventure 2 on one system is a 1st party game, and on another system is a 3rd party game... so what type of developer is Sega?

At the time of it's release on DC, Sega was a first party developer. When it was released on GCN they were and still are a 3rd party developer. I don't see what logic you trying to get from that. You're talking about two different situations at two different times and trying to create a confusion out of them. That would be like me saying Canada was once under British rule many years ago and now is an independantly run country. So what does that make Canada, independant or under British rule? Unless I misunderstood your meaning.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Ridley


At the time of it's release on DC, Sega was a first party developer. When it was released on GCN they were and still are a 3rd party developer. I don't see what logic you trying to get from that. You're talking about two different situations at two different times and trying to create a confusion out of them. That would be like me saying Canada was once under British rule many years ago and now is an independantly run country. So what does that make Canada, independant or under British rule? Unless I misunderstood your meaning.

Uh, Sega was still making Games for Dreamcast AFTER they made games for Ps2 and GCN...

Other Examples:

Square made Mario RPG and Final Fantasy

Capcom made Zelda and Street fighter

Camelot made Mario Golf and Hot Shots golf

[Shadow_Link]

BJW, I fail to see the point you are trying to make here? :confused:

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


Uh, Sega was still making Games for Dreamcast AFTER they made games for Ps2 and GCN...

Other Examples:

Square made Mario RPG and Final Fantasy

Capcom made Zelda and Street fighter

Camelot made Mario Golf and Hot Shots golf

Well that is easy.

The first game behind each of the companies you listed is a 2nd party game made by a 3rd party developer.

the second is a 3rd party game made by a 3rd party.

[Ridley]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


Uh, Sega was still making Games for Dreamcast AFTER they made games for Ps2 and GCN...

Yeah never mind what I said, I was thinking that Sonic 2 was released BEFORE it was announced that Sega was going multi-platform.

;)

And I also still don't see your point

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by BreakABone


Well that is easy.

The first game behind each of the companies you listed is a 2nd party game made by a 3rd party developer.

the second is a 3rd party game made by a 3rd party.

So what's a 2nd party developer?

[BigJustinW]

Ridley, Link... my point is that developers can't be classified in parties... but games can be.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Ric
Right this is annoying me now, BJW I may not hold a position of power here at GT but I feel I speak for the people when I say SHUT THE HELL UP.

lol, you really think teling me to shut up will stop me from talking?

Stop acting like a child, I respect the opinions and views expressed by everyone however this has got way out of hand, can we get back on topic please,

How am I off topic?

oh wait, RAREWARE ARE SECOND PARTY EXCLUSIVE TO NINTENDO and thats all there is to it, The End.

Just like in the SNES days when Square was called a Nintendo 2nd party and they were exclusive to Nintendo?

-EDIT-

Why did you delete that post?

[Ric]

In my haste I posted this in the wrong place, trying to talk to two people send 3 e-mails and post at the same time I got confused, hence the fact I have now deleted that post.

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by BigJustinW
Ridley, Link... my point is that developers can't be classified in parties... but games can be.

Oh, I see now, that actually makes a bit of sense there.

But to play devils advocate, couldn't people use these terms for the developers at ceratin periods in their cycle of existence?

For example, right now, would you agree with me that Nintendo are a first party? What if, say 10 years down the line, something happens, and Nintendo no longer make consoles, in ither words, go the way of sega. They would actuallyno longer be a 1st party. But rather, something else.

Unless ofcourse you say that Nintendo 'games' are first party, and the company itself as developers cannot be defined as a particular party?

[C.H]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


Just like in the SNES days when Square was called a Nintendo 2nd party and they were exclusive to Nintendo?

-EDIT-

Why did you delete that post?

lol, this is actaully quite funny, Ric's post is in the X-BOX forum as well. He just told me he posted it in the wrong place, so when he says your a little of topic, he meant in another thread. I was just laughing reading that, seeing as i know he made a mistake. His post fits in a little better in the other thread.



:D, well done Ric, well done. You made a bit of a mistake there.

[Ric]

Aaww crap, my first mistake, BUGGER.

I dont recall Squaresoft ever being 2nd party... nope they never were. They just... I dunno... liked the SNES I guess:unsure:

But this is about Rareware, they are second party, they never used to be, but that was in the days when they were known as 'Ultimate' since then however they have changed their name, stood up and Nintendo has recognised them and taken them under wing.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link


Oh, I see now, that actually makes a bit of sense there.

But to play devils advocate, couldn't people use these terms for the developers at ceratin periods in their cycle of existence?

For example, right now, would you agree with me that Nintendo are a first party? What if, say 10 years down the line, something happens, and Nintendo no longer make consoles, in ither words, go the way of sega. They would actuallyno longer be a 1st party. But rather, something else.

Unless ofcourse you say that Nintendo 'games' are first party, and the company itself as developers cannot be defined as a particular party?

You got my point, I think...

If Nintendo wanted to, they could go out and develop a game for whatever system they wanted to... so tomorrow, they could make a 3rd party game...

or, if Nintendo didn't want to plublish it, I'm sure Sony would, so tomorrow, Nintendo could make a 2nd Party game...

or, tomorrow that could make a 1st party game.

Console makers are the only ones allowed to make 1st party games.... all other developers can make 2nd and 3rd party games... but it all depends on resources...

So, in conclusion, developers can't be labeled as any type of developer... while games all have a clear label as a 1st 2nd or 3rd party game...

get my point?