Will Rareware leave? New info and speculation - Page 3

Ric · 03-29-2002, 07:57 PM

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 · 03-29-2002, 07:59 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-29-2002, 07:59 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Ric · 03-29-2002, 08:08 PM

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

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 · 03-29-2002, 08:09 PM

Quote:

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?