Talk:List of Nintendo developers

Camelot Software Planning
They're listed as a current second party developer, but there's no source. I changed Template:Nintendo developers to agree with this page as far as Camelot is concerned. What should be done until there's proof that they are or aren't second party? I think leaving it the way it was is best until a source is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.91.197 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They should stay as Second Party until we have official word of anything otherwise. To those concerned, First and Second Party developers are allowed to have games published by Third Parties. Brownie Brown is a good example of this. 75.137.123.122 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An Explanation of the Revisions
I recently made a few revisions and updates to the present article, the most I made since first creating the page, but as I didn't feel the necessity to give an explanation for each edit, the page was reverted. As such, I feel that I should explain the edits.

1. What is a First Party Developer? There exists some disagreement as to what constitutes a first party developer. Some feel that it is a studio in which a publishing company has a majority share in, others feel that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary. Unfortunately a Google search isn't particularly helpful in figuring an accurate definition, linking only to the short Wikipedia article, which defines a first party studio as one that is wholly owned by the publishing arm (no source is given for the definition). Assuming this is true, it eliminates developer NDCube, which is actually a joint venture and as such cannot be wholly owned studio, from being a first party developer. Furthermore, it lends confusion to the status of Nintendo-funded development studios such as Brownie Brown, who's most recent game, Heroes of Mana was actually published by Square-Enix--as a first party studio of Nintendo, shouldn't Nintendo be the publisher? Since Wikipedia becomes the default source to define a first party developer, I would like to abide by that definition, but that removes NDCube and Brownie Brown, as they are not wholly owned subsidiaries. As such, the alternative definition works better, and thus Monolith Soft is listed as a first party studio.

2. NDCube Aside from questioning the first party status of NDCube, there exists the question of whether the studio still exists. Their last released game was way back in 2003, and their website contains a copyright for 2005. No game has since been announced from the studio for either the Wii or DS, leading me to believe that the studio had become defunct. Without having any sources to back me up, clearly I jumped the shark on listing it as defunct, but how can a "first party" not have a single game even announced in the past four years?

3. EAD Tokyo Due to the name being EAD Tokyo rather than EAD, and its home in Tokyo rather than Kyoto, some people regard EAD Tokyo as separate from flagship Nintendo EAD, but I do not see that as being the case. A look at the N-Sider.com article that is considered the primary source of this article reveals 5 teams under the Nintendo EAD banner, one of which is listed as being the developers of Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat--which most will recognize as being the first EAD Tokyo release. Additionally, EAD Tokyo's wiki article is simply redirected to EAD's article in general, and as such I eliminated EAD Tokyo from being listed as an additional developer.

4. Nintendo SPD As developers of the Metroid series of handheld games (Zero Mission, Fusion), co-developers of the Wario Ware series of games, developer of all upcoming Wii Channels, and in charge of overseeing development of games by overseas teams (Battalion Wars, Metroid Prime), Nintendo SPD is an important component of Nintendo's teams, and as such is added to the list.

5. Nintendo Integrated Research and Development Defunct following Nintendo restructuring. Furthermore, this list is focused on software developers, while IRD designed hardware-the sole exception is the creation of Punch-Out when they were known as R&D 3. Listed, but as a defunct first party.

6. What is a Second Party If trying to accurately define what a first party is difficult, attempting to define exactly what constitutes a second party developer is near impossible. Every definition gives examples of a party developer without actually defining the term. The current definition on this page states that a second party studio "is under agreement to create games exclusively for Nintendo systems." Without having a better definition at hand, I abide to this definition, but that raises issue for the status of some developers currently listed as being second party studios.

7. Camelot Software Planning Being the lead developers of the Golden Sun RPG on the Game Boy and the Mario series of sports, Camelot was long considered to be a second party of Nintendo-which makes sense, seeing as how all there titles were published by the Big N itself. Recently, however, Camelot announced I Love Golf for the PC (recently canceled, however) and Minna no Golf for Sony's PSP. Even their first Wii Game, We Love Golf, is being published by Capcom, not Nintendo. As such, Camelot is now listed as a former second party developer.

8. Nexon Corporation Nexon isn't a second party developer for Nintendo. They have simply announced that Maple Story DS is under development. Removed.

9. Fuse Games From their website, under the profile section: "Fuse Games Limited is an independent games developer based in the UK". Kind of hard being an independent developer and a second party studio. Relisted as an exclusive third party studio.

10. Skip Ltd. Like Fuse Games, they have worked closely with Nintendo, but are actually independent developers. This Cubed3 interview has the interviewer asking if they will develop for Microsoft or Sony at some point, which wouldn't be possible if they were a second party studio. Relisted as being exclusive third party.

11. Nibris Until they can deliver an actual product to the market, Nibris does not exist. Removed.

12. Seta Corporation Kind of hard to be a Nintendo exclusive 3rd Party if your upcoming title is for the Xbox 360. Removed.

13. Tose According to Wiki's article on them, Tose's developed games are all for Nintendo platforms, except for a single PS2 game. Unfortunately, that exception makes the rule, and eliminates Tose from being considered a Nintendo exclusive studio, in addition to working on all systems.

14. Wayforward Technologies Shouldn't be Nintendo exclusive, as they have developed games for Sega systems and the PC. Relisted under non-exclusive third party.

15. Vicarious Visions Develops across all systems, not at the same level of relationship to Nintendo as other 3rd parties listed, and thus removed.

Without actually being involved at Nintendo, or in the gaming business for that matter, I can't be fully sure of these changes, but I did do as much research as possible to be as accurate as possible. I will be making the above changes-if there are any disagreements, please list them on the talk page before editing the entry. Thanks. Digiwrld1 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is all fine and dandy to me, ACCEPT Camelot. There is no where that states a Second Party studio cannot develope a title published under a different publisher, IE the old Factor 5. They still retain their contract with Nintendo, but are simply publishing this game with Capcom. They even said that they are intrested in Golden Sun 3 if Nintendo was. So I am putting them back under 2nd Party. 75.137.114.42 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's two problems with doing that, as it currently stands: first, every second party that is listed, either current or former, was published by Nintendo-the sole exception to this was the title Cubivore and was published by Atlus in the U.S. Even then, the title was published by Nintendo for its Japan release. Second, and more importantly, is the fact Camelot is developing Hot Shots Golf Portable for the Sony PSP-if a second party developer is under contract to develop exclusively for Nintendo systems, how are they developing for the PSP as well? This is why I had Camelot listed as a former second party, although they may have a unique agreement with Nintendo or something.


 * Perhaps Camelot isn't a second party to Nintendo per se, but Nintendo owns the IP rights to the Golden Sun franchise? That would account for Camelot waiting for 'Nintendo's go'. Let me know what you think. -Digiwrld1 09:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Integrated Research & Development Still Exists, Skip ltd., Nexon, etc.
Integrated Research & Development still exists. They are known as "Research & Development," now, however. Of course, I believe they strictly work on hardware. Anyway, proof here from the Developer's Talk Everybody Votes Channel: http://us.wii.com/story_vote.jsp

Additionally, skip ltd. are certainly still a Nintendo second-party. Kenichi Nishi, in that same interview, notes that Nintendo will continue to work with skip ltd. on titles they make. I think whomever edited it to say skip is a Nintendo exclusive developer jumped the gun, and likely misconstrued the comment. Keep in mind that, also, the interviewer may have been confused regarding skip's status with Nintendo.

Finally, Nexon have, as far as I know, announced a partnership with Nintendo, but that does not designate them as a Nintendo second-party.

Also, a question regarding Kuju London. Are they funded by/were they founded through Nintendo in some capacity? I'd just like to know the back-story regarding that. Which titles have Kuju London worked on besides the Battalion Wars series? Their website states that they have three titles in development for a first-party publisher (Nintendo, obviously), two of which being unannounced (with the announced one being Battalion Wars II). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Validspace (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Natsume is incorrect
In the "Not Exclusive" category, Natsume is listed as the creator of the Harvest Moon games. This is incorrect. Natsume simply publishes part of the series in the U.S. Marvelous Entertainment Interactive is the correct listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.39.187 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I corrected it. Rhonin the wizard (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)