Talk:Video game development party

Idea for this page
This page could have a list of first-party video games released by each developer, sorted by developer and console. (PnJunkie (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Second party developers
So what about second party developers? --69.251.213.54 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a second-party developer. The first party is the console manufacturer (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony), the second party is the consumer, and third-parties are independent companies that sell games on the first party's hardware. The text explains that companies that are owned by the first party are first-party developers and anything else, even if they're independent but develop exclusively for one system (e.g. Insomniac with Sony and Bungie with Microsoft), are third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.80.249 (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There actually is such a thing called second party developers. They're developers who've been directly contracted by the console manufacturer to develop the game for their console. Kaetemi (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, those are still third-party developers, just working for a first-party publisher and making first-party games. If they're owned by the first-party or the it has a controlling stake, it's a first-party developer. The second party in this and any business relationship is the consumer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.80.249 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've actually seen the term second party being used in both meanings by people in the game industry, so both meanings are equally valid in terms of real life usage. Note the word 'developers' in second party developers, compared to just the second party. Kaetemi (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the article should make a mention of this. As it stands, the viewer is linked to this page assuming it has some information about the requested article, but finds none. Big Samus (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I also believe there is such a thing as second-party developers, though I can already tell Mr. Unsigned up there is going to refute my explanation. An obvious example of a first-party developer is Nintendo. They make their own games for their own consoles, e.g. the Super Marios, the Zeldas, etc. A second-party developer would be Retro Studios, who Nintendo contracted to make the Metroid Prime games. Nintendo invested in Retro and perhaps even owns a percentage of the company, but nevertheless Retro is still technically a second-party under contract to make video games exclusively for Nintendo. Perhaps a clearer distinction is this: If Shigeru Miyamoto wanted to make games for anyone other than Nintendo, he would have no choice but to quit his job at Nintendo and start or join another company... because falls under first-party. Whereas if Retro Studios wanted to make games for anyone other than Nintendo, all they have to do is close out their current contract. They would still exist as Retro Studios, because they're a separate entity, a second-party. As for third-party companies, they can make games for whoever they want whenever they want, more or less. I admit that I'm not a legal/business expert, to me this is simply common sense. But it will take some form of documentation or proof to convince me otherwise. Druff (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Retro is now fully owned by Nintendo. When making Metroid Prime 1 it was a second party, licensed to create MP1. A better example would be HAL Laboratory, who make games exclusively for Nintendo, yet are not owned by them. There are few second party developers, and it is hard to distinguish them from third or first party developers, however we should be able to include a mention of them in the article. 24.252.152.15 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Party developer links here, and it's a common enough term to come across in websites and game magazines, still. It NEEDS mentioning here, either in it's own section, or a note explaining that it doesn't exist/has fallen out of favour. Whatever. i don't care. This article was completely pointless for the link I followed here. Nil Points. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I arrived to this page from Wiimote which mentions second-party titles which redirects here. So yes, at least some mentioning would be needed, or editing the other pages to reflect the non-existance of second party developers if that's the case. Tordail (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Party is a complete misnomer. It is NON-EXISTANT. There is absolutely no. such. thing. as a 2nd party and it is used completely ERRONEOUSLY by the video game news media and the uneducated people who perpetuate the term. It is nothing but a slang term for a subsidiary. 70.123.98.60 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Using a term wrong enough doesn't make it right. The second party is the consumer. Yes, people in the industry use it wrong. They're still wrong. 206.169.113.171 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2nd party section needs to be completely re-done, this term is extremely widespread in the industry, and is known to have a specific meaning (ie companies that have some kind of links to the 1st party company, such as exclusivity contracts, but are not owned by the 1st party company).


 * The fact that a few people here have an axe to grind is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia's policy on this is crystal clear, Wikipedia is not about you putting forth any kind of personal opinion, its simply about writing down facts which are linked to sources, being that the internet is packed to the gills with reliable sources mentioning 2nd parties, with no mention of it being a "misnomer" anywhere, Your opinion on this is unsourceable, and anything unsourceable should not be in the article in the 1st place.


 * Essentially Wikipedia is about copying information from other places, you're supposed to keep your own personal thoughts on the subject to a minimum. At the moment this section is clearly an opinion piece, which makes it original research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and as such it should be removed Jesus.arnold (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of you above Jesus.arnold's post, you need to provide a reliable source to support your statement that the entire video games industry is using the term wrongly. Zer01ne (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Title
Since this page now includes both first- and third-party developers, the title of "first-party developer" doesn't work as well. How about something like "Types of video game developers"? --Evice (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What about "Game Development Parties"? ^^ Kaetemi (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

id Software
It is not independent anymore, could anyone do something about that, put it under bethesda softworks or take it away, because i have no idea of what should be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol3s (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
Aside from the note about "second parties", none of the information in this article is particular to video game development. Shouldn't this be generalised and moved to [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/party]? Andrew (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Even worse is that third-party developer redirects here! This isn't specific to video games in the slightest, and third-party developer certainly shouldn't be. 71.168.97.43 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)