• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

StarTopic Nintendo First Party Software Development |ST| Nintendo Party Superstars

Reader mode
Gingerbread Man said:
  • A game at least produced by Nintendo EPD, and we are including Astral Chain, Pokémon, and Buddy Mission BOND;
  • A game at least (co-)designed by Nintendo EPD, and we are including Pikmin 4 and Metroid Dread;
  • A game designed and primarily developed by Nintendo EPD, restricting the definition to mainline Zelda, Mario and Splatoon,

This topic settled with the second definition, which is probably the most sensible in a business sense, though the two EPD-centric ones define a "Nintendo game" in a more creative sense.
Click to expand...
These three are really what make a Nintendo "First party game". Anything that's an EPD production is generally first party, which is 95% of Nintendo published games, whether that be internal creations or out-house/contracted productions.

It all goes back to Nintendo fans not really understanding the true extent of EPD's operations. It's not just Mario and Zelda games. It's a global development operation that has hundreds of internal development staff, departments for IT, Coordination, Sound, Art, and Administration. Ties and oversight to doezens of subsidiary and partner studios (MonolithSoft, Retro, etc.) and is involved with nearly every game Nintendo publishes worldwide.

EPD is all Nintendo first party.
 
Danny said:
I mean you have to call companies such as HAL laboratory, Intelligent systems etc something because they are clearly Nintendo afilliated companies, sharing HQ with Nintendo and only makes games for Nintendo, they are not first party because they are not owned by Nintendo, but clearly the relationship is way more integrated and closer than a regular third party company. Nintendo has ties with a lot of smaller companies that have only made Nintendo games for decades, and it makes sense to call those companies another term than third party developer.

So Nintendo have all these close ties with a lot of smaller Japanese game companies that in almost every way functions as a first party studio for Nintendo, other than being owned by Nintendo. Some of these companies even share the same buildings with Nintendo, is there a better term to describe this reality? Maybe.
Click to expand...
They are still a third party company at the end of the day. Doesn't help that we have less type of companies with this kind of relationship nowadays (Next Level Games and SRD were bought by Nintendo, so they became a first-party) In fact, HAL still does things outside of Nintendo systems, just not on their competitors. (They made a bunch of mini PC systems to celebrate their past as a PC developer, for example)

I just labeled them "Special Third Party" in my opinion.
 
P.Scoop said:
They are still a third party company at the end of the day. Doesn't help that we have less type of companies with this kind of relationship nowadays (Next Level Games and SRD were bought by Nintendo, so they became a first-party) In fact, HAL still does things outside of Nintendo systems, just not on their competitors. (They made a bunch of mini PC systems to celebrate their past as a PC developer, for example)

I just labeled them "Special Third Party" in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I see HAL and IntSys more as "Special First Party" (SRD too before the buyout). Their relationship with Nintendo is just too strong, HAL even co-developed Switch OS. The likes of Good Feel and Camelot are more "Special Third Party", yeah. Ultimately, where you want to draw the line is very subjective.
MagiCarbo said:
These three are really what make a Nintendo "First party game". Anything that's an EPD production is generally first party, which is 95% of Nintendo published games, whether that be internal creations or out-house/contracted productions.

It all goes back to Nintendo fans not really understanding the true extent of EPD's operations. It's not just Mario and Zelda games. It's a global development operation that has hundreds of internal development staff, departments for IT, Coordination, Sound, Art, and Administration. Ties and oversight to doezens of subsidiary and partner studios (MonolithSoft, Retro, etc.) and is involved with nearly every game Nintendo publishes worldwide.

EPD is all Nintendo first party.
Click to expand...
I think most people here understand what EPD is and does. The term "EPD game" is just often used as a shorthand for "internally EPD-developed games". So TotK is an EPD game, whereas Bayonetta 3 is not.
 
Gingerbread Man said:
I think most people here understand what EPD is and does. The term "EPD game" is just often used as a shorthand for "internally EPD-developed games". So TotK is an EPD game, whereas Bayonetta 3 is not.
Click to expand...
I guess it's fair considering Nintendo doesn't document its divisions much. I do think it'd be nice if they shed some light on how EPD is actually structured more often so that fans get a better idea of who's doing what like with PS Studios.
 
0
Danny said:
I mean you have to call companies such as HAL laboratory, Intelligent systems etc something [...] Some of these companies even share the same buildings with Nintendo, is there a better term to describe this reality? Maybe.
Click to expand...
Do we need to call them something? I'm serious, do we really need a special term for them?
P.Scoop said:
They are still a third party company at the end of the day. Doesn't help that we have less type of companies with this kind of relationship nowadays (Next Level Games and SRD were bought by Nintendo, so they became a first-party) In fact, HAL still does things outside of Nintendo systems, just not on their competitors. (They made a bunch of mini PC systems to celebrate their past as a PC developer, for example)

I just labeled them "Special Third Party" in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Let go of "~party" and just refer to them as partners or nothing at all and just use their name. Imo there's rarely any need to label them as a group since there are so few of them that you need to specify which ones you mean anyway. For example, I'd argue HAL and IS are not in the same tier as Good-Feel and Grezzo, relationship strength-wise (game quality or whatever doesn't factor into this). And that's already it these days, isn't it. Clinging to another "~party" term really has no benefit.
 
To settle both the "second party" and acquisition discussions, let's just agree to call them "temporarily displaced first-party developers".

ducks
 
Gingerbread Man said:
I get where @Racoon is coming from, and I kind of agree with them, but at the same time, the problem is that we have multiple arbitrary definitions of "Nintendo game":

  • A game at least published by Nintendo, so we are including Mario + Rabbids, which is a Ubisoft game, or Fitness Boxing;
  • A game at least produced by Nintendo EPD, and we are including Astral Chain, Pokémon, and Buddy Mission BOND;
  • A game at least (co-)designed by Nintendo EPD, and we are including Pikmin 4 and Metroid Dread;
  • A game designed and primarily developed by Nintendo EPD, restricting the definition to mainline Zelda, Mario and Splatoon,

This topic settled with the second definition, which is probably the most sensible in a business sense, though the two EPD-centric ones define a "Nintendo game" in a more creative sense.
Click to expand...
So Smash is not Nintendo's first party and Bloodborne including first Spider-man also not Sony's first party. got it
 
AngryAlchemist said:
The way I see it, in relation to games, "first" and "third" party has much more to do with IP management than anything else. Which is why second party as a term doesn't really make sense, on top of the fact that everyone has their own definitions of what a second party even is.

It doesn't really matter that Luigi's Mansion 3 was made by Next Level Games, for example, it's an IP owned by Nintendo, it's a game exclusive to their system, they own the publishing rights. There's nothing distinguishing it from a first party release, it is a first party game. Despite the fact that Next Level Games was a third party developer. Just like how Monster Hunter Rise is a third party exclusive, because Nintendo doesn't own the IP. I realize that the party part of the term literally refers to the party at hand, but I don't think there's really much conflict of interest in a third party making a first party game, as is most of Nintendo's output. Besides, with the games industry requiring multiple developers on pretty much any project, you'd suddenly get into a nonsensical argument over whether stuff like Pikmin 4 is first party if second party as a term makes sense just because the talent at hand isn't literally internal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, looking at publishing, exclusive and IP ownership rights seem like the most sensible way to look at first party stuff imo.

And sometimes it's also a case of "true until proven otherwise" such as The Wonderful 101 being a first party until it wasn't because we aren't privy to deals done behind the scenes.

In the same way Bayonetta 2, 3 and Origins are first party games until proven otherwise and something changes resulting in Nintendo losing ownerships of those titles.

Whether the game is developed by a third party studios or not, especially when it gets blurry how many developers can be involved in a project, shouldn't be the determining factor at this point otherwise you have to create too many caveats.
 
Last edited:
TheMoon said:
Smash and BB both are covered by the first two cases. Are you sure you read the post correctly?
Click to expand...

Bloodborne is actually the third case, even; Japan Studio were closely involved in the production.

If there's any Spider-Man PS4 equivalent for Nintendo it would be in the ballpark of the DS Jump Stars games or Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3; the publisher obtained the licence and approached a developer to make a game with it.
 
Not even sure what this discussion turned into -- but I will address or add on to a few points.

  • I don't think the first-party / third-party term applied to games works the same ways for developers. For example, since game releases are published by an entity at a specific moment -- that game is clearly defined as a first-party game or third-party depending on who published it. Developers -- whether a company, subsidiary, affiliate, or contractor, are dynamic because one release isn't defined by the next. Good-Feel can can develop a first-party game (Yoshi's Crafted World) then work on a third-party game. Monolith Soft or Nintendo Software Technology, can just as easily work on third-party games (Ridge Racer DS, Project X Zone). So using the terminology some of you are pushing means a "third-party developer" can make a "first-party game" and a "first-party developer" can make a "third-party game".
  • It's important to register that even when a first-party game is significantly outsourced to an outside company, Nintendo is still involved in the development. So a third-party being involved, doesn't diminish the fact that "first-party" Nintendo was still involved in the development. Hence, it's hard to argue against it being a first-party game regardless.
 
Last edited:
TheMoon said:
Absolutely crucial to remember that they didn't acquire them because they wanted to acquire a studio, they did so because the owners wanted to get out and sell.

That gets overlooked too much in these casual fan discussions that are often weighed down by "why isn't MY favorite sports team platform holder drafting hot picks acquiring studios for the great console wars playoffs" vibes. That's how you end up with scores of people going "so why didn't they buy X/Y/Z" or "they might scoop up X/Y/Z next!" constantly because it just gets presented as "Nintendo bought studio they worked with a lot" without the key(!) bit of contextual info that makes clear this isn't a acquisition bandwagon scenario.
Click to expand...
I blame the Activision Blizzard acquisition and Sony's tit-for-tat buyout of Bungie for this whole mess, TBH. Now everyone assumes a massive wave of industry consolidation is forthcoming, and of course everyone wants their favourite studios to be bought out by their favourite console maker, because they're convinced they'll miss out or worse otherwise.
 
AoiHana said:
I blame the Activision Blizzard acquisition and Sony's tit-for-tat buyout of Bungie for this whole mess, TBH. Now everyone assumes a massive wave of industry consolidation is forthcoming, and of course everyone wants their favourite studios to be bought out by their favourite console maker, because they're convinced they'll miss out or worse otherwise.
Click to expand...
oh that train got rolling much earlier, way before MSxABK
 
0
AoiHana said:
I blame the Activision Blizzard acquisition and Sony's tit-for-tat buyout of Bungie for this whole mess, TBH. Now everyone assumes a massive wave of industry consolidation is forthcoming, and of course everyone wants their favourite studios to be bought out by their favourite console maker, because they're convinced they'll miss out or worse otherwise.
Click to expand...
I'd say it started with the Bethesda purchase back in 2020, but yeah, pretty much.
 
0
AoiHana said:
I blame the Activision Blizzard acquisition and Sony's tit-for-tat buyout of Bungie for this whole mess, TBH. Now everyone assumes a massive wave of industry consolidation is forthcoming, and of course everyone wants their favourite studios to be bought out by their favourite console maker, because they're convinced they'll miss out or worse otherwise.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that’s what’s happening lol
 
0
Anyway, so Mario Kart 9, eh? Or will we get 2ARMS first with better JoyCon.
please let's move on from parties and imaginary acquisitions
 
majora-mask-real-moon.gif


last thing you see when you go out to acquire the second mario party
 
Nintendo clearly saw this discussion on semantics and wanted to chime in!

Gs0F2Gb.png


It's the same recap from the end of the direct, which does in fact include games not primarily developed by EPD, wow.
 
Raccoon said:
bewildered that this conversation continued for days without me
Click to expand...
I've embraced the truth that we're just kinda stuck in the chaos of "what is second parties?" and "they should buy all the guys" talk until Nintendo announces a surprise December release or something.
giphy.gif
 
OctoSplattack said:
Acceleration (and de-acceleration) for a motion-controlled game?
Click to expand...
correct, its an enlarged acceleration sensor for demonstration purposes

it was talked about in an ARMS article

topics.nintendo.co.jp

学研さんと「加速度センサー」のヒミツについて調べてみました。 | トピックス | Nintendo

Nintendo Switchにはゲームをより楽しむために「モーションセンサー」という技術が入っているのを知っていますか？これは『ARMS』というNintendo Switchソフ
topics.nintendo.co.jp topics.nintendo.co.jp
 
Okay, I like the trivia game approach. Let's continue with doing first-party trivia questions!

What was Nintendo's complaint with Next Level Games' first prototype/proof-of-concept for Super Mario Strikers (aka Mario Smash Football for the Europeans among us)?
  1. There was too much violence
  2. There was too much platforming
  3. There was too much realism
 
Last edited:
OctoSplattack said:
Okay, I like the trivia game approach. Let's continue with doing first-party trivia questions!

Nintendo rejected Next Level Games' first prototype/proof-of-concept for what became Super Mario Strikers for what reason?
  1. There was too much violence
  2. There was too much platforming
  3. There was too much realism
Click to expand...
1.
 
0
OctoSplattack said:
Okay, I like the trivia game approach. Let's continue with doing first-party trivia questions!

Nintendo rejected Next Level Games' first prototype/proof-of-concept for what became Super Mario Strikers for what reason?
  1. There was too much violence
  2. There was too much platforming
  3. There was too much realism
Click to expand...
That was the wrestling/volley ball thing, right? I thought it was sorta 1 and 3, in that the violence was too realistic and not cartoon-y enough for Nintendo
 
BlackthornOrion said:
That was the wrestling/volley ball thing, right? I thought it was sorta 1 and 3, in that the violence was too realistic and not cartoon-y enough for Nintendo
Click to expand...
Will give the answer later in the day, in case more people want to guess, but Strikers is the GCN soccer/football game, not the cancelled sports game. Edited the question for clarity.
 
0
OctoSplattack said:
Okay, I like the trivia game approach. Let's continue with doing first-party trivia questions!

What was Nintendo's complaint with Next Level Games' first prototype/proof-of-concept for Super Mario Strikers (aka Mario Smash Football for the Europeans among us)?
  1. There was too much violence
  2. There was too much platforming
  3. There was too much realism
Click to expand...
1- here the reason why Nintendo rejected Super Mario Spikers

 
0
I don't want to be all crankypants again but I don't think we need to spam the first party development thread with trivia questions and youtuber wishlists now (even if it helps move past those eyeroll topics from earlier^^)
 
TheMoon said:
I don't want to be all crankypants again but I don't think we need to spam the first party development thread with trivia questions and youtuber wishlists now (even if it helps move past those eyeroll topics from earlier^^)
Click to expand...
That's fair. I just thought framing discussions about the development of past Nintendo games in such a way would be fun (unless the focus of the thread is meant to be purely on current and future titles). I'm clearly awful at asking coherent questions anyway. <_<

@crashazo @BlackthornOrion @Giancarlo

It was 2. Was talking about Strikers, not Spikers. When Nintendo approached NLG to make the first Mario Strikers, the original prototype they delivered was a platformer with sports elements thrown in. Nintendo rejected it and reiterated that they went to the ex-Black Box devs because they wanted a sports game, resulting in Strikers.
 
Last edited:
OctoSplattack said:
That's fair. I just thought framing discussions about the development of past Nintendo games in such a way would be fun (unless the focus of the thread is meant to be purely on current and future titles). I'm clearly awful at asking coherent questions anyway. <_<

@crashazo @BlackthornOrion @Giancarlo

It was 2. Was talking about Strikers, not Spikers. When Nintendo approached NLG to make the first Mario Strikers, the original prototype they delivered was a platformer with sports elements thrown in. Nintendo rejected it and reiterated that they went to the ex-Black Box devs because they wanted a sports game, resulting in Strikers.
Click to expand...
The trivia is fun but probably better suited for a different thread with more hangout vibes? This one is, in my experience, less hangout "gotta keep posting" and (ideally) more topic-oriented discussion or news once an occasion presents itself.
 
Sounds like they needed to rely on the outside assistance to even truly get the project off the ground; with other projects taking priority leaving them unable to create that "development team framework" within EPD. I'd guess 3 Deluxe really was viewed as a test run for Eighting as co-developer before 4 ramped up.


Do you think Oatchi from Pikmin 4 and Poochy from Yoshi’s Island would get along? Has development already begun on a game starring the pair?

Hiramuki: Ha! Oatchi wasn't designed with Poochy in mind, so that thought never crossed my mind until you mentioned it just now. I have nothing further to share about any potential future games.
Click to expand...

Clearly the no comment here means the Poochy & Oatchi game is a go; time to add it to all of the lists! /s
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom