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?
Threaded Mode
