Goriginal Content

EoD - Come back, SF

EoD - Come back, F-0

GN Podcast #453

Cult County chat!

EoD - Missed chance?

EoD - Waluigi time?
 

Platinum Games confirms Nintendo staffers working on the game

Coming from Hideki Kamiya via Twitter...

Yup. RT @mjpingram Are there any Nintendo producers working on Bayonetta 2. I know it's a common practice for games they publish.

That's going to make it very, very hard for this title to show up on anything but Nintendo platforms! Thanks to Michael for the heads up!

Link

Also check out:
Discussion Preview
69 total comments (View all)
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:38

LegendofSantiago wrote:@Entity read harder


I am!!! But there si someting wrong here!

OK...

Explain to me what is a 1st, 2nd and 3rd dvloper then!
No Avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:39

Entity wrote:


They are not owned 100% by Nintendo, thus making them 2nd party (from what I gather). Was my point....Talking about retro now that is...


"Later Namco sold the remaining 16%, making Monolith Soft a first-party developer for Nintendo."
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:41

NeoGohan wrote:
Entity wrote:


They are not owned 100% by Nintendo, thus making them 2nd party (from what I gather). Was my point....Talking about retro now that is...


"Later Namco sold the remaining 16%, making Monolith Soft a first-party developer for Nintendo."


So Nintendo owns both Monolith AND Retro 100%? All the shares!?

OK.. Better question: What is then a 2nd party developer?
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:42

@Entity
You need to check this.

Edit:
First Parties: Companies that are subsidiaries of Nintendo, either funded by Nintendo or they bought most, if not all, of the companies' stock.

Second Parties: Companies that aren't subsidiaries of Nintendo, but make games exclusively for their systems, they become Second Parties either by a exclusivity contract with Nintendo or if Nintendo owns some of the stock of the company, but not enough to become First Parties. Their games may or may not be published by Nintendo.

Third Parties: Develops games for any consoles (unless they state otherwise), but they can get into some kind of contract with the main 3 (think Mario & Sonic).
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:44

Entity wrote:
LegendofSantiago wrote:@Entity read harder


I am!!! But there si someting wrong here!

OK...

Explain to me what is a 1st, 2nd and 3rd dvloper then!

From what I understand:
1st party - Fully owned by another company.
2nd party - Another company has a large stake (possibly controlling) in said company (Think Game Freak)
3rd party - Independent
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:44

@Entity 2nd party is partly owned. RARE was 2nd part since they weren't 100% owned
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:48

RacattackForce wrote:
Entity wrote:
LegendofSantiago wrote:@Entity read harder


I am!!! But there si someting wrong here!

OK...

Explain to me what is a 1st, 2nd and 3rd dvloper then!

From what I understand:
1st party - Fully owned by another company.
2nd party - Another company has a large stake (possibly controlling) in said company (Think Game Freak)
3rd party - Independent


Well guess I was wrong about Retro then! Last I checked they were not 100% Nintendo! My bad and I admit defeat! (If the link above is valid, that is).


So...Uhm,,,,.... I see not much difference between 2nd and 3rd part developers now apart from the people earning money and having ownership on it/them! From what ypu guys are saying!
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:49

2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:51

LegendofSantiago wrote:@Entity 2nd party is partly owned. RARE was 2nd part since they weren't 100% owned


That is what I said from the start, so this "argument" or "debate" actually has no meaning... Great!


OK...


I hope PG becomes a good part of Nintendo (a 2nd party developer) since the (PG) have the tallent and Nintendo have the assets! Can we agree on that?
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:52

M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.


But they don't own the shares, thus making them 2nd party!
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 18:59

Entity wrote:
M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.


But they don't own the shares, thus making them 2nd party!



Edit: They don't own ALL the shares!
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 19:16

Entity wrote:
Entity wrote:
M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.


But they don't own the shares, thus making them 2nd party!



Edit: They don't own ALL the shares!

You're trying WAAYYY too hard, buddy.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 19:20

Really depending on who you ask there are 1st and 3rd party developers only. Something I dont agree with but in the realm of "is game y exclusive to console z" Thats the black and white of it that some peopel look at. But from what I've experienced in my 25 years of gaming I would say it all comes down to the level of control a console manufacture has in the influencing of where the game ends up. In a 1st party situation the studio or developer is primarily built from the ground up by the hardware manufacture to make games exclusively for the sole purpose of driving sales and distribution of the hardware said games are made for, i.e. R&D 1, Sony Studio Japan etc. 2nd parties are companys built by a 3rd party interest but for what ever reason lose a majority share of control in the making of games and where they end up, i.e. RARE, Bungie etc. And 3rd party are wholly owned seperate from the console hardware manufacturing entities merely resigned to entering into licensing contracts and the occasional publishing deal with a hardware manufacturer for mutially beneficial money printing. :P So in the case of Retro ( a studio built from the ground up by an outside party but then losing its stake in the company to Nintendo) would actually be considered 2nd party along with Monolith Software. But honestly the whole 1st, 2nd party relationship status is hazy at best and in the end if you own the console they're either a 1st or 2nd party on your still gonna have access to the game, so does it really matter? No need to argue simantics at this point. If you can get the game on a console you own, just be thankful for that. Unlike the bayonetta "fans" rage quiting on twitter. :P
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 19:23

M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.

Not necessarily. Take Game Freak. Nintendo owns a chunk of them, but they can still make games for non-Nintendo platforms. And they have.
No Avatar
22 Sep 2012 19:55

RacattackForce wrote:
M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.

Not necessarily. Take Game Freak. Nintendo owns a chunk of them, but they can still make games for non-Nintendo platforms. And they have.


Quite sure that game is not a good example, as that one is a game from Nintendo (even if it's not exactly on a Nintendo console).
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 19:58

Ragnarokstorymaker wrote:Lol, now its 100 percent not coming to any other platform. Also, is platinum games considered a second party to Nintendo?



For now, most likely. At least in the same way that Camelot is considered a second party, though they do occasionally still make games for other platforms.

Also, I had assumed it was 100% exclusive and not going anywhere else from the moment we learned Nintendo was publishing it.


P.S. to the peeps arguing above, Retro Studios is fully a subsidiary of Nintendo, making them a First Party developer. A Second party developer is an independent developer who, at least for a stretch of time, makes games exclusively for one console or company, like Nintendo. Companies like Retro, Monolith Soft, Intelligent Systems, etc., are all first party Nintendo development studios.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 20:17

RacattackForce wrote:
M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.

Not necessarily. Take Game Freak. Nintendo owns a chunk of them, but they can still make games for non-Nintendo platforms. And they have.

That wasn't developed by Game Freak.
It was developed by the Pokemon Company (yes they oversee all the Pokemon stuff outside of the main games, and they do develop games)

Game Freak only makes the mainline titles, all Pokemon spin offs are developed by other studios.

Click Medic (PS1 in 1996) is the last non Nintendo game Game Freak made before going 2nd party with Nintendo.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 20:40

M1 wrote:
RacattackForce wrote:
M1 wrote:2nd party studios are exclusive to a system and are funded by the hardware maker.

Not necessarily. Take Game Freak. Nintendo owns a chunk of them, but they can still make games for non-Nintendo platforms. And they have.

That wasn't developed by Game Freak.
It was developed by the Pokemon Company (yes they oversee all the Pokemon stuff outside of the main games, and they do develop games)

Game Freak only makes the mainline titles, all Pokemon spin offs are developed by other studios.

Click Medic (PS1 in 1996) is the last non Nintendo game Game Freak made before going 2nd party with Nintendo.

Ah. Thanks for correcting me.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 21:41

When this game was announced, I was like, ??? What? Who? Never heard of you. I'm definitely starting to pay attention now. I had the utmost respect for Clover Studios and was sorry to see them close. If most of that talent is in Platinum Games then we're in for a real treat, especially with Nintendos help. I will say though, Madworld was not to my liking. One things for sure now, this game will never surface on any other console.
User avatar
22 Sep 2012 21:56

@link2metroid If you like devil may cry it's kind of like that. Bayonetta got almost universal praise with an A ranking in metacritic. This game being funded by Nintendo and with help from Nintendo should be at least as good
No Avatar
23 Sep 2012 00:00

M1 wrote:
That wasn't developed by Game Freak.
It was developed by the Pokemon Company (yes they oversee all the Pokemon stuff outside of the main games, and they do develop games)

Game Freak only makes the mainline titles, all Pokemon spin offs are developed by other studios.


Well, I'm getting a bit offtopic here, but are you sure the Pokemon Company actually develop any games? That game/app was developed by Creatures Inc.
User avatar
23 Sep 2012 00:35

Sungun wrote:
M1 wrote:
That wasn't developed by Game Freak.
It was developed by the Pokemon Company (yes they oversee all the Pokemon stuff outside of the main games, and they do develop games)

Game Freak only makes the mainline titles, all Pokemon spin offs are developed by other studios.


Well, I'm getting a bit offtopic here, but are you sure the Pokemon Company actually develop any games? That game/app was developed by Creatures Inc.

The Pokemon Company confirmed the leaks of 3DS claiming they had dev kits for Nintendo's newest handheld.
Also Creature Inc. is fully owned by Nintendo as well.
No Avatar
23 Sep 2012 01:10

M1 wrote:
Sungun wrote:
M1 wrote:
That wasn't developed by Game Freak.
It was developed by the Pokemon Company (yes they oversee all the Pokemon stuff outside of the main games, and they do develop games)

Game Freak only makes the mainline titles, all Pokemon spin offs are developed by other studios.


Well, I'm getting a bit offtopic here, but are you sure the Pokemon Company actually develop any games? That game/app was developed by Creatures Inc.

The Pokemon Company confirmed the leaks of 3DS claiming they had dev kits for Nintendo's newest handheld.
Also Creature Inc. is fully owned by Nintendo as well.


I know Creatures Inc is owned by Nintendo, however my point is that is a different company to The Pokemon Company. They are the "face" of everything related to Pokemon, however I haven't found a single game that appears listed as having been developed by them. Even if they have dev kits it seems that they do not make games directly themselves.
User avatar
23 Sep 2012 09:17

V3N0M wrote:Really depending on who you ask there are 1st and 3rd party developers only. Something I dont agree with but in the realm of "is game y exclusive to console z" Thats the black and white of it that some peopel look at. But from what I've experienced in my 25 years of gaming I would say it all comes down to the level of control a console manufacture has in the influencing of where the game ends up. In a 1st party situation the studio or developer is primarily built from the ground up by the hardware manufacture to make games exclusively for the sole purpose of driving sales and distribution of the hardware said games are made for, i.e. R&D 1, Sony Studio Japan etc. 2nd parties are companys built by a 3rd party interest but for what ever reason lose a majority share of control in the making of games and where they end up, i.e. RARE, Bungie etc. And 3rd party are wholly owned seperate from the console hardware manufacturing entities merely resigned to entering into licensing contracts and the occasional publishing deal with a hardware manufacturer for mutially beneficial money printing. :P So in the case of Retro ( a studio built from the ground up by an outside party but then losing its stake in the company to Nintendo) would actually be considered 2nd party along with Monolith Software. But honestly the whole 1st, 2nd party relationship status is hazy at best and in the end if you own the console they're either a 1st or 2nd party on your still gonna have access to the game, so does it really matter? No need to argue simantics at this point. If you can get the game on a console you own, just be thankful for that. Unlike the bayonetta "fans" rage quiting on twitter. :P



THIS!
No Avatar
23 Sep 2012 13:06

This annoucnement of Bayonetta 2 reaffirmed my belief in Nintendo - not because it's a "hardcore" game and all that and it's exclusive, but because it's a brilliant PR move. Nintendo wanted to create internet buzz about the Wii U. A lot of traffic buzz, not just about the things they announced, the Nintendo games and the known stuff from E3... they needed a teaser. They didn't just want to use something that people will be happy or bored, they wanted the anger, the screams, the yells, they wanted everyone to read that something big is happening... people go to the internet to voice their anger more than their joy. They needed everyone to know that something big is going, a big debate, controversy, and it's about the Wii U.

Teriffic start for the PR. Amazing brilliant work. I like it. :mrgreen:
The crying of the sony fanboys and another exclusive Nintendo title is just icing on the cake.

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way