Is there such thing as 2nd party games development ?

We all heard of 1st party and 3rd party, but 2nd party? For instance Sega would be 1st party for Genesis. While Tengen/Atari or SNK would be 3rd party developers regardless if company also had a console out or not too. (Sega would license Capcom to make Genesis games or SNK/Takara even though SNK had Neo Geo console out). So would AM2 really be a 2nd party because they are a division (partially funded, a division) of Sega? Only asking because I saw this on Wiki and other sites, which can't always be trusted. "Sega-AM2 Co., Ltd. is a division of Japanese video game developer Sega. A 2nd Party Studio is typically a studio that will make games for one console exclusively, and is typically funded by the maker of said console". So Treasure would be a 2nd party since they only made Genesis, Game Gear and Saturn games during that era? Damn hard to say if AM2 or Treasure is Segas best 2nd party maker if so.

Yeah, I'd consider Treasure 2nd party for that period, but you don't really hear too many people talking about 2nd party development since a 3rd party only carries that distinction for the terms of whatever contract it has signed. You get developers like Platinum Games which have exclusives tied to a console but that hardly represents the company's larger output as a 3rd party. Likewise, sometimes a company elects to support a single platform without the need for any manufacturer deal due to cost of developing on other systems or hardware preference. I'd say it's too messy of a distinction to be useful.

Welcome to semantics! Normally we tend to say "2nd party" for companies that aren't the 1st party one but are closely tied to them, but there's no clear cut definition (especially since said companies can do stuff on their own that's completely unrelated), and it's technically incorrect (see below).

This has to do with grammar: 1st and 3rd party are referring to 1st and 3rd person (1st = me, 3rd = they). Going by that definition, a correct meaning for 2nd party would be... the players I guess? Since 2nd person = you. So in that sense a 2nd party game would be technically be some game made by a player. But wouldn't then that person be actually a 3rd party and the players of that game the 2nd party? It creates a paradox. Hence why we never really use that term in practice, it's impossible. I guess the closest you'll ever get to that definition is player-made mods, which aren't full-blown games on their own.

So homebrews are technically 2nd party (by us the players and some of us are homebrew creators), even though 2nd party is defined as partially owned or funded by 1st party like AM2 or Treasure as definition in post 1 suggests?
I don't really agree with definition then, if AM2 was a sub of Sega it should still be counted as a 1st party unlike Treasure who became Treasure after leaving a 3rd party Konami, Treasure should be 3rd party too because I'm sure Sega and Treasure had a contract.

Homebrew falls squarely into 3rd party no matter how you look at it. Those games are made by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the vendors. Heck, they don't even have permission from them (・<・)

The point I'm making is that the terms "1st party" and "3rd party" come from grammar (where 1st person = me, 2nd person = you, 3rd person = they) and the terminology isn't unique to games either. If we go by the assumption that "me" refers to the vendor, then 2nd party would be the ones they "talk to" aka their customers (i.e. the players) and those aren't the ones making the games, ergo the concept of 2nd party games doesn't really make any sense.


Also AM2 is clearly 1st party for Sega, they are literally owned by them (i.e. they're part of Sega as a whole). Treasure is 3rd party as they have always been independent from Sega (and Treasure already was working for other consoles in the 5th generation).

"then 2nd party would be the ones they "talk to" aka their customers (i.e. the players) and those aren't the ones making the games, ergo the concept of 2nd party games doesn't really make any sense"

But like I said, some costumers do create homebrew games for a said console. So homebrew is just homebrew, not 4th party (is there such a thing ha) or anything else label wise, just homebrew?

"Treasure is 3rd party as they have always been independent from Sega (and Treasure already was working for other consoles in the 5th generation). "

Yes but during the 3rd generation they only made games for Sega, and at first exclusively for Genesis as Benjamin knows and commented too. But I kind of agree with you they should be 3rd party.

The differences between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party developers are fairly straightforward, at least in Japan during the time of the Genesis.

1st party: Sega itself or one of its subsidiaries (e.g. AM2, an arcade development division).

2nd party: An independent company that Sega funds to develop a particular game. For example, Sega paid Treasure $500,000 up front to develop each of its games, plus $2-3 per game sold. Sega holds exclusive rights to such games. A company can be a 2nd party developer to Sega but also develop games on other consoles; there's no need for them to work exclusively with Sega. For example, Compile had a 2nd party relationship with Sega, but also developed on other consoles. Well-known 2nd party developers include Treasure, Climax, Sonic Software, Ancient.

3rd party: An independent company that funds itself and signs a licensing agreement with Sega to publish on the console. There's no advance payment or guarantee from Sega, but 3rd parties keep a much larger cut of the per-game profit (particularly if they also publish the game themselves). There's no required exclusivity. Well-known 3rd party developers include Konami, Namco, Technosoft, Wolf Team/Telenet, Data East, Koei.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gryson

The differences between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party developers are fairly straightforward, at least in Japan during the time of the Genesis.

1st party: Sega itself or one of its subsidiaries (e.g. AM2, an arcade development division).

2nd party: An independent company that Sega funds to develop a particular game. For example, Sega paid Treasure $500,000 up front to develop each of its games, plus $2-3 per game sold. Sega holds exclusive rights to such games. A company can be a 2nd party developer to Sega but also develop games on other consoles; there's no need for them to work exclusively with Sega. For example, Compile had a 2nd party relationship with Sega, but also developed on other consoles. Well-known 2nd party developers include Treasure, Climax, Sonic Software, Ancient.

3rd party: An independent company that funds itself and signs a licensing agreement with Sega to publish on the console. There's no advance payment or guarantee from Sega, but 3rd parties keep a much larger cut of the per-game profit (particularly if they also publish the game themselves). There's no required exclusivity. Well-known 3rd party developers include Konami, Namco, Technosoft, Wolf Team/Telenet, Data East, Koei.

---

That's pretty much how I saw it, except I never personally considered any company a second party unless they were exclusive to a company, yet also their own independent company.

To me that would be companies like Square back in the NES/SNES days, Treasure on the Genesis, Rare (until they went off to do their own thing and then eventually became an MS first party), Naughty dog, etc.

When a company just makes a single game among several exclusive I still consider that third party, simply because I'm talking about their relationship as a company to a platform, not just an individual game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sik

The point I'm making is that the terms "1st party" and "3rd party" come from grammar (where 1st person = me, 2nd person = you, 3rd person = they) and the terminology isn't unique to games either. If we go by the assumption that "me" refers to the vendor, then 2nd party would be the ones they "talk to" aka their customers (i.e. the players) and those aren't the ones making the games, ergo the concept of 2nd party games doesn't really make any sense.

---

In a way it makes sense to me:

1st party = 1st person: "We are making a game for our console."
2nd party = 2nd person: "You will make a game for our console (you are contracted to do so)."
3rd party = 3rd person: "They are making a game for our console (independently of us/we have no direct business relationship with them)."

I like your guys definitions more than ones on search engines.

Party terms are based on point of view and change when the focus is different. First party is always "you." If you are talking in reference to a manufacturer, then they are the first party.

You are first party, Sega is second party, Acclaim is third party.
Sega is first party, Acclaim is second party, you are third party.

When talking about video games, the term "first party" is almost always used where the focus is the manufacturer, and then it isn't defined. This can cause some language problems when talking about items not licensed to the original manufacturer (first party) but licensed to a third party. For example, the Jaleco and Data East multi-carts from Retro-bit are licensed but not through Nintendo, for which the item is meant to be used for.

With this example of the Data East multi-cart, from the manufacturer's point-of-view, it would be something like this:
First Party: Nintendo
Third Party: Retro-bit
Second Party to Third Party (or Fourth Party) : Data East
vs
First Party: Retro-Bit
Second Party: Data East
and Nintendo has no party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EclecticGroove

That's pretty much how I saw it, except I never personally considered any company a second party unless they were exclusive to a company, yet also their own independent company.

---

I agree with this one the most.

An independent company that only develops for one platform, whether thats through contract or not.

Think Insomniac, Naughty Dog(until they were bought and became 1st party), Rare during the N64 days.

Rare in the N64 days was referred to as second-party because they were bound to Nintendo and Nintendo owned a large stake in the company. Psygnosis was sometimes called second-party on the PS1, though they were 100% owned by Sony but they still operated independently. Games published and fully owned by the first party, developed at the first party's behest by a third party under (single-game) contract, e.g. Sega's Bug!, could reasonably be called second-party but I've never seen the term used that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Rare in the N64 days was referred to as second-party because they were bound to Nintendo and Nintendo owned a large stake in the company. Psygnosis was sometimes called second-party on the PS1, though they were 100% owned by Sony but they still operated independently. Games published and fully owned by the first party, developed at the first party's behest by a third party under (single-game) contract, e.g. Sega's Bug!, could reasonably be called second-party but I've never seen the term used that way.

---

The definition that I used above (independent but funded) is the meaning of 2nd party in Japan, where I believe the term originated. There was recently a talk by Sega's main 2nd party developers on the very nature of being a 2nd party developer:

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...-Soft-Compile)

Nintendo, Sega, and other platform holders made extensive use of 2nd party developers dating back to the early 80s as a way to outsource development of licensed games, ports, and other such titles. Being 2nd party offered more security to developers, since they were guaranteed a paycheck, but at the same time their growth was more restricted since most profits were going back to the publisher, and of course they had less freedom in what they developed. Not to mention that they were often not credited at all for their work.

Rare was never owned by Nintendo. Nintendo owned a minority stake in the company and funded them. That's how Rare was later able to sell themselves to Microsoft, when Nintendo stopped supplying as much money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Rare in the N64 days was referred to as second-party because they were bound to Nintendo and Nintendo owned a large stake in the company.

---

And it was one of the best collaborations ever in gaming history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_factor

Games published and fully owned by the first party, developed at the first party's behest by a third party under (single-game) contract, e.g. Sega's Bug!, could reasonably be called second-party but I've never seen the term used that way.

---

Me neither. That phenomenon does need its own term though, maybe "outsourced 1st-party games"?