This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Nintendo developers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I did not add Konami or SquareEnix because they have not made many Nintendo games in the last 10 years. Jedi6 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Super Mario RPG was developed in the last ten years. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SquareEnix used to make many games but with the exception of a few games they both have turned their back to Nintendo. Jedi6 22:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Turned their back? Square Enix is developing Mario Basket 3 on 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They are coming back but they have yet to release all of their projected games. Maybe in another year or at least until they announce how much they are supporting the Revolution Jedi6 02:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not realize that you have to support all of Nintendo to support Nintendo. Square Enix went straight to Nintendo and requested that they allow them to apply the Mario franchise to their basketball game. They clearly do work with Nintendo, because until they have this game cancelled, it's them supporting Nintendo by making a game for them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What other games have they made Jedi6 02:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

They worked on creating the scripts for Resident Evil 2 and 3. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

THe only reason Hal is considered with Nintendo is because Nintendo helped to get them back on their feet, and over time, they bought stock in Hal. Also, if they were indeed a division of Nintendo, they would be in the same building as NCL, but they have their own, very large building of their own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right and here is the proof 1. I'm still searching for a link for Game Freak though. Jedi6 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Divisions don't have to be in the same building. NST and Retro Studios are divisions of Nintendo and they are located far from NCL's headquarters. EAD Tokyo is also located outside NCL's Kyoto building. --Evice 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How come it is in the box as a former 2nd party, but its own article says it is still a 2nd party? What is the truth, please? - NP Chilla (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's still a second party. They are behind the char design of Pokèmon. --78.12.3.77 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How can Treasure possibly be Second Party with numerous recent titles on XBox and Playtation systems?65.206.21.170 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the links may be informative, they are not relevant directly to the template topic itself. Besides which, the main article of the topic Nintendo development teams has the same list and (now) has the relevant link. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe having the links there can be useful to readers not familiar with the first/second-party studio denomination and finding the info through Nintendo development teams isn't exactly convenient. In any case having the links has no downside whatsoever as far as I can see -- I am slightly confused at your reticence to include them. Would you mind expanding your reasons a bit so I can understand? :) Salvidrim! 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good idea to avoid links which are general links e.g. ones which link to the overall and broad topic of certain types of developers. I understand the desire to include them... I guess the larger issue I have is linking both first and second party dev's, when it's the case that both go to the same page (and that makes me twitch...). --Izno (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that I can agree with; making a single link somewhere in the NavBox to Video game development party would probably be an ideal compromise, as long as we can find a way for it to make sense. Salvidrim! 21:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think MobiClip (AKA NERD) should be added as first-party development team. They develop things for Nintendo and are owned by them. While it may not be video games they develop, they still are a Nintendo Development Team. Also, why are Treasure, Jupiter Corp., and Kuju on the Nintendo Development Teams page, but not here? Should they be removed or added here? And what about HAL? Is there any citations or anything to confirm they are a first-party developer? I haven't seen any, otherwise I wouldn't be asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.214.251 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I just removed some really obvious ones, like Sonic Team and Atlus (SEGA), Square Enix, Namco Bandai, Treasure, and Tecmo Koei from this template.

This is egregious. Someone needs to go and fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The notion of second-party development is basically a fan-term with little real-world business or legal meaning, as such I'm not sure whether such a section is needed on a template organizing Nintendo developers in the first place.

Leaving that discussion aside for the moment, a large number of wholly independent third-party developers have been added to this list by one user without any clear reason. Developing a game in conjunction with a first-party studio or developing a game independently and having a first-party publish it does not confer "second-party" status even by the vague definition available. If such a section remains here, it should only include independent studios that have had long term exclusivity development with the first-party. Publicly-traded companies that actively produce content for other platforms should not qualify and should be removed. A separate list detailing studios that have handled development duties on first-party IPs may be useful, but this doesn't seem like the best place for that. BattleMario (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming directly from the second-party developer definition criteria:

1. Independently-owned studios who take development contracts from the platform holders and what they produce will usually be exclusive to that platform

I rest my case.--Arkhandar (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Citing another Wikipedia article which gives its own vague definition doesn't really resolve the problem, even taken at face-value as the correct definition, many of these companies are not independent studios (some, such as Sega and Capcom are publicly-traded and owned.) While they have done work for Nintendo in a collaborative form, this isn't really enough, as they also actively work on non-Nintendo platforms. With such a broad definition we would also have to include companies like Microsoft for having developed Diddy Kong Racing DS, for example. Any definition so broad just renders the idea of categorizing Nintendo developers pointless. Some of the developers don't even work on Nintendo IP (such as WayForward.)

If such a section remains in this template and on the main Nintendo page, it should be as narrow as possible and only include developers which exclusively work on the first-party's platforms for the first-party. BattleMario (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for giving you such a quick response in that last reply, but I was really tired at the time, it was really late in the night and I wanted to make a reply so that's that.. Going on, one thing we both agree on is that that definition is rather vague, but it's the one we have and we should follow that as a guideline. If we were to change that consensus we would need to go to the article's talk page and do a RfC, but I'm not sure it would result in anything better than what we already have. Seeing as how you analised the definition though, I think you misinterpreted it bit, which is natural given it's vague nature. When the definition speaks of " Independently-owned studios" it's not referring whether the company in question is independent publicly-traded and owned per se, but rather if it's own by the first-party manufacture or not, which is the latter in this case. So that is not really an issue with Capcom and Sega for example. Now, Microsoft can't be considered a second-party studio because 1. Their last game for Nintendo was released more than 5 years ago. and 2. Microsoft is a competing with Nintendo in the home console market. (but that doesn't really matter because Rare Ltd. didn't develop game for the Wii. Once again, it doesn't matter if its a Nintendo IP or not, as long as the game stays exclusive to Nintendo platforms, it's a Nintendo second-party developed game.--Arkhandar (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For a company to get the "second-party" moniker it typically has to get some investment from the first-party and works under the thumb of the first-party. Nintendo includes such companies in their annual report and there is precedence with companies like Rare and Silicon Knights getting investment. This might be the clearest criteria to use.

Just releasing an exclusive game on a platform doesn't make it a second-party game or the developer a "second-party developer." Most of the companies currently listed are wholly third-party companies. By this criteria there would be a large list of developers included on this list. Even the vague definition of second-party cited on Wikipedia does not support adding third-party companies like Capcom and Sega just for releasing exclusive games, and as I said, under this criteria Microsoft would still count under the "former affiliates" category. BattleMario (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does include companies like Capcom and Sega because the second-party definition includes contracts from the platform holders and what they produce will usually be exclusive to that platform, which is exactly the case here. Capcom as a publishing contract with Nintendo for Monster Hunter 3 (and possibly Monster Hunter 4 in the future) and Sega has a 3 game exclusivity deal with Sonic games for Nintendo platforms only. Both of them can be classified as contracts. And please, leave the Microsoft premise out of this. Microsoft is not the developer, Rare is, and its already listed in the former affiliates section.--Arkhandar (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the definition is not simply a company which makes a contract with the first-party. This would include possibly hundreds of companies which have worked with Nintendo over the years. This is too broad. This template is about organizing Nintendo developers, not "companies which have produced a game that was exclusive to a Nintendo console for some unspecified length of time." Including every wholly third-party developer who releases an exclusive on the side for a Nintendo console does not make them a Nintendo developer or a second-party. BattleMario (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is actually, that's the definition on Wikipedia. As I said earlier, if you want to change that, do a "RfC" in the video game developer talk page, not here. And what hundreds of companies of companies are you talking about? The current list includes all second-party developers. Oh, and I guess you didn't quite understand, see we're not including every wholly third-party developer who releases an exclusive on the side for a Nintendo, since to be a second-party studio it also needs a contract, which in case of Capcom it's a publishing one. I hope it's all clear right now.--Arkhandar (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You could go down the list of Wii games for example and pull any exclusive as being by a second-party developer by this interpretation. This would not be particularly useful to anyone looking into Nintendo's development studios. A company like WayForward seems to have been added, for example, on the basis of Mighty Switch Force!, Shantae, and A Boy and His Blob, but these were not funded by Nintendo nor are they Nintendo properties; they just happen to only exist on Nintendo consoles.

Citing another Wikipedia article (which may itself need work) with a very loose interpretation that is outside any other definition seen on the web with no sources isn't enough to support the inclusion of all of these publishers and developers. The criteria for a Nintendo developer needs to be much more narrow and specific so that it remains relevant. BattleMario (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly though A Boy and His Blob was published by Nintendo, but it's not. I will remove WayForward Technologies asap, as they have no contract with Nintendo at all. Thank you for the heads up. If you find any other company please let me know. Other than that I really suggest you to start a discussion on Talk:Video game developer. Thank you :)--Arkhandar (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Any company that becomes a licensed developer with Nintendo enters into a contact, so using that itself as the basis for inclusion is not enough. Most of these developers fit solidly under the definition of third-party. They are not owned by Nintendo. They produce a variety of content for all platforms and not exclusively Nintendo. They are independent companies free to develop for whoever they want. This list should only include development studios owned by Nintendo in whole or in part which is given through Nintendo's annual reports.

The article you are using has its own editors discussing the quality of the article already. Since the list of second-party developers has been expanded by yourself and any attempt by others to remove them has been reverted by yourself, you should provide more citation why these companies deserve to be listed as Nintendo developers. This shouldn't be a list of companies that have worked with Nintendo or merely "entered into a contract" with Nintendo, as that list is hundreds of companies long. The definition of a third-party developer is well-established. Nintendo has even conducted interviews with third-party companies with developers from Square, Capcom, Tecmo Koei, etc.BattleMario (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with BattleMario on this one. Second Party is a term that refers to a company that is under an agreement to devote their development exclusively for one publisher. Developing a game (singular) that is exclusive to a single publisher does not make a company a second party. I've asked for clarification at WikiProject:VideoGames demeteloaf (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you agree then if Shin'en Multimedia was labeled as a second-party developer? They fit right it your description, yet they are a third-party company.--Arkhandar (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to rollback some companies that have no sources stating to be Nintendo second-party developers, even tough Wikipedia's guideline states as such.--Arkhandar (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion regarding Second Party Developers has been added to the talk page of the Wikiproject: Video Games. As a contributor to the project, please add your opinions to it here. Thank you.

Discussion archived here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azsayswhat (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasonably, I think the current second-party list is too long and vague to be useful. If a section is needed at all in the template, a Google Books search shows sources referring to devs like HAL Laboratory, Rare Ltd., Game Freak as second-party. If consensus is to keep the category in the template, I'd like to see RS that refer to each as second-party sourced in each article and then added to the list individually (instead of by default just for making an exclusive or any other arbitrary inclusion criteria).  czar · · 03:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no exact definition for the term "second party developer". Yes, the term is used often in the web, but that's because of the Wikipedia article stating that there is such a term. Unfortunately the article has no sources for that. As far as I know, "second party developer" is a term which does not really exist and was invented by English wikipedia. It would make sense not to call a studio a second party developer, but instead to differentiate their games as either third or first party. A game published by a first party studio is a first party game, the studio behind the game can be first party or third party. I hope I was able to express myself lucidly. Umweltschützen (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Companies like Rare or GameFreak are typically considered "second party", because they were partially owned/controlled/working on IP like (Pokémon, Donkey Kong Country) owned by a First party. (Nintendo) Companies like Sega or Square Enix are far more often referred to as "third party", where they make a game for the First party, but have no affiliation or control thrust upon them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Excise the term second-party - As elucidated at WT:VG, it is an ill-defined neologism. - hahnchen 00:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep the term with some changes - As I said in WT:VG the definition is still used by booth the media (here for example) and users (here for example) alike. And the definition itself seems to be pretty solid: a developer who, while being a separate entity from any console manufacturer, is tied to a specific one usually through contract or partial ownership and makes games specifically for that console manufacture.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The best place to start with getting accurate, verifiable information may be Nintendo's annual reports which include lists of subsidiaries and "affiliated companies." Subsidiaries would include companies like ND CUBE, Retro, Monolith Software, etc. Affiliated companies includes The Pokemon Company, Warpstar (and in the past companies like Silicon Knights.) This poses its own issues, as independent companies such as AlphaDream or Camelot, which do largely seem to take work from Nintendo and work on Ninetndo IP, wouldn't qualify under any criteria as Nintendo developers, they're just companies that happen to largely work closely with Nintendo. That's why it might be a better idea to list such companies elsewhere, taking care to note that these are not companies known to be bound to Nintendo but which are known to work in the capacity that they do. BattleMario (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a preliminary version with changes made with information in Nintendo's annual reports. The distinction between subsidiaries and "affiliated companies" is also pulled from the reports. Unverified companies have been removed. BattleMario (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a major improvement. (Though things like "MONOLITH SOFT" should not be in all caps like that...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if there were proper styling rules. Officially they are listed in all caps in the annual report.BattleMario (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on the Wikiproject video games' talk page.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALLCAPS says to typically avoid them, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that User:BattleMario has deleted most of the template without a proper consensus. I revert his edits until a consensus regarding the template has been reached.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be both here and in the WikiProject talk page that the template as it stands is over-broad and reliant on a neologism and without sources. There has been no further discussion in the past two days. I think it's fair to move forward with a template that properly defines the actual subsidiaries and affiliates of Nintendo, rather than an ill-defined "list of companies Nintendo works with." BattleMario (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached from one day to another, these things take time whether you find it silly or not, especially since like you said, these pages don't have that much traffic. You seem to be so concentrated in deleting everything you don't agree with, that instead of finding alternatives to the problem together, you just want to delete everything and put notability of and overhaul quality of the template into question. I already said that the term "second-party developer" should be abolished from Wikipedia, but we need to find an alternative to it in order to improve quality and maintain notability. One alternative I suggested were two different terms that can be properly sourced. I gave the example of "Affliated developers" and "Contracted developers", since those are terms that can easily be sourced and still maintain notability be it in the case of Nintendo, Sony Computer Entertainment and Microsoft Studios, all of which need to be changed. The template is ill-defined right now, but deleting valuable information won't be of much help either.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Affiliated is a business term and companies that fall under that were included in my version. "Contracted developers" does not solve the broadness problem. All developers who make a game for a video game console are "contracted developers." Merely renaming "second-party" to another neologism doesn't solve the problem. Notability is about whether a subject should have an article, just because a company is notable does not mean it should be in the Nintendo developers template. This template does not need to advertise every company that has has worked with Nintendo or on a Nintendo game. BattleMario (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Then please tell me how is this any different from Sony Computer Entertainment and Microsoft Studios? It's not advertising since you could argue that most of these companies do bad to mediocre works, but that's no the point. The point is that the "problem" here is broad because Nintendo is known for outsourcing a substantial part of it's development duties. Blame Nintendo for having such an amount of partners. That doesn't mean that they should all be deleted because, you know, they're too much so let's just get rid of them. That's not very encyclopedic in my opinion. Oh, and "contracted developers" does solve the problem, since we're list developers here, not publishers. You see, you got it wrong there. All publishers who publish a game for a video game console are "contracted publishers", not developers.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the histories of those articles are, but they may face similar problems if they ever try to reach good/featured article status. Some of the content seems better suited to a separate list or something, if it's to be retained at all. That aside, developers are under contracts too, not just publishers, plus sometimes the developer and publisher are the same company. Keeping the list to companies that can be verified as Nintendo subsidiaries or affiliates seems easiest since there doesn't have to be arguments about whether a company "counts" as a "contracted developer" and it would be in line with this template as a list of "Nintendo developers." BattleMario (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. They face the same problem yet no one talks about it. But other than that there's not much room for doubt in here. In this context, contracted developers are developers who work on Nintendo IP and Nintendo-published titles.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In order to solve the problems this template faces, this is the structure I purpose:

--Arkhandar (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My version is available here. BattleMario (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

According to a recent Nintendo PDF (financial report from last spring, IIRC), Intelligent Systems wasn't listed as a company they owned/had any stake in. (all others they do were listed) Could anybody help me find this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1072343

The link to the PDF is in that post.

Personally, I think Intelligent Systems and Game Freak should still be listed in the affiliated box, as Nintendo has lifetime contracts with them, as well as shared ownership of the Fire Emblem and Pokemon IPs, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.111.156 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Are the percentages even appropriate for the navbox? I'd think not czar 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. However, the fact still remains that Nintendo has deep ties with the like of Intelligent Systems, HAL Laboratory, and Game Freak through shared IP ownership, and should be in the navbox for that reason. I understand that one could make the argument for other developers Nintendo has ties with being included, such as Vanpool (Dillon's Rolling Western) or Skip, (Chibi Robo) but the difference there is that Nintendo doesn't share the rights of those franchises with those developers, they own those franchises outright, and the developer is little more than a contracted workforce. Cases in point:

http://kirby.nintendo.com/rainbow-curse/

HAL and Nintendo are listed as joint copyright holders at the bottom.

http://fireemblem.nintendo.com/

Intelligent Systems and Nintendo are listed as joint copyright holders at the bottom.

Then, we move onto more "questionable" partners such as Vanpool, as I listed above.

http://dillonsrollingwestern.nintendo.com/

Vanpool is not listed in the copyright section at the bottom, as the IP is wholly owned by Nintendo and not shared.

http://chibirobo-ziplash.nintendo.com/

Again, we see that Nintendo is the sole copyright owner. Skip isn't listed.

IP ownership is the difference between all of Nintendo's various "partners", and since they are intricately linked with the likes of HAL Laboratory/Intelligent Systems/Game Freak on various IP rights, I feel they can be added to the affiliates section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.111.156 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be listed somewhere on the template, just as long as it wasn't misleading like it previously was. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would chop off the commentary in gray altogether czar 22:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed several companies that are not typically associated to Nintendo, such as Bandai Namco. Companies on this proposed revision should be primarily developing on Nintendo consoles at the moment; some such as Square Enix may qualify as "former" due to the fact they were once in this arrangement, but I'd personally like to disqualify developers that focused on NES and SNES development, as Nintendo was incredibly influential over the market at the time, and it would result in too much of a mess. On the other hand, Atlus (as a Sega subsidiary that has, in the 2010s, produced mostly Nintendo titles) has been kept, as it is increasingly associated to the 3DS rather than PlayStation consoles, with only one upcoming release being PS4, with its most well known franchise being . Please suggest changes; I plan to just edit it myself if no one objects. This is intended to make "Partners" also fulfill the requirement to be a Nintendo development team. If a developer has never made a game worthy of an article on Wikipedia, significantly collaborated on a Nintendo game, or contributed to Nintendo hardware, they are removed.

Also, companies are separated based on criteria met. So far, "Exclusive developers" are those which have never made a title outside of Nintendo's ecosystem, or currently have publicly become developers exclusive to Nintendo systems. Any company that has collaborated on Nintendo titles or licensed Nintendo IP is a partner. Any Nintendo-published company is usually regarded as a business partner, unless it's obscure (Nintendo arcade games by Namco Bandai) or former (Namco and Square both meet these requirements through the spinoffs Super Mario RPG and Star Fox Assault which are about as good as some other developers, but it would be hard to say they're Nintendo teams, and this was before their companies entered their current forms as Bandai Namco (aka Namco Bandai) and Square Enix.)

However, on the note of "obscure", perhaps "arcade developers" could be a separate category within this.

Companies that have not contributed to development efforts (publishing the Pokemon Adventures manga etc.) are not even considered. Full disclosure, I like Nintendo, work in the games industry (PC developer, no professional connections to Nintendo), and in the past I made edits removing Sega, SE, and BN among others from this list. For reference, "Partners" in a vague sense includes IBM, AMD, etc. for assisting in hardware development. Nuke (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been following this for a bit and my thoughts are that there is way too too much original research in this navbox. My suggestion would be to find what terms WP:VG/RS sources use for these devs and use those as the defining groups. For example, "second-party" devs current/former. How do the sources actually refer to "select partners"? Or is it an invented category? All additions/removals need to be grounded in sources, preferably those from a video game reliable sources custom Google search or archive.org magazines. – czar 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for latency; I didn't realize I didn't watch the page. I actually said how I selected the partners for that category, but in particular the word "Select" referred to the exclusion of partners who would normally be excluded for lack of notability or would not be development teams (e.g. Square Enix), and I did not list any new developers. I mainly used their articles as "sources", so they're probably all tertiary not considering the fact some may need citations, although I do find listing Game Freak separately as a development team for titles other than Pokemon seems ridiculous, since AFAIK all they really develop with Nintendo is Pokemon since DS. However, I think the new revisions since this box was originally made have already alleviated all the major issues. Nuke (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)