1st Party vs 3rd Party Support

What do you think is more important? Do you think it's more important to have an abundance of first-party support or to have an outstanding amount of third-party support? Obviously finding the medium is your best bet, but this thread isn't about that.

1st party. Nintendo's first party games are one of the best game ever made. They sell consoles.

Ehh doenst really matter to me, as long as I get good games.first party or not

Hmm, If I were to choose between the two, I'd choose First part. Because they usually make sure it's quality assured. And first party games is what makes a console distinct from other. If it were all third party, it really doesn't matter which system you buy.

Teckno wrote:

Hmm, If I were to choose between the two, I'd choose First part. Because they usually make sure it's quality assured. And first party games is what makes a console distinct from other. If it were all third party, it really doesn't matter which system you buy.

Some third party games are exclusive.

I go with first party. Third paries don't last long.

Toxicmaniac wrote:

I go with first party. Third paries don't last long.

Call of Duty?

Sonji wrote:

Toxicmaniac wrote:

I go with first party. Third paries don't last long.

Call of Duty?

Unless they have a milking francise that basicly shits money. ._.

Is this even a question?

Ofcourse 3rd party support is more important. There is obviously a huge gap between the number of 3rd party developers versus 1st party.

Alanski wrote:

Is this even a question?

Ofcourse 3rd party support is more important. There is obviously a huge gap between the number of 3rd party developers versus 1st party.

ahem. Nintendo is better than most, if not, all 3rd party devs.

1st party. I think it would sway the customer more.

And the way things are, the PS4 will be the console of choice next gen. What 1st party titles does MS have?

Halo, Fable and Forza are the only meaningful IP's. Whereas the games like Mass Effect are now multi-plat and the only, probably along with Fable, exclusive that interests me is Gears and that is solely owned by Epic Games so I expect to see future Gears titles across all platforms.

First-party for me. Third-party isn't guaranteed exclusivity.

For example, I might buy a Wii because I want to play the No More Heroes series, a Wii-exclusive third-party franchise. The only problem is that now NMH is on 360 and PS3. NMH Paradise is an HD version of the first NMH games. There goes my reason for buying a Wii. Yes I can still play NMH, but I could've easily bought a 360 or PS3.

However, let's say I wanted a Wii for Super Mario Galaxy. I can be sure that it won't go to to 360 or PS3, and therefore my reason for specifically buying a Wii is concrete.

I would say 1st party because if you don't have that big of a first party studio, then you are provably going to end up like Microsoft. It worked for them at the beginning of the generation, but 3rd party support and exclusives don't last very long in this economy. The best way to show you have 3rd party support now a days is to get some sort of exclusive content.

Microsoft has Activision, Bethesda, Epic, and Crytek

While Sony has EA, WB Games, Rockstar, and now Valve.

Zeratul wrote:

Ehh doenst really matter to me, as long as I get good games.first party or not

This. If the games good, I could care less who makes it.

DukemNukem43 wrote:

Alanski wrote:

Is this even a question?

Ofcourse 3rd party support is more important. There is obviously a huge gap between the number of 3rd party developers versus 1st party.

ahem. Nintendo is better than most, if not, all 3rd party devs.

That's a very opinionated statement. I'm not a fan of any Nintendo games. I don't see how the publisher has anything to do with this. There are generally alot more 3rd party devs hence why there are alot more 3rd party developed AAA budget games than 1st-party developed.

Yes 1st party support is important as pointed out in my MS rant, but 3rd party support IS more important. 1st party support gives a console its iconic games. 3rd party support is important for a number of reasons. First off, 3rd party developed games make up the majority of games on any of the current gen consoles. Second, if one version of a multiplatform game is consistantly shittier (I'm talking about Wii multiplats), then that is one reason to move away from that platform and go to the competition. Everyone is throwing around opinions based around the idea that they like 1st party games more so they are more important, but in the real world 3rd party support is the most important.

The poll question is which is more important, not which catalogue brings you your favorite games. Be honest with your answers.

Just exclusives in general. I'll have to go for first party because usually they're better quality (unless it's Nintendo or some such nonsense).

I think 3rd party is more important. They make up a bigger percentage of each consoles library.

Wait...is this thread about first 1st and 3rd party exclusivity or just exclusives and multiplats in general?

^^

Both? Do you think it's more important to get exclusive third party titles/content or get more first-party support.

1st party because devs spend alot of time with them.

Sonji wrote:

^^

Both? Do you think it's more important to get exclusive third party titles/content or get more first-party support.

Well even if it's not exclusive I think it's still more important to get third party support over first party support otherwise the system will fail like the Dreamcast did when they didn't get support from EA. The only real advantage I see that first party games have over third party games are graphics.