@L4DYK0M1C, Nintendo is the proprietor of Monolithsoft, so yes, Xenoblade Chronicles is a first-party title in every sense of the word.

@Mandoble You aren't looking at the main screen when you do that on the 3DS/DS either. You also aren't looking at your monitor if you're looking at your keyboard and you aren't looking at your TV when you're looking at your remote. There are remote control apps for your phone and you certainty aren't looking at your TV when you use them and yet they work perfectly fine.

So that complaint is total BS.

I'm hoping P-1000 so we can get more 2nd party partner ships from nintendo like Microsoft and Sony have.

I'm 26 years old and i've been gaming since I've been 3. I use to be excited over the lil thing announced and showed, by this time in my life, I'm not really excited about e3 and or any of that crap at all. I know what games I like, so I'm gonna get a Wii U no matter what. The excitement in learning a new game or the excitement e3 once had on me has been dead for a couple years now. It happens as you grow older and realize "everything changes but yet still stays the same"

I know Nintendo has rights to Xenoblade since Monolith is a subsidary of Nintendo now... I was talking about The Last Story, in which even in the game states that it's sole property of Mistwalker. Just because Nintendo publish Monster Hunter Tri (Europe) and Dragon Quest IX doesn't make it their IP like Sony and Mickey were claiming :/

@skywake
I misspoke. It happens, I guess.

Huh Nintrndo owns the ip to the last story. If mistwalker owned ot they would have filed the trademarks instead of nintendo.

No, those people were dead wrong and rather than believe them straight up, you could've always brought out the books and proved to them that they don't know what they're talking about.

Sorely dissapointed that ghost recon online wont be at alunch and there are no good looking online mutiplayer games at launch.

Still not sure why ni tendon hasn't made a follow up to hunters.

[/div]

Jesus Christ, I said there were exceptions, and those are exactly the exceptions I was talking about. Those are brands wholly owned by their parent companies, and in those cases, they worked out a deal with Nintendo to publish them in other territories. I could've sworn I even used Ninja Gaiden III as an example of this, if you actually read my post. In fact, usually in those cases, Nintendo only has rights to distribute them. Sony's been talking specifically about IPs owned by Nintendo, too. In the cases of smaller brands, the publisher owns all the rights to that IP.

I read through your WHOLE post as soon it was posted and no, you did not even point out Ninja Gaiden at all. Don't make accusations just for the sake of it. I'm not going to waste time arguing because I don't want to sound like a broken record.

Microsoft still does not own those properties Sony has brought up. And like I said, in the past 11 years, Microsoft has yet to set up branches like Sony and Nintendo have been doing. Don't get on me if I tell it like it is.

Microsoft has been staffing up lately and making new studios. So far first party they have.

United States
343 Industries
Good Science Studios
Microsoft Studio Core Publishing team
Microsoft Studios Family
Microsoft Studios Flight
Microsoft Studios Kids and Lifestyle Entertainment
Microsoft Studios Leap
Microsoft Studios playful learning
Platform Next Studios
The Connected Experiences
Turn 10
Twisted Pixel
Xbox Live Productions

Europe
Lionhead
MGS soho
Press Play (acquired this week)
Rare

Canada
Bigpark
MGS Vctoria
MGS Vancouver

Then there is another 4 that work on the OS, app, and mostly tech side of things.

Microsoft also had just hired Phil Harrison over at European part. They've seen how Sony has flourished with internal studios and creating 343 left a nice taste in there mouth. I wouldn't be surprised that by the year is up they aquifer playground games and signal studios. I wish they would buy mistwalker outright as well. That and they have good 2nd pparty relationships with good devs like double fine with another Happy Action theathre on the way as well as Tim Shafer hinting at a sequel to iron brigade. Also they put aside Round 3 million dollars to go to getting major thrid parties to worm on exculskve games in the way gears of war is.

So I'm optimistic for Microsoft's first party output in the future.

Interesting. Guess I stand corrected. At the same time- why does it seem like their "games" are Arcade only? Seems like a waste because those games would be buried under everything else and won't get the proper spotlight they deserve.

Microsoft promotes the hell out of Xbla. Look up the sales for minecraft xbla and trails evoultion.

Case and point

But for the most part I think micrlsoft understands thats its hard to push a non AAA game on the retail market these days. And with the quality of download games going up (see Alan wake American nightmare, section 8 prejudice, costume quest). Its smarter to release mid range games at a $10-$20 pricetag and get them to sale.  I mean remedy has heavily hinted Alan Wake 2 being a. Console game but decided to have a side story in American nightmare to keep the brand relevant. Take pushmo. Thats one of the best games of last year with a lot of depth and could be a full retail games. But putting it kn download maximzed the people who would get it instead of waiting for a price drop. I think Sony could learn from this and they have played with the idea. Look at infamous 2 festival of blood or Rachent and Clank: quest for booty. Now what's stopping them from releasing a cull length with PS2 up reserve visuals Jam and Daxter game for psn. Or a downloadable 2D metroid like shadow complex.

See, a majority of those games I have not heard of. Hybrid, Alan Wake and Shadow Complex are the only ones. And Minecraft was popular FAR before it made it to XBLA but I did see the neat promotions they had with avatar costumes and accessories and the like.

Well I have Internet access again (was on vacation last week), and boy, this was a pretty bad E3 conference. After admitting they did not do a very good job with the 2011 conference, I thought for sure this year would be something special. Instead, it was almost a repeat of last year. I was happy to learn that you can transfer VC games over to the Wii U (although this wasn't even mentioned at the presentation), nothing blew me away and made me want to start saving my money up for launch day. At this point I'm thinking I should keep my Wii to continue buying VC titles for and get a PS3 or 360 rather than a Wii U.

Yeah I see what you mean. I was dismayed to see microsoft didn't put the summer of arcade sizzle reel into the confrence. I've been picking up a lot of xbla stuff recently. Yep microsoft has a lot of great games that aren't shooty or racy or xbla.

Raskulls
Illomilo
Fusion genesis
Kingdom of keflings
Dugeon fighter online
Fez
Splosion man
Gunstringer
Skukks of the shogon
The splatters

Iron brigade

How about this: You never never talk to me again, and I'll do the same for you? Because this won't end well otherwise.

Right but only Mario 64 and Pilotwings were actually launch titles. Mario 64 was a great game, but seriously none of the previous launch lineups have been particularly impressive. The difference I feel is that there is a 'MUCH' stronger selection of 3rd party exclusives and cross-platform releases on offer in the WiiU's launch window. Plus, you'll get Pikmin 3 which looks awesome.

Those 1st party titles like Metroid, F-Zero, Zelda, Mario 3D, etc.. will come in time, and I suspect Nintendo are waiting to hi-jack the party of the other two consoles by releasing & announcing said 1st party titles when they're trying to sell their respective systems. I think there'll big a big 1st party push at this time to try and lure gamers away from the consoles. I mean, that's what i'd do .. Who wouldn't want to play Metroid & F-Zero in HD????

There are cases of smaller brands where the publisher may not own the rights to the IP. Matrix Games is a publisher of Frozen Synapse, but Matrix does not own the rights to the IP.

It's entirely down to the nature of the deal that's been struck. If the publisher acquires the IP as a result of the publishing deal, then it owns the IP. Otherwise the developer retains all rights to it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there are no hard-and-fast rules about that. IP and ownership is a contractual thing, so it really depends on the individual terms.

That was a badly worded sentence I wrote. Or maybe even a bad sentence entirely. I'm pretty sure I knew before that there weren't any set rules, and meant to say "They may not own the rights to that IP. If not, then duely noted.