To support Third Party or not to support.....that is the question

[dizman]

I'm all for 3rd party stuff finding its way into the mix, bring on the regult!

[Newtype78]

Isn't any purchase a de facto endorsement? Without the purchase....there is no incentive for the producer to make more/meet perceived demand from the sale....

I think Yamato failed because it was too much of a "fan" and did not adopt more business-like practices that would have helped them stay profitable...(more made-to-order, fewer releases, more releases based on customer feedback/wants, etc)

Yes, I can support a 1/60 Regult...but I believe a 3P reboot of a VF-1, YF-21 or VF-19 would be harmful....

Enjoy your lunch!

Lunch was good.

Not every purchase is an endorsement. I'm buying the Master Made Makuros out of curiosity. I don't approve of it. I can't until I see for myself what qualities it possesses as a toy product.

Even if a purchase was necessarily an endorsement, in my post, I stated that I am specific about what kind of unlicensed products I would purchase.

So purchasing one unlicensed product is not a wholesale endorsement of unlicensed products at large.

The breadth of what unlicensed products are and can be is too varied in my eyes for me to say I support them or I don't support them. That's why I don't condone or endorse unlicensed products. It is a case by case judgment, or endorsement if you will, for me.

Ok. So how are people who make add-ons for existing 1st and 2nd P products considered? Are they 3rd P?

As I understand the terms, at least with respect to the subject of 3rd party or specifically unlicensed products, the 1st party is the primary seller/producer/owner of a product/product line/brand.

The 2nd party is the customer.

The 3rd party is anyone else who isn't the 1st or 2nd party.

In my previous post, I used Hot Toys' upcoming Optimus Prime figure as an example of a licensed 3rd party product. They have permission from Hasbro and/or TakaraTomy to create a product using the IP of "Optimus Prime". They are not the 1st party(HasTak) and they aren't the 2nd party(a customer who is buying a product) so they are the 3rd party.

The fact that "the 3rd party" is so broad is the reason why I chose to specifically address "unlicensed products" rather than "3rd party products" for the sake of reducing ambiguity(hopefully it makes sense now why I speak of unlicensed products rather than "3rd party products").

Another way to put it is that all unlicensed products are 3rd party products but not all 3rd party products are unlicensed products.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Newtype78

[NightCastle]

As I understand the terms, at least with respect to the subject of 3rd party or specifically unlicensed products, the 1st party is the primary seller/producer/owner of a product/product line/brand.

The 2nd party is the customer.

The 3rd party is anyone else who isn't the 1st or 2nd party.

In my previous post, I used Hot Toys' upcoming Optimus Prime figure as an example of a licensed 3rd party product. They have permission from Hasbro and/or TakaraTomy to create a product using the IP of "Optimus Prime". They are not the 1st party(HasTak) and they aren't the 2nd party(a customer who is buying a product) so they are the 3rd party.

The fact that "the 3rd party" is so broad is the reason why I chose to specifically address "unlicensed products" rather than "3rd party products" for the sake of reducing ambiguity(hopefully it makes sense now why I speak of unlicensed products rather than "3rd party products").

Another way to put it is that all unlicensed products are 3rd party products but not all 3rd party products are unlicensed products.

Hey. You don't belong on the internet. You make too much sense.

[Tober]

Another way to put it is that all unlicensed products are 3rd party products but not all 3rd party products are unlicensed products.

Hmm... As I understand it that's not quite right.

First party depends where you stand in relation to the other parties. If there is a direct relationship it is second party, third party is indirect.

So to Hasbro as a customer I am a second party. To me Hasbro are the second party.

Hot Toys are second party to Hasbro as they are licensed. FansProject etc are third party to Hasbro as they have no direct relationship.

I think that's right. It's a throwback to first, second and third person points of view in writing.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Not to open up a can of worms.......but, now that we are on the eve of a potential Macross Third Party age......what is or will be Macross World's official position on Third Party Macross merchandise?

There are pro's and con's to both sides of either supporting and not supporting....

I feel that it is clearly "stealing IP", but I do not think that the big two are willing to produce certain products that several collectors, myself included, are interested in being produced (MII valks, enemy mecha, accessories and add-ons?).......I think that the issue may come down to the cost of licensing v. the potential profit......remove the licensing component...and well.....it definitely lowers the overall cost to bring the product into production....it is what it is....and I am sure that is a reason why we have not seen various Macross mecha come to light....

So what do you guys think?

Does the good outweigh the bad for the individual collector?

I don't have a strong opinion either way. A guy who wants something but can't buy it because it isn't going to be made is going to get what he wants eventually. I'd buy third party stuff if first party is not going to provide it. What we think as a community of fans shouldn't matter because it's not in our best interest to defend or attack these companies. We are just fans. Why should you care? They don't care about you, they just want money and if you can pay they get rewarded for providing it. If no one provides they shouldn't get anything from you.

It really is as simple as that. You can't steal if there was nothing to steal.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[EXO]

Since 3rd party isn't accurate because they refer to "authorized" companies also, can we just give them a new name... say... Cockblock Parties? Or CBP's...

[Tober]

Since 3rd party isn't accurate because they refer to "authorized" companies also, can we just give them a new name... say... Cockblock Parties? Or CBP's...

"What are you to me?".

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

The more the merrier. And why stop at Macross? How about a really kick ass Legioss?

Pretty please?

I still don't get why arcadia don't do it. I love the beagle ride armor.

Would love more ride armors and to see a legious and tread from these guys. This is not macross related topic but I think a lot of macross fans would buy it. It almost looks like what a transforming destroid would be if something like that existed in macross universe. (ie chunky 80s robot mode compared to the slim valks we see in macross without thier armor pack on)

Edited August 27, 2014 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[EXO]

"What are you to me?".

well since I make some stuff, that would make me the chastity belt to your vajayjay...

I still don't get why arcadia don't do it. I love the beagle ride armor.

Would love more ride armors and to see a legious and tread from these guys. This is not macross related topic but I think a lot of macross fans would buy it. It almost looks like what a transforming destroid would be if something like that existed in macross universe. (ie chunky 80s robot mode compared to the slim valks we see in macross without thier armor pack on)

Arcadia won't do it because of what happened to Beagle. Besides, wouldn't you think TREX would have gone to Yamato first about their ride armor project? If they wanted to continue it though... I would think they would go to Sentinel this time. That's a whole other discussion though and we already went thru it a bunch of times.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

i'm not... Macross business is hard enough as it is for companies with yamato going under. my money will only support first party stuff.

(like i don't change my mind to my convenience... but so far that's how i feel)

But what if the third party stuff was way better than the first party stuff? I'd definitely buy the third party stuff over the first party as a kind of punishment for putting no effort into the product. I see the competition as the reason we have such nice things. (puts fear into the "lazy rival", eg bandai not caring about macross fans for ages until yamato had the market all to itself, causing them to raise thier standards)

We as fans of the art shouldn't involve ourself too much in the commercial side of things. If what creators worry about is how much $ they potentially lost vs making people happy and being rewarded with money after that fact of giving us what we want, then they kinda don't matter in the grand scheme of things for being dicks. I'm being tough on the "biz" but it's because I am a fan that i say this, not because I have a vested interest in wanting some corporation to suceed. That is what this site should be, not a big ugly text-based ad for bandai arcadia so they can become rich and powerful at the expense of not caring about quality or giving the fans nice things worth the money they pay. lol

Sometimes the question needs to be asked: "Is this good for macross in general?" needs to be asked. If companies can profit from nonsense (lousy products that let us down) and third party can give you better things, maybe in the big picture that is indirectly reminding companies that they can 'do more' to earn respect from comunity when they "lose money" by having the third party around to compete.

Business doesn't make stuff in the best interest of customers. They do it for profit. But a fan might do something out of passion which could give better results than the official version of a product. You see this in the software modding community all the time.

An example is in the number of mods available for pc games like Elder Scrolls. (popular rpg with great editors included) Good example of how fans can fix flaws in official products for free just for being passionate fans of the material.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[CoreyD]

Not to dwell on mospeada, but what's to say that 3rd party designs would be that much better than cm's offerings? I'm a big fan of the series, so something is always better than nothing, but yeah, I'd love to have something in the same realm of quality as the vf-1 2.0.

[Tober]

well since I make some stuff, that would make me the chastity belt to your vajayjay...

...

...

Did you just call me a c**t?

Again.

Arcadia won't do it because of what happened to Beagle. Besides, wouldn't you think TREX would have gone to Yamato first about their ride armor project? If they wanted to continue it though... I would think they would go to Sentinel this time. That's a whole other discussion though and we already went thru it a bunch of times.

No one in their right mind would touch the Beagle Mospeadas...

If the 3P Macross stuff is popular enough maybe someone will attempt a Legioss and Tread down the line.

[Newtype78]

Hey. You don't belong on the internet. You make too much sense.

Oh no! I'm getting kicked out of the internet!

Hmm... As I understand it that's not quite right.

First party depends where you stand in relation to the other parties. If there is a direct relationship it is second party, third party is indirect.

So to Hasbro as a customer I am a second party. To me Hasbro are the second party.

Hot Toys are second party to Hasbro as they are licensed. FansProject etc are third party to Hasbro as they have no direct relationship.

I think that's right. It's a throwback to first, second and third person points of view in writing.

As I understand it, in commerce, the second party is always the customer. Hasbro can't be the second party to a customer because it's not buying anything from the customer...I don't think you can apply first, second, or third person perspectives in writing to relationships of the first, second, and third parties in commerce.

Licensing isn't a matter of a buyer/customer transaction for a product or service. It's a business deal where, for a fee, the licensor grants permission to the licensee to use, to a degree, a property of some sort.

So Hot Toys isn't a second party due to paying for licensing rights to make an Optimus Prime figure. They're paying a fee to Hasbro for permission to create Optimus Prime products. They're not buying a product or service from Hasbro. They're not a customer, they're a business partner in this example.

Since 3rd party isn't accurate because they refer to "authorized" companies also, can we just give them a new name... say... Cockblock Parties? Or CBP's...

It's not that using "3rd party" is inaccurate, rather, it's ambiguous. As I said earlier, not all 3rd party products are unlicensed. Most discussions involving 3rd party products incorrectly use "3rd party" to mean "unlicensed" or something that is not made with the permission by the intellectual property holder.

For example, I have a plastic cup with the image of artwork from the movie "Captain America: The Winter Soldier". This appears to be a third party product because Marvel did not manufacture it and sell it to me. However, the manufacturer has permission to use the IP of CA:TWS for this cup's artwork and has permission to sell it. In return for using the IP of CA:TWS, the manufacturer of this cup pays a fee for use of the license to Marvel.

Many, if not most, objects in the households of everyone posting in this thread are technically 3rd party products.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Newtype78

[Tober]

As I understand it, in commerce, the second party is always the customer. Hasbro can't be the second party to a customer because it's not buying anything from the customer...I don't think you can apply first, second, or third person perspectives in writing to relationships of the first, second, and third parties in commerce.

Licensing isn't a matter of a buyer/customer transaction for a product or service. It's a business deal where, for a fee, the licensor grants permission to the licensee to use, to a degree, a property of some sort.

So Hot Toys isn't a second party due to paying for licensing rights to make an Optimus Prime figure. They're paying a fee to Hasbro for permission to create Optimus Prime products. They're not buying a product or service from Hasbro. They're not a customer, they're a business partner in this example.

So you're saying that 3rd Party relates to 'Third Party Access' rather than the third party in legal terms? Makes sense.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Not to dwell on mospeada, but what's to say that 3rd party designs would be that much better than cm's offerings? I'm a big fan of the series, so something is always better than nothing, but yeah, I'd love to have something in the same realm of quality as the vf-1 2.0.

The CMs lacked details and looked too skinny compared to the toyami masterpiece.

[Tober]

The CMs lacked details and looked too skinny compared to the toyami masterpiece.

...and fell apart, and were severely over-priced (initially).

Just like early 3P Transformers.

[Newtype78]

So you're saying that 3rd Party relates to 'Third Party Access' rather than the third party in legal terms? Makes sense.

Not quite. The best explanation I can find for how first, second, and third party applies in this discussion is the concept of the "third party source" as used in commerce. Quoted from Wikipedia:

In commerce, a "third-party source" means a supplier (or service provider) who is not directly controlled by either the seller(first party) or the customer/buyer (second party) in a business transaction.^[2] The third party is considered independent from the other two, even if hired by them,^[2] because not all control is vested in that connection. There can be multiple third-party sources with respect to a given transaction, between the first and second parties. A second-party source would be under direct control of the second party in the transaction.

[EXO]

Seriously... is this a lesson in diction? We all know what we're talking about here... you're killing it with the semantics lesson... "Third Party" is what the TF community calls it and that's what we're talking about. Congrats... looks like you belong on the internet after all!

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

i think there should be a 4th party.

that's the guys who recast 3rd party and sell it as their own. lol

[Tober]

That is somewhat confusing given there is NO relation between, for example, Hasbro and FansProjects. And the last sentence

A second-party source would be under direct control of the second party in the transaction.

Which would imply that the third party is a second party to the first party... Which would confirm what I said about the relationships being dependent upon whose perspective you're looking at them from....

Then again this is a topic (on TF boards) that coined the phrase 'Fourth Party' to refer to products that were created to compliment third party products...

EDIT: Okay, I'll knock it off.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Tober

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

They really need to reboot robotech with the designs from these 3pp hehe. HG can add these variants of the clone from macross to its stories and do comics and stuff about it. Isn't there a voltron vs robotech crossover going on right now?

Those cat robots that shatter into glass from robotech sentinels kinda remind me of the lions in voltron.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Newtype78]

Seriously... is this a lesson in diction? We all know what we're talking about here... you're killing it with the semantics lesson... "Third Party" is what the TF community calls it and that's what we're talking about. Congrats... looks like you belong on the internet after all!

No, it's not a lesson in diction or semantics. I'm neither giving a lesson on how one speaks due to style of written or spoken language(diction) nor am I going into a discussion of interpretation of meaning(semantics). The terms "third party" and "unlicensed" are not synonyms.

All I'm attempting to do is use precise language in an attempt at better understanding. Clarifying the difference in "third party products" and "unlicensed products" is not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of proper usage of terms. Third party is not arbitrarily interchangeable with "unlicensed usage".

The breakdown of most discussions involving the topic of the "third party" stems at least in part from the misuse of the term "third party".

As for what the TF community calls it, I know that full well. I'm a part of that community. I'm more of a TF fan than a Macross fan, to be frank. It's because of my involvement with the TF community that I'm taking part in the discussion in this thread. I see this discussion as a potentially useful opportunity for MW members to expand their horizons beyond licensed products because, to be honest, Macross isn't exactly the most flourishing brand as far as toy products go. It's obvious there's a hunger for more Macross toy representation, particularly of the high end variety.

So, yes, perhaps my involvement in the thread up to this point is dry or repetitive to some such as yourself, Exo. However, are my contributions counter productive? Have my posts gotten in the way of progressing the discussion at least in the way of clarity of what is actually being discussed? Do I deserve a snide bit of sarcasm from a board member who is a moderator, no less?

If people knew what constitutes the first, second, and third parties in commerce, I wouldn't have engaged any further about it beyond my first post in this thread. If you all know what you're talking about here, as you say, there wouldn't have been a need for clarification on what constitutes a third party and why it doesn't mean "unlicensed producer".

Edit: As Tober has, I'll stop this line of discussion. I think that enough has been said on this area and while I'm by no means an expert on this, I at least enjoyed my interaction with Tober on figuring out the "parties".

Edited August 27, 2014 by Newtype78

[Renato]

Seems to me like "Third Party" can refer to Bandai, Yamato, Arcadia, Hasegawa, or T-Rex or Experten, etc. equally as much as the ones making the SD-SDF-1 since none of them are the owners of the Macross intellectual property. The only distinction is, did they pay for the license or not?

If not, then, for clarification, let us call these "unofficial" or "unlicensed".

EDIT -- Adding a few more points:

I don't mind making a dstinction in terminology from the TF fandom's usage of "Third Party", because in their case, the first party producer is always going to be TakaraTomy. In ours, technically it's BigWest, since they own the IP... but BigWest itself is not the one putting out the products, they just sanction them. If your Bandai VF-171 breaks, there's no point in phoning BW. So there's a different dynamic here and I think Newtype78's point is valid. I would go further and suggest that News items etc. involving these products should use terminology like "unofficial", for accuracy's sake, and avoid terms like "Third Party" altogether, as they're somewhat disingenous. Usually I'm not a stickler for little things ("BUT IS IT CANON?!?", oh god why), but in this case I think we should not get into an attitude of "oh, you know what we mean".

Edited August 27, 2014 by Renato

[TheLoneWolf]

We all know what we're talking about here...

Judging by some of the responses in this thread, I don't think that's the case.

you're killing it with the semantics lesson... "Third Party" is what the TF community calls it and that's what we're talking about.

Personally, I don't give any weight to the TF community's usage of "third-party," because they don't use it consistently, nor with much accuracy. Yes, it's just semantics, but I think our community values such distinctions. After all, folks here are quick to correct newcomers who use "Macross" and "Robotech" interchangeably.

Newtype78, your posts took the thoughts right out of my head. If it helps, when referring to the third-party products, such as Master Made's, I use "unlicensed third-party", or UTP. When it comes to your Captain America cup, I call it a "licensed third-party" product, or LTP. And if it's a product for which no license is generally required, such as cell phone cases, then I use "general third-party," or GTP.

[Newtype78]

Seems to me like "Third Party" can refer to Bandai, Yamato, Arcadia, Hasegawa, or T-Rex or Experten, etc. equally as much as the ones making the SD-SDF-1 since none of them are the owners of the Macross intellectual property. The only distinction is, did they pay for the license or not?

If not, then, for clarification, let us call these "unofficial" or "unlicensed".

That's what makes the Macross license more problematic for discussion than, for example, Transformers. For the former, you have a lot of third parties at work with most being licensed and a relative few unlicensed producers. So when people start slinging around "third party" with the intent of saying "unlicensed", that just muddles the conversation unnecesarily.

Edit:

Judging by some of the responses in this thread, I don't think that's the case.

Personally, I don't give any weight to the TF community's usage of "third-party," because they don't use it consistently, nor with much accuracy. Yes, it's just semantics, but I think our community values such distinctions. After all, folks here are quick to correct newcomers who use "Macross" and "Robotech" interchangeably.

Newtype78, your posts took the thoughts right out of my head. If it helps, when referring to the third-party products, such as Master Made's, I use "unlicensed third-party", or UTP. When it comes to your Captain America cup, I call it a "licensed third-party" product, or LTP. And if it's a product for which no license is generally required, such as cell phone cases, then I use "general third-party," or GTP.

The UTP, LTP, and GTP terms sound very useful! I think I'll start using them for my own clarification when I view these various products.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Newtype78

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

It can be confusing if everyone has different meanings to the terms.

I have always thought that

-first party means they own the property right.

-second party means they have rights given to them automatically because they are owned by the company who has the right (for example what if bandai bought and owned arcadia or yamato or just had majority share so Yamato/arcadia could use gundam property and make toys? Think of Sony and how they used the spiderman movie font for the playstation 3 logo as an example)

-third party is the company that is not owned by the first and has to pay the fee for the right to use the property which are sold by the first. These guys can just make merch from many different properties after they get rights to them. (bandai does stuff from macross and other properties they don't own/create/whatever)

argh whatever.

Edited August 27, 2014 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[EXO]

Yeah. Whatever.

Zzzzzzzzzz.

[Renato]

[CoreyD]

More talk about awesome Macross third party ideas!

1/60 Cat's Eye Recon?!!!

1/60 VF-1 Escape Booster!

Edited August 27, 2014 by CoreyD

[Guest davidwhangchoi]

the new hg thread. 1-3 party terminology. where are the terminology purists?

i'm first party except custom parts... it's a slippery slope but i caution venture into mass produced 3p stuff as it may hurt macross toys which may hurt my hobby. you don't know how long i finally waited to get my hands on a vf-1 toy. and finally did years later when yamato came out. with the vf-1 if 3p puts 1st party in jeopardy i'm against it.

for the valks arcadia will never come out with... i guess it's really hard choice as fans want stuff that's not released... but the long terms effects of 3p picking up steam eventually leads into KO territory. or making 3p versions directly competing with 1st party versions. that i don't want to see. espeically since Macross has such a small fanbase. there only so much money to go around.

i don't want to see a KO vf-19a ravens paint scheme bc arcadia didn't release it nor do i want to see a KO vf-4 flashback. i think that will cut into first party profits

Edited August 27, 2014 by davidwhangchoi

[jvmacross]

The thread was clearly started with the intent to discuss the effects of the potential dawn of large-scale production of non-licensed Macross products....generically referred to as "third party"...based on the majority of the posts....it seems most MWers understood that...

[CoreyD]

Sorry I get carried away sometimes

[jvmacross]

More talk about awesome Macross third party ideas!

1/60 Cat's Eye Recon?!!!

1/60 VF-1 Escape Booster!

I'll make sure to include these in my next poll:

What would you want to be the next THIRD PARTY (unlicensed) MACROSS product?....

[Mommar]

I think it's good to clarify. Because there is a difference between third party and unlicensed. Regardless of what most MW'ers thought they all understood it's obvious not all of us were on the same page. Now we can be, and it's accurate. The thread title should be changed to unlicensed. Arcadia and Bandai are already third parties.

[Newtype78]

the new hg thread. 1-3 party terminology. where are the terminology purists?

i'm first party except custom parts... it's a slippery slope but i caution venture into mass produced 3p stuff as it may hurt macross toys which may hurt my hobby. you don't know how long i finally waited to get my hands on a vf-1 toy. and finally did years later when yamato came out. with the vf-1 if 3p puts 1st party in jeopardy i'm against it.

for the valks arcadia will never come out with... i guess it's really hard choice as fans want stuff that's not released... but the long terms effects of 3p picking up steam eventually leads into KO territory. or making 3p versions directly competing with 1st party versions. that i don't want to see. espeically since Macross has such a small fanbase. there only so much money to go around.

i don't want to see a KO vf-19a ravens paint scheme bc arcadia didn't release it nor do i want to see a KO vf-4 flashback. i think that will cut into first party profits

I also do not want to see unlicensed 3rd party products directly compete with licensed products.

I would not want to see recasts of existing Macross toys pop up in the scene. First of all, they're not necessary. Yes, some people haven't acquired a certain toy mold and to buy one on the secondary market at inflated pricing isn't practical but...deal with it. We can't always get what we want and someday, licensed producers could revisit toy molds as we've seen Arcadia do exactly that.

Secondly, as I've seen in the TF U3P market, there is an opportunity to play around with concepts that already exist in the official license offerings. Why retread what is already done? Take some creative liberties and instead of merely copying, either tackle obscure concept designs or put a personal spin on a classic design.

I realize that the Macross toy collector community is largely about accuracy to the source material. Well, if you want that, as sparse as the offerings may be, go for the licensed products. Slowly but surely, they're happening.

The potential Macross U3P industry could be about realizing concepts in toy form that the licensed producers would not likely ever consider. Make these U3P products made to order so production costs can be somewhat controlled.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Newtype78