Topic: Luigi's Mansion 2 Developer Next Level Games Now Exclusively Working With Nintendo

[Killer_Man_Jaro]

The Canadian developer's future lies solely on Nintendo systems.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/36337

Next Level Games, the makers of Nintendo 3DS hit Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, will develop all of their future games exclusively for Nintendo platforms, as revealed by Next Level co-founder Jason Carr.

The company remains an independent studio and has not been purchased by Nintendo, but it will now serve as a second-party developer, maintaining its close relationship with the Japanese giant.

In an interview with Gamasutra, Carr said: "All the stuff that we really focused on was very gameplay-centric; it wasn't massive RPG storytelling and all that. Nintendo has a very similar approach. So definitely, we like to make the same sort of games, so that's a good fit.

"And yeah, the stability as well. There are a lot of benefits to working with a first party. Nintendo's great. They give you the time to make the games good," he added.

Based out of Vancouver, Canada, Next Level Games first collaborated with Nintendo on Super Mario Strikers for GameCube, before moving on to its follow-up, Mario Strikers Charged, and the reboot of Punch-Out!! for Wii. Their most recent project was the aforementioned Luigi's Mansion sequel for 3DS.

[Plugabugz]

I suppose this is the closest thing we're going to get to Nintendo buying Next Level Games. Now they need to do the same with Monster Games...

[Khushrenada]

Congratulations to a studio wanting to make money and develop for Nintendo. But then Canadians are smart like that.

[Weetrick]

Mario sports games aren't exactly original, but I would LOVE to see a Strikers game for Wii U.

[BlackNMild2k1]

In this time of need Nintendo should reward all those small loyal studios that have stuck by their side with an exclusivity contract for the next 5 or so years. Give them all a little relief from the pressure of staying afloat and just focus on getting a game out for the Wii U in the next year to year and a half.

Temporary 2nd parties can earn contract extension and permanent positions based on product evaluation.

Next Level Games [check]
Monster Games [__?__]

Who else should be on that short list?
I really want a redo of that Geist game for Gamecube. who made that? Aren't they mostly Nintendo focused.

[Kytim89]

Nintendo needs to do this with Shin'nen, Monster, Platinum, and Sumo Digital. Nintendo needs to bring Armature Studios to make a new 3DS Metroid game.   

[nickmitch]

I'm hoping Nintendo talked Next Level into this arrangement because that would mean Nintendo is trying to beef up their output.

[Adrock]

I really want a redo of that Geist game for Gamecube. who made that? Aren't they mostly Nintendo focused.

n-Space. They make a lot of licensed games though most of them have been on Nintendo handhelds. They did develop Heroes of Ruin on 3DS which I was mildly interested in. n-Space was also trying to get Winter made on Wii except they couldn't find a publisher. I wish Nintendo jumped on that. That would be a nice exclusive on Wii U.

My hope is that Nintendo just starts bringing these teams in under their umbrella on a permanent basis. Just make them first party and slowly expand them from there.

[Retro Deckades]

I suggest we add Good Feel to the growing list.

[Stratos]

I'm hoping Nintendo talked Next Level into this arrangement because that would mean Nintendo is trying to beef up their output.

I read the original article on Gamasutra and it certainly sounds like it was a Nintendo initiated idea though the team has always enjoyed working with them. Sounds like a win-win-win for Nintendo, Next Level Games and Nintendo Fans.


I already determined a while ago that if I ever decided to pursue a game development job I would only work for a Nintendo studio or perhaps Valve. This is a big reason why.

There are a lot of benefits to working with a first party. Nintendo's great. They give you the time to make the games good.

A lot of the North American publishers we've worked with come from a business background. They're money guys. It's like, "Wow. It's really nice working with guys you can imagine designing a game." It's nice working with a guy who's basically controlling the path of the schedule, and he's actually a designer.

That article really gave me a lot of respect for the studio and confirmed my understanding of how Nintendo operates their studios.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Nobody's going to say moneyhats are bad, how can Nintendo moneyhat?  Oh, I see we are just assuming they are agreeing to go exclusive for..... the profits.  Yes, that is it. 

[NWR_insanolord]

If you look at how bad some of the stuff they've made without Nintendo's help has been I could see how entering an arrangement where they'd always have it would be appealing.

[Adrock]

Next Level Games is mostly unknown outside of Nintendo fans. I'm not sure they have the benefit of moneyhats especially since they don't have a major IP to entice a payout. Entering an exclusive agreement with Nintendo gives a company like Next Level Games a tremendous amount of stability. While they've mostly worked with Nintendo since Super Mario Strikers, they've been contracted to work on licensed games which they probably picked up to pay the bills. Since Next Level Games will likely be working on existing Nintendo franchises (or something Nintendo will probably own all or part of) under this agreement, this is significantly more useful to Nintendo than paying out for timed exclusive DLC. This arrangement is probably closer to Nintendo's relationship with Camelot Software Planning which hasn't made a game not on Nintendo hardware in over 15 years and only one wasn't published by Nintendo.

[Kytim89]

The big question is what will be Next Level's next game for the Wii U and the 3DS. If they did a new Punch-Out! for the 3DS with the art style of the SNES game with modern controls, and the three round system, then that would be nice. Nintendo needs to bring all of their allies together to save the Wii U.

[Adrock]

My guess would be Mario Strikers U. I wouldn't expect it before next year at the earliest.

[Plugabugz]

In this time of need Nintendo should reward all those small loyal studios that have stuck by their side with an exclusivity contract for the next 5 or so years. Give them all a little relief from the pressure of staying afloat and just focus on getting a game out for the Wii U in the next year to year and a half.

Temporary 2nd parties can earn contract extension and permanent positions based on product evaluation.

Next Level Games [check]
Monster Games [__?__]

Who else should be on that short list?
I really want a redo of that Geist game for Gamecube. who made that? Aren't they mostly Nintendo focused.

n-Space made Geist.

There needs to be some European studios in this list, admittedly.

Nintendo never picked up anyone to replace Rare. If Nintendo bought Criterion we might have had a stable F-Zero series.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Next Level Games is mostly unknown outside of Nintendo fans. I'm not sure they have the benefit of moneyhats especially since they don't have a major IP to entice a payout. Entering an exclusive agreement with Nintendo gives a company like Next Level Games a tremendous amount of stability. While they've mostly worked with Nintendo since Super Mario Strikers, they've been contracted to work on licensed games which they probably picked up to pay the bills. Since Next Level Games will likely be working on existing Nintendo franchises (or something Nintendo will probably own all or part of) under this agreement, this is significantly more useful to Nintendo than paying out for timed exclusive DLC.

I guess we might have to define moneyhats then.  Nintendo is paying them to produce exclusive content.  Maybe others don't know much about this studio, but they are obviously happy with the arrangement or they wouldn't have announced they are exclusive.  Sometimes moneyhats leads to exclusive content, sometimes it leads to a timed situation.  It's just interesting to me that on side of the argument is that Nintendo should never pay others for content on their system and then we get all excited when they work out an arrangement (that is financial beneficial for an otherwise third party) to bring exclusive content to Nintendo.


I get that it's smart on Nintendo's behalf since they are utilizing their IPs and it probably didn't cost alot.  But this to me is a low-cost low-reward model.  I'd appreciate whatever spin-off game they create, but it's not going to drive people to Nintendo systems.  Well done moneyhats could lead to a significantly higher benefit for Nintendo.  I imagine if they bought an exclusive DMC, MGS, or some other big franchise that it could lead to people buying Wii U's for that game.  But the cost would be greater and the risk higher since more sales would have to occur to recover that investment. 


What about Bayonetta 2, would you consider that moneyhatting?

[Kytim89]

Would Bayonetta 2 be considered money hatting? Yes, but in a good way. Platinum Games wanted to make a sequel to Bayonetta but SEGA refuse to finance it due to low sales. This is where Nintendo enters the picture. They need games for the Wii U, so they finance Bayonetta 2 for the Wii U as an exclusive title. Nintendo did this to start a working relationship with Platinum Games in a similar manner to what has happened with Next Level Games. Nintendo should money hat weaker developers that have pet projects that can't get funding and make them Wii U exclusives.

Nintendo should moneyhat strategic third party games for the Wii U. For example, they should have paid for Lords of Shadow 2 and MGS V to be on the Wii U and handheld the marketing budget for their versions of the games on their own dime. 

[Stratos]

Moneyhat has a negative connotation because it implies that one company is taking away an IP that was previously multiplatform. People view it as bribery versus purchasing the services of a studio.

[Adrock]

I guess we might have to define moneyhats then.  Nintendo is paying them to produce exclusive content.  Maybe others don't know much about this studio, but they are obviously happy with the arrangement or they wouldn't have announced they are exclusive.  Sometimes moneyhats leads to exclusive content, sometimes it leads to a timed situation.  It's just interesting to me that on side of the argument is that Nintendo should never pay others for content on their system and then we get all excited when they work out an arrangement (that is financial beneficial for an otherwise third party) to bring exclusive content to Nintendo.

I definitely think there's a difference here. I define a moneyhat as more than paying for exclusive content because if simply outsourcing work to third party companies is a moneyhat, then damn near everything is a moneyhat. I think we have to narrow the definition. Like Stratos said, it's closer to bribery if not exactly that. To me, moneyhats are hostile, an attempt to take something away from a competitor by means of a large (most likely grossly inappropriate) sum of money. I consider it wasteful because it encourages repeated payouts. Third parties hold their hands out, waiting to be paid before doing anything. If Nintendo goes that route, are they just trapped in moneyhat cycle?

I would liken moneyhats to contract temp work. A group is paid to do a job; they might not even be especially passionate about it either. It's merely a job to them because they need/want the money. Nintendo's relationship with Next Level Games is more like a temp-to-hire situation. They were originally brought in to work on a project (or in this case, a bunch of projects), Nintendo liked their work, and now Nintendo is bringing them in full-time. The most important distinction of this arrangement with Next Level Games is that they want to work with Nintendo and enjoy doing so. It's more than just a paycheck to them (though the extra stability is certainly nice). These are the kinds of deals Nintendo should continue to make and with more frequency if possible. I find these deals more fruitful because a company's culture and philosophy meshes with Nintendo's own even if they don't necessarily make the same kinds of games that Nintendo does.

What about Bayonetta 2, would you consider that moneyhatting?

I wouldn't, at least not with what little is known about the game at the moment. Hideki Kamiya wasn't sure he would even be able to make a sequel. That said, I'm not sure Nintendo's intention was ever to take Bayonetta 2 away from Sony's and Microsoft's hardware because the game didn't exist to take away. Platinum Games originally pitched a non-Super Smash Bros. Nintendo crossover game which eventually evolved into The Wonderful 101. Once that partnership was established, it seems more likely that Platinum Games then pitched Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive Wii U title. If Platinum Games approached Nintendo, I wouldn't call it a moneyhat.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Moneyhat has a negative connotation because it implies that one company is taking away an IP that was previously multiplatform. People view it as bribery versus purchasing the services of a studio.

So then yes, Bayonetta 2 is a moneyhat?


Bayonetta 1 was multiplat.  Sega is receiving a payout for exclusive use of it's IP.  Farming it out to Platinum games is irrelevant. Sure Sega probably isn't receiving a ton of money since it's not a hugely popular IP, but it follows the trend that you are indicating. 

I wouldn't, at least not with what little is known about the game at the moment. Hideki Kamiya wasn't sure he would even be able to make a sequel. That said, I'm not sure Nintendo's intention was ever to take Bayonetta 2 away from Sony's and Microsoft's hardware because the game didn't exist to take away. Platinum Games originally pitched a non-Super Smash Bros. Nintendo crossover game which eventually evolved into The Wonderful 101. Once that partnership was established, it seems more likely that Platinum Games then pitched Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive Wii U title. If Platinum Games approached Nintendo, I wouldn't call it a moneyhat.

Why buy Bayonetta 2 from Sega then?  Why not make a new IP with similar themes as Bayonetta?  Sega is receiving a payout for use of their IP.  You can explain Platinum games as a temp service but how do you explain Sega's involvement.  Games that have critical acclaim often get sequels later when market conditions change.  Bayonetta 2 wasn't going to come soon, but it still may have came and it would have certainly been multi-plat had Sega greenlighted it.  Plus the original sold 1.35 million according to wikipedia.  For Sega that is amazing.  I think it would have likely gotten a sequel at some point. 

[Kytim89]

As I said before Nintendo can get away with contracting weaker developers to make games for their systems. Honestly, with the situation with the Wii U Nintendo needs to bring atleast four more developers. Two from Japan, and two from North America and Europe. They need all the quality help they can get.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I didn't mean to imply it was bad.  I think Nintendo should moneyhat and I think they should be strategic about it.  I do think it's interesting though that we give Nintendo a pass when they do it and then rip Sony/Microsoft for doing it. 

[Adrock]

Why buy Bayonetta 2 from Sega then?  Why not make a new IP with similar themes as Bayonetta?  Sega is receiving a payout for use of their IP.  You can explain Platinum games as a temp service but how do you explain Sega's involvement.  Games that have critical acclaim often get sequels later when market conditions change.  Bayonetta 2 wasn't going to come soon, but it still may have came and it would have certainly been multi-plat had Sega greenlighted it.  Plus the original sold 1.35 million according to wikipedia.  For Sega that is amazing.  I think it would have likely gotten a sequel at some point. 

Sega was in the middle of restructuring and apparently cancelled Bayonetta 2. After restructuring, there's no guarantee Sega goes back to it. Sega notoriously has a **** ton of dormant IPs (that sequel to Skies of Arcadia sure was awesome, right? Oh wait...). Also, I'm not about to argue with the creator of the franchise who said he didn't think a sequel would ever come out.

As for making a new IP, maybe Platinum Games just wanted Bayonetta and requested Nintendo get the rights for a sequel from Sega. Think of all the franchises these guys left behind when they quit Capcom. Hideki Kamiya created Bayonetta because he couldn't make Devil May Cry. Partnering with Nintendo provided them an opportunity to work on Bayonetta again. It also helps that Nintendo and Sega have a very close relationship.

What does Nintendo get? Besides a couple exclusives, they score some goodwill towards Platinum Games and Sega. Nintendo typically doesn't approach third parties for games; they wait for third parties to approach them. This is exactly the kind of deal Nintendo makes. I believe Hideki Kamiya even said he would love to see Platinum Games become a Nintendo second party. Keep planting those seeds, Nintendo.

I do think it's interesting though that we give Nintendo a pass when they do it and then rip Sony/Microsoft for doing it.

We don't agree that Nintendo is doing the same thing.

[Kytim89]

Pity that Wonderful 101 sold so poorly because I could easily see Nintendo money hatting Capcom to allow Platinum Games to make a new Viewtiful Joe ( and Okami) as Wii U exclusives.