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.
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.
I'm hoping Nintendo talked Next Level into this arrangement because that would mean Nintendo is trying to beef up their output.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
I believe Hideki Kamiya even said he would love to see Platinum Games become a Nintendo second party. Keep planting those seeds, Nintendo.
Skies of Arcadia sold like 100,000 on the Dreamcast and 200,000 on the Gamecube. It was a very niche game even if critically acclaimed. I don't think it is very comparable to Bayonetta which sold at a good rate.I didn't say it was comparable. I only pointed out it was a dormant IP. More to the point, after Sega restructured, if they felt Bayonetta 2 was worth the trouble, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can speculate all you want that they would have eventually gone back to it, but as it stands, they didn't care to make a sequel.
Platinum games having developed Bayonetta 1, being a go-between is an example of a good relationship Nintendo has with Platinum. Still Sega didn't go to Nintendo to pick up a sequel. The franchise is owned by Sega and Nintendo had to agree to pay them off for the IP which is moneyhatting to me even if their was a third party involve pushing the collaboration. There was even a bit of angst among fans of the franchise since the sequel isn't coming to their preferred consoles. The director said he is tired of "Pedantic Port-Begging" and has to make it clear this is a Wii U exclusive multiple times. So it seems to me Nintendo knew exactly what it was doing in keeping the sequel off Sony/Microsoft consoles.Nintendo could have told Platinum Games they would pay for them to develop a Bayonetta-like game, but that might sour their relationship with Sega a bit. Paying Sega for the rights for Bayonetta works out for all parties. Nintendo and Sega continue to be best friends forever and Platinum Games gets to work on their IP.
The situation made me think of MGS Twin Snakes. I'm assuming there was moneyhats there as well to get that a Nintendo exclusive. I think that would be an interesting way to work with moneyhats.Twin Snakes was probably a moneyhat. While I bought it back in the day (since I like series and didn't own the original), I don't think it was a good investment. Nintendo got a remake of a six year old game, had to use one of their own studios to develop it, gave up publishing to Konami, then the series disappeared from their hardware for like eight years when they got another remake (unless you count Snake's appearance in Super Smash Bros. Brawl which I don't). This is a perfect example of why I think moneyhats are a terrible idea. Nintendo didn't forge any lasting relationships. They got an exclusive, paid a lot for it, and that was pretty much it.
I don't see how you can argue that Bayonetta 2 isn't moneyhatting. I get the 2nd party thing may have been a stretch. I was just trying to indicate that collaboration occurs in a variety of ways and doesn't have to be strictly confined by a set of rules.I don't know how else to explain this to you. With the limited information with have right now, it only looks like Nintendo picked up a dead project at Platinum Games' urging. If it comes to light that Sony or Microsoft offered to pick up the game and Nintendo outbid them for exclusivity, then sure, I'd consider that a moneyhat. As it stands, Sega killed the project (or refused to greenlight it), Sony and Microsoft barely batted an eye, Platinum Games pitched a sequel to Nintendo who then worked out a deal with Sega. There was nothing hostile in picking up Bayonetta 2 (that we know of). Nintendo resurrected a game no one except Platinum Games wanted to see made. This is a good way of strengthening relationships with other companies. I see it as more than simply writing a check.
