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

[smallsharkbigbite]

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. 


The fact that a sequel was greenlighted for Bayonetta before money issues derailed it, is a good indication to me that they would have looked at it again.  That's farther than Skies of Arcadia ever got.  Maybe Sega is ignoring other good IPs but I can't really think of them.  I just know they whore out their major franchises like it's their job and over 1M in sales for an IP is nothing to sneeze at. 


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. 


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.  For instance, Resident Evil 7 will surely come and miss the Wii U.  But, what if Nintendo paid for RE2 to be remade REmake style?  HD graphics, good controls added, new dungeons, remix modes.  Maybe new characters or weapons.  Probably still wouldn't sell as well as RE7, but I would prefer it and I think it shows Capcom there is a market on the Wii U for that game.  Look at the the games considered the best of the series, and remake them for the Wii U.  MGS3 remake for the Wii U, DMC3 remake, any franchise that isn't owned by Sony/Microsoft could be fair game.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I think the twist Nintendo has on moneyhatting is that by having Platinum games code the game, Nintendo will own the code and thus there isn't ever a chance of Bayonetta 2 ever being ported.  It's a good twist, but a major series owner will typically not allow their IP (if it's strong enough) to be outsourced.  It also kind of sucks, because if Bayonetta 2 revives the franchise, it's likely Bayonetta 3 gets greenlighted and goes Microsoft/Sony only much like REmake and RE4 revived the RE series and now it's not on Nintendo consoles.


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.


If Sony paid EA for an exclusive Dead Space and outsourced the game to a second party would that be moneyhatting?  Yes, it would be and Dead Space is about as popular as Bayonetta was.  I think you are giving too much credit to say, I don't think Nintendo was buying the franchise in an attempt to keep it from Sony/Microsoft.  Nintendo isn't as aggressive as I'd like in attacking their competitors, but they do attack them and there are dissapointed fanboys that claim that they will pick up a Wii U for Bayonetta.  Probably won't happen in droves, but it was the intended play by Nintendo here. 

[broodwars]

I believe Hideki Kamiya even said he would love to see Platinum Games become a Nintendo second party. Keep planting those seeds, Nintendo.

Of course Kamiya would say that. Platinum Games is a developer that makes games that don't sell. Why wouldn't Platinum be looking for a sucker sugar-daddy major publisher to pay all their expenses so they can continue to make games that won't sell at next-to-no financial risk of their own?

If it sounds like I have almost no respect for Platinum Games, it's because I don't.  :

As for the actual news story, I'm not sure how to feel about this news arrangement. On the one hand, I thought Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon was a pretty mediocre game and Next Level's churned out a lot of bad titles when not under Nintendo's wing, so I'm not sure I care for this developer joining Nintendo's ranks. On the other hand, the Wii Punch-Out was a pretty cool remake; Nintendo needs all the external support they can get these days; and Nintendo in general needs a more Western presence, so this move could be quite beneficial for all parties concerned.

*shrugs*

[Adrock]

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.

[Stratos]

I know a lot of people expected more from the Komani/Kojima-Nintendo/Silicone Knights deal. They had a Gamecube designed engine and a great introduction to the MGS series for Nintendo fans. I know I half expected to see MGS2 and 3 appear in some form on the Cube.


We have a lot of these burned bridges and broken promises. The Capcom 5. Namco getting for free the Miyamoto created Pac-Man Vs with little payback. Capcom again with post-RE4 releases.


While there could be some internal reason these did not happen (bad blood, contracts, lawyers, etc.), I think one major reason we can point to as having caused the breakdown is sales. 3rd party games, no matter how prestigious, never seem to garner the sales on Nintendo systems that they do on Sony or Microsoft consoles. I think that causes these 3rd parties to run the other way after they complete their legal obligations. I don't know the sales of Twin Snakes, but maybe if it had sold better they would have provided a followup. The only 'major' 3rd party game I can think of that sold well was Resident Evil. But again, did it sell well enough? We talk about bloated budgets and rising costs to develop. Did cracking the million mark make them enough money to justify more attempts?


And why were devs willing to develop for the handhelds like GBA and 3/DS but not properly support the Nintendo console? Square, Rockstar and others have made great handheld titles while not going anywhere near Nintendo consoles. Were they really so spoiled from moneyhats that they just refused to do it? Are moneyhats really such a part of the game development business process that studios are willing to neglect portions of the market based off of it?

[Mop it up]

Not surprising to see, considering how much better their Nintendo games sold than anything else they've made.

[Adrock]

Nintendo is not especially fond of ports. They will take them if offered, but they don't go out of their way to get them. Nintendo is pretty awful about sending out development kits and their licensing fees have traditionally been higher than Sony's and Microsoft's. Add all that on top of Nintendo's lack of communication regarding pretty much everything and you end up with unhappy partners. Nintendo can get away with that on 3DS because it's a juggernaut, but they can't get away with it on home consoles because the competition is so much stronger. The handheld market is the only arena where Nintendo gets to have their way because they're largely unrivaled.

Nintendo doesn't care as much as they should if a mutiplatform games perform poorly on their console. Third parties know this which makes it difficult for them to care about improving the performance of their titles on Nintendo hardware. It's easier to just not bother. Nintendo wants fewer yet better titles, but they typically just end up with fewer and if it's a port, it's normally the worst version. Nintendo wants to limit the number of releases except they're not in a position to do so. I don't think they should try to impose their will on other companies even though I think companies would benefit from deciding to focus on fewer yet better titles on their own.

When Nintendo creates partnerships with companies like this one with Next Level Games, they're trying (though not necessarily succeeding) to create an ecosystem where their hardware has mostly great titles rather than simply the most titles. Nintendo's problem is that their policies are such bullshit that they're just not getting anything. Take the good with the bad, but Nintendo just wants the good and it doesn't work that way. Personally, I think the industry as a whole would benefit from fewer games being released so long as they make sure those games are the best they can be. There would be far fewer instances where companies march out games they know aren't very good. In that sense, I get what Nintendo is doing. Moneyhats ensure they get a title; it doesn't ensure they get a good title. Creating a partnership with another company that cares and wants to work with you will most likely yield a better product. I think Nintendo gets that part right. However, everything beyond that regarding third parties seriously need reconsideration.

[smallsharkbigbite]

Nintendo paying Sega for rights to Bayonetta means moneyhatting to me.  It may have been a dead franchise or not wanted by Sony/Microsoft, but money is transferring hands for exclusive content which trumps other subjective issues in my opinion. 

I agree with most of what you said about Nintendo otherwise, but I disagree that they get partnerships right.  They say all the right things about partnerships but if they truly worked to develop partnerships, then we'd see better 3rd party relationships and stronger 2nd parties.  Their idea of partnerships in practice, is let some struggling studio that needs work make a Nintendo game that they don't want to waste their first party time with making.  I think they "use" their partners in partnerships and they still think that people should just come to them because they are Nintendo.  That's not a partner.  Partnerships imply equal contributors.