We store cookies, you can get more info from our privacy policy.
3DS

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

by Tom Malina - January 10, 2014, 1:47 pm EST
Total comments: 32 Source: Gamasutra, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/205707/Next_Lev...

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

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.

Talkback

PlugabugzJanuary 10, 2014

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...

KhushrenadaJanuary 10, 2014

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

WeetrickJanuary 10, 2014

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

BlackNMild2k1January 10, 2014

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
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.

Kytim89January 10, 2014

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. 

nickmitchJanuary 10, 2014

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

AdrockJanuary 10, 2014

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1

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 DeckadesJanuary 10, 2014

I suggest we add Good Feel to the growing list.

StratosJanuary 10, 2014

Quote from: nickmitch

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 10, 2014

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. 

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.

AdrockJanuary 11, 2014

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.

Kytim89January 11, 2014

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.

AdrockJanuary 11, 2014

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

PlugabugzJanuary 11, 2014

Quote from: 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
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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 11, 2014

Quote from: 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.

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?

Kytim89January 11, 2014

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. 

StratosJanuary 11, 2014

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.

AdrockJanuary 11, 2014

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

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.

Quote:

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 11, 2014

Quote from: 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.

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. 

Quote:

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. 

Kytim89January 11, 2014

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 12, 2014

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. 

AdrockJanuary 12, 2014

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

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 shit 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.

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

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.

Kytim89January 12, 2014

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 12, 2014

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 12, 2014

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. 

broodwarsJanuary 12, 2014

Quote from: Adrock

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.  :P:

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*

AdrockJanuary 12, 2014

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote from: smallsharkbigbite

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.

StratosJanuary 12, 2014

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 upJanuary 12, 2014

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

AdrockJanuary 12, 2014

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.

smallsharkbigbiteJanuary 12, 2014


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. 

Got a news tip? Send it in!
Advertisement
Advertisement