Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Iwata - Innovate or Die
Linker writes "CNN/Money has interviewed Satoru Iwata, where the president of Nintendo Ltd. says the gaming industry is in the midst of a crisis of innovation, which could lead to its demise. The idea, of course, is to justify the existence of the upcoming Nintendo DS, but Iwata does point out that the gaming market in Japan has been shrinking in the past few years - and the U.S. and Europe may do so soon."
Why do I suddenly have this mental image of a swarm of bees chasing down a game designer?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I grew up playing video games (mostly during the winter months). I had a Coleco, NES, Genesis and later played a lot of PC games at college. (Doom, Quake, etc). Looking back at it now, I just can't believe I wasted as much time as I did.
Things are even worse now that games are getting to be so complicated. Unless I can pick up a game, figure it out in 10 minutes, I don't want to play it. I refuse to commit large chunks of time to games anymore. Which is why I still play Tetris and all the classics on a Game Boy when I have a few minutes to kill on a commute or something.
It seems like the lack of innovation has simply spawned more and more complicated games that people don't want to bother with.
Sweet merciful crap! If it wasn't for these games, nobody would have wanted to grow up to be a game designer and create some of the games we see today. Some of those kids' parents need to just slap those brats across the face!
Reminds me of the scene in Back to the Future II, "You mean you have to use your hands? Aww, that's a baby's toy!"
Hmmm.
Frankly, I think it's great that the game industry (at least Nintendo) is trying to innovate itself out of this potential problem.
Yay free market.
I'd like it even more if certain other industries could be made to feel this same pressure.
What does he mean there's no innovation in the game industry? I mean, looking at my shelf, I've got Madden 2003, Gran Turismo 3, Tekken 3, Onimusha 3, Super Mario 3...Oh, wait, I think I get it...
Seriously. If the 'big gaming company' took more risks (hell, they are big enough to take risks) on innovative games instead of working on sequels to games or the latest shooter, the gaming industry would be more exciting.
Instead, we are fed the same old games.
But can you blame them? Works in hollywood like a charm.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
...Guns, Girls, and Graphics.
This is the formula used (depressingly successfully) by many game companies nowadays. Everything else can be sacrificed by these three.
GUNS: Actually, violence in general. More violence is good, but quality ("realism", meaning extra gore) can make up for a lack of quantity.
GIRLS: The more women and the less clothing, the better. Any kind of implied sexuality is better than nothing, however.
GRAPHICS: Photorealism = good, any other graphics style = bad. This is mostly an extension of Guns and Girls, since "realism" (actually pandering to a perverse fantasy, but your average gamer has a hard time telling the difference) is key to these areas.
These three factors contribute to what is sometimes called PPLQ, "Perceived Penis Length Quotient". The higher the PPLQ, the better the game will sell, because it is perceived as a Manly Game. Nintendo's problems as of late stem mostly from the fact that it refuses to satisfy PPLQ, under the deluded impression that innovation and gameplay are actually important to the average modern gamer. Thus, we get games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and The Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, games doomed before they ever hit shelves because they were not deemed Manly enough.
Take a look at a game made by, say, the Gamecube, the Xbox, and a PC. Quick, which one looks the best?
Now, odds are you'll say "The PC". Which, at $1000 - $2000 for the hardware, that's certainly true.
For the Gamecube and the Xbox, the systems are pretty well matched. From what I've seen, the Xbox can do lighting better thanks to the shaders, while the Gamecube seems to have better anti-aliasing (take a look at Super Monkey Ball 2).
Fast forward 18 months when the Xbox 2, PS3, and Gamecube 2 come out, all with chips made by IBM, 2 of which have chips made by ATI. Now which look better?
Once we reach a point of technical ability, all of the consoles will start to look the same in graphical and processing power. So then it's going to come down to one thing:
Who has the better games?
PS2 still has the most, though I imagine most PC developers will continue the trend of "PC/Xbox" hybrids (though with the Xbox 2 it will be curious to see how possible this will still be, though XNA should help with the tranferral).
Nintendo at least is trying some new things. Using a stylus to "draw" Pac-Man on a screen, or to "shoot" in Metroid. Or using Congo drums for a Donkey Kong platform game (and, of course, the upcoming Donkey Konga itself).
Will most of these works? Probably not. There's a good chance that most people will think that playing a platform game with drums will suck donkey balls (pun intended), or that drawing on a screen won't be fun. But in an a realm where Final Fantasy XII seems to play like Final Fantasy XI only with a blond in a hoochie skirt (for Pete's sake, woman, put on some tights and have some dignity instead of letting it all hang out like you're going to walk down Prostitute Avenue), and every first person shooter looks the same, it's going to the ones that are different that will pull it out.
Personally, I'm betting that the Xbox will continue to be big on the FPS and Sports games, PS2 will rock the RPG and "everything else", while Nintendo will grab those "Games you must have or die" kind of things (Nintendo, new Mario, and of course GBA games).
I'll withhold judgement on Nintendo's innovation until I see sales rise (remember the lesson from SEGA: different doesn't always mean $$$), but if nothing else, you've got to give them credit for at least doing something different than the other guys.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The current crisis in the gaming industry does not surprise me. Today, games are primarily a product, not an entertainment. It costs a hell of a lot of money to develop a state-of-the-art game; this leads to a lack of creativity, since it is cheaper to rely on tried and true gameplay concepts than to innovate. With innovation, there is always the risk of people not accepting it. However, this leads to many similar games, people get used to this similarity, and become even less tolerant to new concepts. At the same time, the technology advances, games become more complex, costs raise etc. I guess somewhere in there the industry lost the concept of joy. A game is .... well, a game! :) A game is supposed to be funny. I think things changed when the CEOs and lead designers in the game companies were no longer creative minds who created several games before (like Sid Meier), but managers and professional designers drilled to create "an economic and reliable video game product". And hey - I'm sick of playing games that feel primarily like a product, and not like a game.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
When a company's financial situation is worsening, one tactic is to make it appear that it is the market as a whole that is suffering or shrinking and not the particular company's individual performance. Its a simple play to artificially hold up your company's stock, or at least drag everyone else down with you. You'll find that many American publishers have just announced significant profits for this past fiscal year or for the coming fiscal year while Nintendo posted their first quarterly loss in decades.
All I have ever said, and have been brutalized repeatedly for on this site, is that the American/Eurpoean markets are different from the Japanese. It is easy to show that the gamers have different tastes, a number of recent slashdot articles have proven that, and that the Japanese market is shrinking overall while the western markets continue to show growth. As soon as NoA starts treating American's as special again (as it did with the significant difference between the NES and FamiCom) they have a chance to recover. If they continue resting on their laurels and giving us the exact same hardware and software as is released Japan, their western market share will continue to shrink until they are totally irrelevent. My prediction all along has been the fragment of the market into one worldwide success and a different second place in Region 1 and 4 from Region 2. If the current trend continues the big winner will still be Sony, with MS and Nintendo ceasing to compete directly and each taking second in different parts of the world. The only question in my mind is will Nintendo be too stubborn to port their software to Playstation or Xbox when the Americans finally boot them out of the hardware business.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think someone should tell Dr. Gupta's secretary that they've been transcribing from a GameSpot interview with Michael Pachter, instead of the great doctor's notes. Whoops.
Matrix 3 "bombed?"
Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.
Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).
If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...
I was just thinking about this the other day.
how, since SEGA (who have been the leg-up for innovation in the gaming industry) stopped making consoles, we havent seen any attempts towards any next-generation systems, only little plastic boxes that hook up to the TV.
Now the DS is coming out, which may start a future of systems that can easily replace the systems that hook to TV's (though I dont see it happening)
but it throws the handheld market out of the repetitive 2d-only market.
Now there's the PSP, but I honestly wouldnt want to buy that, it's neither innovation, or really something that can be called handheld or portable.
all it is is a PSone with games that are incompatible with all of sony's other products.
the only selling point is the mp3 player, which will attract the sony fanboys right away. but you can just buy a psone with a monitor, and you got a fairly portable system, with pre-existing games.
The DS will have its own games, yes, but they'll have their own unique features that take advantage of the DS' power, people may make fun of the DS, but it's a system with a hell lot more innovation and potential than anyone has done to date, and is something nintendo hasnt done before to date.
but with all that, we need more innovation, and the only real innovator left is nintendo, really.. Sony just copies the innovation and adds a tacky feature here or there to make it sell like hotcakes. and Microsoft.. well we dont need to go there. Sega and nintendo used to be the main innovators back in the 90's and now that Sega no longer makes systems, it's really up to nintendo now to do it, or else we're facing a dark age for console gaming. Because if Sony and Microsoft get their way with the industry, console gaming will mostly die for the most part. and any innovations will be minor details, nothing new, since they wouldnt have competition except each other, and they leech, so nothing would really come up.
I say, go nintendo.
...because Japan's population has been shrinking. And getting older, on average. And that economic slump isn't helping things.
Until someone comes out with some real polling results, you can't say that the Japanese populace is becoming "disenchanted" with video gaming. There could be many other factors at work.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation