Slashdot Mirror


Nintendo's Iwata Talks European Neglect, DS Origins

Thanks to Kikizo for its transcript of an interview with Nintendo's president Satoru Iwata, also available in video form on the site. When asked, Iwata "apologise[s] to the fans of Nintendo products in Europe" over repeated delays, presumably including games such as Animal Crossing, finally out this September in Europe, mentioning "we are now putting our energies so that the European version of Metroid Prime 2: Echoes will be launched in Europe by the end of this year, at the sacrifice of the Japanese launch by the end of this year." He also discusses the origin of the Nintendo DS, "Talking specifically about the DS, [legendary 76-year old Nintendo president Hiroshi] Yamauchi specifically hit upon the idea, and proposed, 'Why not have the two screens?'"

14 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Processing power is harmful? by JonBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Iwata says...

    Well I really don't believe that there will be a bright future waiting for the so-called next generation consoles that Sony and Microsoft are advocating right now. As you may know I was developing games until quite recently myself, I know how it is, and if any of these developers come to me and say, look, CPU or processing power is ten times as much as today, graphic capability is twenty times, then I will say, that means more workload and slight difference with the current system in terms of letting people understand how improved the graphics shall be.

    Nintendo's laid-back approach to upcoming generations worries me. I think the problem he cites is a real one; sheer processing power is only helpful if you have something to process, which can often mean longer development time. But he proposes that instead of beefing up the processing power they should be looking at alternate user interfaces (like they did with the DS). While there can be cool innovations this way, I'd prefer to see the company attack the problem head-on by aggressively working to make better tools for the developer. Microsoft appears to be working on this, and it just may pay off for them.

    1. Re:Processing power is harmful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft isn't working on easier more efficient tools, it is working on a simpler cross-platform API. So the game of the future that requires 50people to make the content can have more of a chance of recouping the expense as it will be more likely to get on more platforms. Producing the game will still be a mamoth effort.

      What Iwata is getting at is that it is costing more and more money to produce games on more and more powerful hardware. Yet, the WOW factor is getting less and less. 2d->3D gives a big WOW, 1000 polys in a scene -> 10,000 gives a slightly smaller WOW, 10,000 -> 30,000 gives a tiny meow. PS3 with 100,000 a frame - who cares?

      It is also becoming more and more difficult to come up with totally new titles, add that to the shocking cost of development and marketing. You would be mad to go out on a limb with something weird (i.e. viewtifulJoe - lost its publisher a ton of money).

      Where can you innovate next to catch the punters imagination -> stick all your old gaming favourites on a twin screen portable with added stylus control. It's certainly different, the games aren't any harder to make and the twin-screen and stylus should prompt a few new ideas. Average punter can't fail to notice the difference, whether he likes it or not is another matter.

    2. Re:Processing power is harmful? by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But he proposes that instead of beefing up the processing power they should be looking at alternate user interfaces (like they did with the DS).

      I see nothing wrong with this approach. The fact is, there are an awful lot of crap, boring games being written, and if you trace it back, kinetically, in the end it could be simply because of the limitations of control.

      Consumers ability to control things - touchy feely things like mice and keyboards and such - has definitely been proven to be pretty oblique. On one end of the scale, you have the 8-yr old button-smasher, and on the other end you've got the 33 year old vi-using console jockey. Games have to be good for both ends of that scale, or at least hardware games systems do ...

      It tends to be a little more significant than the 'raw specs' of hardware, whether or not the box you intend to mass-produce is going to work for -all- control scenario's that might be required for the truly imaginative games of the future which might be possible with these mega-GPU's ...

      Again, I don't think its A vs. B, here. Sure, its great that we're getting great silicon from the Next Gen game wars, but it is also true that there is a lot left to be done on the human interface, control side of things ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:Processing power is harmful? by TechniMyoko · · Score: 2, Funny

      They are also working on easier more efficient tools (read XNA)

    4. Re:Processing power is harmful? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Informative

      The game didn't sell well, that's true, but the initial shipments in both Japan and North America seem to suggest Capcom expected this to happen (VJ sold out in both markets, apparently Capcom was too pessimistic). From what I understood, P.N. 03, Viewtiful Joe and Killer 7 were produced on relatively small budgets, which is why they went with styles that would require less work (i.e. money). Joe probably was profitable, or at least Capcom saw enough potential in the game to warrant a re-release (new eatures: one additional difficulty level under "kids") in Japan and a sequel.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. Re:Two Screens?? by SuperMo0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're comparing a nearly 30 year old series of games (it was never a console, it was more like Tiger Electronic's games) to the Nintendo DS? Sure, the Game and Watch had two screens. But LCD isn't hard to program at all, and those games were rather simplistic. I fail to see how Game + Watch having two screens indicates that Nintendo is losing ideas. Because Sony didn't make an all new controller for the PS2, did that indicate they were running out of ideas? Re-using concepts later on is not a bad thing, as long as it's done well.

  3. Re:Two Screens?? by Incoherent07 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And they're going to be overtaken in the handheld market by... what again? The PSP, which is an excuse for Sony and their third parties to do the exact same thing on a smaller screen?

    Lack of innovation is not, as you seem to think, confined to Nintendo.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
  4. Re:Two Screens?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Dreamcast did not fail because of poor interface. It was actually VERY successful in Japan. It failed primarily in the US and worldwide because it used the PowerVR graphics chip which does tile-based rendering as opposed to the more conventional method still employed by everyone else.

    Writing software for the Dreamcast without using the WindowsCE api would require completely different middleware. Electronic Arts, the big name in the West, utilized a unified middle ware package developed in-house but developing for the Dreamcast would require a complete rewrite of all their tools just to work on one extra console. The result? No EA support for the Dreamcast; No sales in the US and Europe.

    Even as recently as LAST YEAR games were coming out for the Dreamcast in Japan like Ikaruga and other arcade ports. Dreamcast didn't fail because its "gimmicks" weren't compelling, it failed because cross-platform developers refused to support it.

  5. Re:Two Screens?? by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "his has got to be the end for nintendo. Even the handheld strategies for the future seem awefully lame."

    It's lame/uninnovative to make a portable system with a Palm Pilot'esque interface that can connect vai 802.11 for wireless play?

    Sorry, don't agree. What they've done was made a system that can do more or less what the PC does to make on-line play a viable option on a portable system. Why does the two screens matter? Yes. Treat the touch screen like an on-screen keyboard (like for chat or setting your on-line name etc...) and you've got something you don't have on the PS2 or XBOX. (at least not everybody has...)

    And yes, I am a Nintendo Fan boy. Now that that particular point is made, let's get to really discussing this.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  6. Re:Two Screens?? by StocDred · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If Nintendo is such an innovator, screw the two screens and innovate some games.

    Innovation is in the gameplay, not always the franchise characters that populate it. Just because the word "Mario" is in the title, don't assume there's no innovation there.

    Is WarioWare non-innovative simply because it features one of Mario's supporting cast members? Absolutely not!

    Remember, Mario is a blank slate. There's only the barest personality and character there... he's purely a venue for great games. It's good business: a recognizable, company-owned character whose ugly mug can stare at you from a hundred pieces of box art. Nintendo owns him outright, can count on his presence to continue to sell. The day Mario stops selling games, Nintendo will move on to more lucrative properties.

  7. Re:GBA is the last generation by GaimeGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You're absolutely right. Nintendo had a massive installed user base and then Sony came out of seemingly nowhere and got a stranglehold on the market. I see a very similar situation here: Nintendo, currently number one with no real innovation in years, facing competition from someone with a technical edge over them. Interestingly enough, it's the same company challenging them. If you question whether or not Nintendo has innovated in the last... 15 years or so that the gambeboy has been available, just think about it: up until about a year ago there was *still* no light and you had to hold the damn thing at an awkward angle sometimes. Color took forever and they were still pushing ugly graphics on expensive media. The battle over handheld dominance will be very interesting as we know Sony has a track record for taking hold in the video game market"

    Wait a minute, adding a light source to a handheld is innovative? Waiting to add color is uninnovative? What the heck? First of all, color pretty much was nonexistant in any portable device until the mid to late 1990s. And even so, color handheld games is more of a technological upgrade than an innovation. Same with the frontlight on the GB. What portable devices do you remember having an internal lighting source when the GBC came out? While I admit, Nintendo should have included a light in the GBA, at least they corrected that mistake with the GBASP, and they didn't sacrifice performance or battery life for it, the way it should be done. These things have NOTHING to do with innovation: They have to do with the technological limitations of the time. I mean, look at how the Game Gear performed with the color it had. Technologically, none of this: a game boy with color and/or a backlight/frontlight couldn't be done until six or seven years ago. Don't confuse that with lack of innovation.

    Nintendo has not innovated? Wtf? Why is it that people say that? Just because Nintendo often uses the same characters in its games does not make them uninnovative. Mario Kart was innovative in that it started the kart racing subgenre. Mario Party: What games were like it beforehand? It made a board/minigame hybrid party game. How about Pikmin, a game in which you play as a guy and control an army of small plants which have special abilities and powers? Or how about Wario Ware? How in the world is THAT not innovative? Nintendo, just like everyone else, uses brand names, because people love what they are familiar with. It's human nature. Not only that, but when people see a game with Mario in it, they're pretty sure it will be high quality, because that's what mario games usually are. Brand names help inform a consumer of what to expect from a product, like that.

    The Playstaion got more support than the N64 because it was, in order of most importance: Cheapter to develop for, easier to develop for, and had more storage. Now, let's look at the DS and the PSP: The DS allows developers new ways to make games, and appeals to video game developers' creative side. the DS will use a cheap semiconductor memory unit, 128 Megabytes and beyond. Now, Mario 64 was 16 Megabytes. 16 megabytes was the typical maximum for an N64 game, although there was one game that was 24 Megabytes (Ogre Battle 64), and two games that were 32 Megabytes (Pokemon Colloseum 2, and Resident Evil 2). 128 megabytes should be plenty for developers, unless they want to use a bunch of pre-renders and high poly models, which don't really matter on a handheld. The price of the DS looks to be pretty cheap, too.

    And the PSP? Well, it uses 1.8 GB disks, so, again, it has the memory advantage of an optical format over a cartridge. But that's the only advantage that the PSP has over the DS that the PS had over the N64. It looks like games will have the production costs of Playstation 2 games, and higher prices disencourages innovation and risky moves by developers. That's one reason

  8. Quite honorable... by GaimeGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It takes a lot of guts for a company to apologize to the consumer for its mistakes. I salute you, Iwata-san.

    1. Re:Quite honorable... by Rallion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why I like Nintendo over their competitors. They truly seem to want to create a better gaming experience, and get the profits from that, rather than getting the profits and then seeing what they can do about gameplay. That means they must admit their mistakes and problems, whether they be creative (like, let's say, the Virtual Boy) or business (like the Europe issue), in order to fix them and provide a better gaming experience for everybody.

      I saw this in the press conferences, too. Nintendo's was focused on their games, and the future of their games. This was much nicer than an hour straight of talk about marketshares and profits and install bases. It seems like Nintendo is about "games making money" while the others are more about "making money through games," if you understand what I mean. It's to be expected, I suppose, with Nintendo being solely focused on games, but that doesn't dull my preference.

    2. Re:Quite honorable... by GaimeGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You also noticed Sony and MS talking about how technologically powerful their next consoles would be, while nintendo was talking about broadening the industry, with the Nintendo Revolution, of which Iwata has said, "It won't simply be a box that connects to your TV," and the Nintendo DS. Even if the gaming audience doesn't like this at first, the developers DO like it, so they'll put their support into the Nintendo Revolution and DS. Gamers will be "forced" to try out these new systems due to the support they get. So, even if gamer approval starts off slow, the appeal of these innovations to developers will pay off in the long run.

      I'm excited, because I know Nintendo can really change the industry from being run by technological improvements in sight and sound, to being run by changes in interface and new features which bring gamers together, like Wi-Fi in the DS.

      People are upset that Nintendo isn't doing online, that they're doing GBA-GC connectivity, that they're not doing as much "Here and now" as other companies. But Nintendo knows exactly what it's doing, exactly what it needs to do for itself, and exactly what the gamers, and the industry need.

      That's not me speaking as a stubborn Nintendo fanboy: That's me speaking from my heart.