Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers
IGN has an article discussing an interview in which Nintendo President Satoru Iwata talked about the possibility that the Nintendo Revolution's fundamental difference from other offerings may alienate third party developers. From the article: "If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo" Refreshing to hear such an honest assessment from company president.
It also says that this new console will be so "revolutionary" that it may pull in more third party support.
I read this as: our new system will be fundamentally different than other systems coming to the market. You won't be able to make a game for the other systems and easily port it to Revolution.
I feel a bit confused. Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better, and those better ones could destroy his chances of getting other developers to develop for the Revolution? (thus hurting its sales?)* Frankly I think it's already done so then; I remember some years ago when the show Extra were offering free PS2s and GameCubes but said they could not offer XBoxes (XBoxen?) due to extreme demand for them. I remember long lines shown in the news for the PS2 also (people shouting PS2! PS2!), but never heard of such massive demand for the 'Cube-only lots of ads and good games like a Zelda or two.
*To those who think I should know these things because of my username (I remember such a post a while back): I'm game kid, not game expert. Give me a break, please.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
1. Mario Revolution
2. Zelda Revolution
3. Pokemon Revolution
And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware. MS and Sony, and Atari and Sega in their day, all just churn out identikit consoles and handhelds. Nintendo invents. They try dual screens, they try tilt controllers, they try VR headsets, they try linking portables to consoles, they try bongos. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's a disaster, but it's always innovative.
Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico. That's a grand total of 2. You say Nintendo is all about Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon? I point out that every Mario and Zelda introduces new ideas (unlike every new Halo, which introduces more guns and less plot), and raise you Animal Crossing and Pikmin.
It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
1. Mario Revolution
2. Zelda Revolution
3. Pokemon Revolution
And all Sony need for success is Final Fantasy MCMLXVIII. And all Microsoft need for success is Halo 5: "The Second Half of the Ending Credits".
The fundamental difference is that every new Mario or Zelda takes the familiar characters and builds a completely new gameplay experience around them. In contrast, every new Final Fantasy takes exactly the same gameplay and plot outline and slots in new names for the villains, and every new FPS is just like all the ones before it but with slightly more realistic physics and slightly different shaped guns.
Hell, I've never even bought a Nintendo console, and they can still get me raving like a fanboy. That's what I call impressive.
I remember when the Gamecube came out and there was a rush to get it. I know some of my friends had trouble finding one. It sold out during its initial release, but it wasn't like the popularity of the PS2.
I think that the XBox came out around the same time, which got a bit more attention, although it didn't sell as well initially.
rather than starting a new thread, i'll just reply to this.
I Beleive the article should read that third-party developers may alienate nintendo, not the other way around.
What it will end up discouraging, if it is that different from other platforms, is porting.
If a publisher was intrested in putting a game on Revolution, it would get there. But if the publisher was on the fence, and wanted to whore the game out on every platform, the Revolution would likely be skipped.
It is possible that the Revolution will be similar enough to make porting to it a viable option, but gameplay dependent on Revolutions unique features would not be as portable.
END COMMUNICATION
I like Nintendo. I like a lot of their games. But I also like xbox. I am probably going to get an xbox 2, hopefully I'll have enough money for even then. Mainly for Halo 3 and xbox live. Unless the "Revolution" is truely revolutionary, I probably won't get it. I want to play Nintendo games, but I can't blow all my money.
That is a pretty bad /. title and article. Nintendo said that 3rd parties will be alienated if they dont like nintendo innovations. However, if these companies like the innovations, they will probably make games only for the revolution.
Sounds like a rather bold business plan. I suppose Nintendo has decided to take very big risks in order to innovate gaming further and of course make N #1 again.
Good Luck N!
I for one welcome our new innovative gaming overlords.
You realise that the main reason you are buying xbox 2 is for a reasonable console third person shooter and a service that all three next gen consoles will offer? Good plan!
Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
To be fair, the VirtuaBoy was never a VR headset, more of a VR table decoration you can look into.
Also, you forgot the Power Glove and the action/jumping pad from the late 1980s.
Sega had some interesting stuff. I do believe they beat Sony with the Sega CD. The Sega Channel was interesting, as was the 32x.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Halo seems to be building on the Marathon series in many (maybe not so small) ways. That might put the total as high as 5.
I... what? No one even knows what the console will be like. How are you already passing judgment? Also, how are profitable consoles "strikes?" What game are we playing? I'll admit that the N64's good game selection was a bit anemic, but I've been very impressed with the Gamecube, and until Halo 2's giant hype machine, the Gamecube was still neck and neck with the XBox domestically.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
If we look at the Gamecube, and even further back, it's easy to see Nintendo's stegnth, especially lately, has been in releasing incredible in-house titles. I'm talking Metroid Prime (1 and 2), SSBM, Paper Mario, Pikmin, and Animal Crossing (with exceptions like Viewtiful Joe). I don't expect Nintendo's platform to have the breadth of games PS3 will have; what I do expect is that, like in the present, it'll still be my favorite console because of depth (I have a PC for my RTS/FPS/GTA needs).
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
You are not to mention our beloved Marathon in the same sentence as Halo!
Yay for not reading the article. They are basically saying that some third part developers will not like the Revolution, as it will require on their behalf the implementation of the new, secret features of the console. The console is about innovation, and direct ports from other systems won't be as easy because of this (think about the DS, but possibly taken further).
/. just chose to show the negativity.
It also goes to say that some third parties may get totally pulled in by the console, perhaps even shifting their focus to it.
The third parties will either like it, or think that the console's new features are insane crap and completely dump it. They're being quite honest.
Iwata once more compared Revolution to Nintendo DS, and said that like its portable the machine could gain the eye of consumers who normally don't care about games. "On the other hand, what we are trying to do is such a different thing, and people have come to realize that the approach we have taken with Nintendo DS can actually expand the market beyond what existing platforms can do. Therefore I believe there should be more third parties who are willing to support Nintendo's new ideas."
Nintendo's president suggested that third party support for Revolution could depend entirely on whether or not publishers find the console appealing. "If we receive the support of the licensees, I believe we will expand third party support," he said. "If our ideas cannot be appealing enough, then we cannot receive third party support."
The person who submitted the story to
And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware.
Nope. The bongos you cite as a Nintendo innovation are obviously inspired by Konami's various musical instrument controllers and their associated Bemani games, Dance Dance Revolution being the best known.
Sony's EyeToy was also very clearly innovative. Essentially every game Nintendo had made that required a specific controller has failed, from the R.O.B. to the Super Scope - they gave up on them and produced none for the N64. The only reason they're trying again now is because Sony and Konami showed them it could succeed when done right.
If the Revolution is really so different as to discourage third-party developers from bringing out games, it would be a really brave move on Nintendo's part. However, look at their history. It is full of brave moves. The video game market had already crashed and burned when Nintendo wanted to bring out the NES. People thought that it would fail, but Nintendo pushed it anyway and changed everything. Then Sega came out with the Genesis, a superior system to the NES (at least hardware-wise) and Nintendo waited to bring out the Super NES until it had the right technology and the right gameplay ideas. They brought out Virtual Boy, which was completely different from anything on the market. Granted, that was a failed experiment, but it was an experiment nonetheless - not just an advance. With the Gamecube, they decided to shun the online players that Sony and Microsoft were going after, and have instead focused on the community aspect of multiplayer. Now there's the DS, an innovative, if imperfect, competitor for Sony's straight technological advance, the PSP. I have a feeling Nintendo knows what they're doing with these risks. They aren't going after the largest market share, they're trying to make good, innovative games that consistently change how we think of video gaming.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
The only problem is that you're not right that they always build completely new gameplay. The Metriod games are starting to become spookily similar to Halo.
I agree with most of your post, but that one sentence makes almost no sense. Beyond the fact that both games are Sci-fi FPS's involving people in powersuits, there are few similarities between the two. Comparing Metroid to Halo is like comparing Mario to Castlevania.
"There have only been TWO Halo's so far. Let's at least wait until number 3 comes out before we pass judgment."
The fan boys have been saying the same thing about Star Wars.
"Derp de derp."
I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good. I don't want VR goggles or gyroscopes built into my controllers. I don't want to flail my arms in the air so I can move my onscreen character from point A to point B. What I do want is to sit on my couch, with a comfortable controller in hand, and play my games.
Think about it like this... Let's say current consoles are like decks of cards. You can play lots of games with a standard deck of cards (poker, rummy, etc.) and there are different types of cards with their own games (Rook, Uno, etc.). Let's then say that Nintendo's "Revolution" is like a board game. It's very hard to play Risk, Chess, or Axis and Allies with a deck of cards, just like it would be hard to play Poker or Uno as a board game.
Then again maybe they're just using all this vagueness to hype the system before it's out.
Well, I can't vouch for Sony and Atari, but I won't stand idly by while someone claims that Sega doesn't innovate... This is the same company that released Typing of the Dead, Samba de Amigo, and Seaman for crying out loud. That takes some balls right there. Plus, I'd argue that the Dreamcast was easily one of the more innovative consoles in history. Lets take a look...
If you don't consider all THAT to be innovative, then I really think you'll be disappointed with whatever Nintendo has up their sleeve...
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
But did Konami ever make a platform game using bongo control? They're at least innovating with how you can control the games. And Odama looks to be a treat... pinball action with bongos! EyeToy was certainly innovative, but connecting "innovation" and "success" probably isn't the best idea.
It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
1. Mario Revolution
2. Zelda Revolution
3. Pokemon Revolution
Actually, I'd attribute their more recent disappointments in the console business to a failure to produce on your third point. What Pokemon games were released for the N64? Pokemon Snap (A game where you take pictures of Pokemon), Hey You Pikachu (A game where you talk to Pikachu), Pokemon Stadium 1 & 2 (Which let you battle Pokemon in 3D, primarily meant to enhance the Gameboy games), and Pokemon Puzzle League (A decent puzzle game with a Pokemon theme). Why did they not release an elaborate 3D RPG similar to the Gameboy games, except with killer graphics? A game like that could have easily made millions for Nintendo, and possibly saved the N64 from it's destiny!
Now, what Pokemon games have they released for the Gamecube? Pokemon Channel (A game where you arrange programming for a Pokemon-themed TV station), Pokemon Box (An accessory that basically only exists to transfer Pokemon between the GBA games and a GC memory card), and Pokemon Colloseum (Basically an updated version of Pokemon Stadium). Again, where's the 3D Pokemon RPG that kids would obviously be interested in?
I'm not even a fan of Pokemon myself, but I am a fan of Nintendo and it seems like such a glaring omission in Nintendo's plans that it kind of grates on my nerves. Why waste their time on dreck like Pokemon Channel when they could be working on the game that might actually SAVE the Gamecube (or at least pull it out of the sewer for a short while)? Then again, the Pokemon fad has died down a lot since the N64 was around, so it might be a moot point by now....
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH
Robbie the Robot was by far the most unique and clever video game controller of the era. A robot that balances spinning gyroscopes on the buttons? That's just dope.
As you said, the Pokemon thing isn't quite as fierce as it was 5 years ago... but they are in fact working on a fully 3D Pokemon RPG for the gamecube. http://cube.ign.com/objects/716/716652.html?ui=gam efinder
I, on the other hand, am very happy to see a company pushing to make games that are better than just "pretty damn good." You may be content with the way games are right now, but others, like myself, yearn for something more.
I think the games we play now don't even scratch the surface of what is possible with interactive entertainment. So, I'm encouraged when a game company says that it's going to do something so different, so out there, that they believe it may alienate them from potential partners within the industry. It means that I'm not the only one out there who is a little disappointed with "the state of gaming right now."
I recall playing invisible basketball with my friend on a webcam. There were plenty of other games. This was done years ago.
The only thing Halo and Marathon had in common was the horridly narrow field of view you had to put up with while playing it.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
What's so innovative about ICO? The way it makes you put up with 45 minutes of cinematics before you even start playing? Most games already have too many splash screens and whatnot, but this just beats a dead horse.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Dude, gameplay where you navigate a massive world and unlock certain areas by gaining abilities in order to get through them never gets old. That's why Nintendo keeps doing it.
It sure beats "do a mission, come back, get some arbitrary award, go do another mission" that seems to plague most of the 3D platformers.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico.
Those are the same ones I would have mentioned, heh. Though really Sony can only clame credit for Ico -- Katamari Damacy was produced by Namco.
If you're going to include all games release for that company's system, then the Grand Theft Auto games, while different iterations of the same basic idea, do at least present something new compared to most of the rest of the industry.
Since going 3D? Mario 64? Need I say more? Since the GC? Wind Waker's huge ocean world with near no load times and dozens of islands which you could attempt at anytime of your choice (although not necessarily complete.)
With a maximum party size of 4, it's no MMORPG. Yes, it's an MORPG, but that's not the same thing.
:)).
The Xbox does VGA internally, except it's passed through a TV output circuit (which does support progressive scan video VGA mode: 480p = 640x480).
Otherwise, though, the Dreamcast was pretty innovative, which is why it's still my favourite console (and I own as much Dreamcast stuff as I can get
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
...good PR. Sony will pay millions of dollars for print and televised ads that hint at a glorious future for gaming when the PS3 comes due, probably using vague terms like last iteration's "Emotion Engine" to discourage average customers from doing any proper research or comparison. Nintendo did the same with a painfully brief quote in an equally brief article. Free publicity is something Iwata may be banking on, based on the silence regarding the new console design beyond that threatening "no more d-pad" statement.
Is there any practical data we can gather or presume from this article? Yes, that EA won't do much on the Revolution if the interface is fundamentally different from the competition, but we suspected this already, didn't we?
i totally agree with you on nintendos' innovating, and i will even go so far as to Thank them for the vomit-inducing VirtualBoy.
wouldn't it be grand if they made a VirtualBoy2 that wasn't vomit-inducing, and in fact had two screens capable of decent 3D graphics.
DS "Eye-o-scope" Adapter, anyone?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
You forgot Metroid Revolution
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Yeah, it's a shame that Duck Hunt flopped.
BTW, you're forgetting that Nintendo had the floormat controler idea long before DDR was even a thought.
Does no one remember that the GameCube is still the second best-selling console in Japan? The XBox is not as well liked over there. Nintendo also does not spend near the money on advertising that Sony and Microsoft does. With all the franchises they own they are nowhere near going out of business.
Yeah, the XBox has been an amazing success with taking a distant second place with no prior experience. I mean, the Atari 2600, the NES and the Playstation were made with no previous experience either and took first place. But Microsoft is still doing well compared to... um... 3DO!
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I played NHL on it way back in the day. Ir was pretty good, but most people would pull the plug rather than lose the game.
What X-Band did was emulate one control input on each player's system. So I'd be player two on both systems, and you'd be player one (for instance).
Online wrestling as a trading card game? WWF With Authority.
Uhhh, Atari invented the concept of a console gaming system with 3rd party developed games sold on ROM cartridges... something Nintendo later copied. Your post is nothing more than pure Nintendo fanboyism.
...I'll admit that the N64's good game selection was a bit anemic...
Quality, not quantity. How many hours did you spend playing Goldeneye? Star Fox 64? Mario Kart 64? Sure, there were only a few hundred n64 games, but how many of those friggin' rocked?
Deja Vu
n. 1. The sensation that you've read this very article before.
Did I forget to flash my Nintendo Fan Club (remember that? way back in the Zelda 2 days?) card, or what? I wasn't saying the games were bad. On the contrary, I was saying that Nintendo has franchises that are so well liked that it's hard for them to go wrong. There are a lot of people out there who will buy a Nintendo console for one of the franchise games, and then go on to explore stuff like Animal Crossing or Pikmin. That's the point I was making.
That's a good point, and I guess I overlooked it because I never really got into Pokemon. I do strongly suspect, though, that if Pokemon had been around about 15 years ago I would've been all over it.
Yeah, and Donkey Kong Country Revolution, Kirby Revolution, Mario Kart Revolution, etc.
The point was just that Nintendo has an awful lot of well-liked franchises, and those must drive a pretty big number of console purchases.
You're right. It looks like it was done by Mattel.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
I mean, the Atari 2600, the NES and the Playstation were made with no previous experience either and took first place.
Atari had experience in home video gaming before releasing VCS model 2600. Do you already forget the Pong dedicated console?
But Microsoft is still doing well compared to... um... 3DO!
3DO is still around, making Army Men games.