Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Iwata Says Old Console Cycle Dead
1up is reporting on comments from Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata, who has offered up the opinion that the four-year console cycle is a thing of the past. Instead, he says, companies should look to iterate on their hardware when an opportunity presents itself. "Launches should depend on when it can signify a major shift in entertainment, or when they have done everything possible with the current hardware. He also says that scheduling the successor to current hardware on a 4-year life cycle without paying attention to changes in the market 'appears to be too inflexible an approach to us.' This isn't to say that the company doesn't have eyes on the future. 'We need to forecast what the future will be like with the expected evolution of new technologies which are available at any given time, and try to identify the so-called 'sweet spot' of technology over the next few years,' he said."
I believe this has been proven already.
Nintendo has had the habit of short console-lives if you start with the NES (Yes, consoles do predate it, but this is a simplified view.) It was released in 1983, overtaken by the Super Nintendo in 1990 (Lasting 7 years). Next was the N64 in 1996 (making the Super Nintendo last 6 years), next was the Gamecube in 2001 (N64 life span: 5 years). And finally the Wii in 2006 (Gcube life: 5 years).
However if you look at Sony, the original playstation was released in 1994, not overtaken by the PS2 untill 2000 (6 year life). And then by the PS3 in 2007 (7 year life).
Arguably, Sony has/had the majority market with the Playstation 2, I believe part of its popularity was the fact that it became so cheap, with no changes, that anybody could have one, and play games together. Something PC gaming lacks if you do not keep your pc up to date.
And you must also take into consideration, games can only get as realistic as real life. It's one thing to go from Super Mario Brothers on the NES to Crysis, but Crysis to real life won't be that big of a jump. And when graphics/physics/AI get as good as real life, there is no major drive for a new console for "next-gen" games, they won't be able to get any better (gameplay aside for this arguement). It is also taking us longer to increase realism, thus the life of consoles will be extended (if you can understand my ramblings).
the consumer. Remember - as a consumer, it's your job to buy stuff, you are not a customer and the company owes you nothing except to take your money! Gotta love modern economy.
*ahem*
Translation 1: New hardware should be more frequet, milk them for all they are worth by making them buy more systems and software.
Translation 2: New hardware should be less frequent - it's coming out too often now, and it's really making the customers turn away from consoles.
I wonder which translation he is using?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
How many consoles does the average gamer now own? In the past when they had one or none, a new console would have been more attractive. Now, with saturation being what it is... you can keep on playing the older systems until there is something about the new system that compels you to buy it. If you have no high def TV for example, there isn't a lot to recommend either the PS3 or 360 over their predecessors. A killer exclusive might help (ala Halo 3), but that depends on the individual. It's all relative really, but I expect the adoption rates to get slower and slower.
I think that the most important reason why the old console cycle needs to die is to let programmers/software catch up with the hardware. Sure, you put enough people on a project and you can crank out a PS3 game in enough time; however, if the game is a flop, it could be a disaster for the studio. On the other hand a developer could put out a game on a console that takes less time and money to develop for (such as the Wii and handhelds) and there's not as much risk involved with taking chances. In Nintendo case they're actually encouraging studios to start and take chances. Years down the road when the road has been paved for super high end graphic consoles and software has caught up to the point where it's affordable to actually make the jump.
After all, the real race over the years, weather people want to own up to it or not, has been a software race rather than a hardware race. It hasn't so much been about what the hardware so much as what developers can squeeze out of it.
Nintendo, imho, is basically telling developers "Look, you know all those development tools you spent years tweaking for the Gamecube? Well, here's your chance to actually use all of them. BTW, here's our tools while you're at it." It's feasible that the programming team could actually create the frame of the game while the actual details are still being developed. It's definitely a shift in the industry that we haven't seen since the days of 2d gaming. It's the reason why portable gaming has been so healthy over the years. I'm personally excited about the doors this might open for the industry and I definitely hope that Nintendo in fact does ignore the console cycle until consumers demand they need more power.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
No offense, but your argument against this gen is crap.
PS3 was too expensive, and doesn't have a lot of games
PS2's launch library was crap initially too. The PS3's price is coming down.
Xbox360 dies on you
So did the PSX's laser, for those of us who remember. Later, the hardware got better.
I'm not the type that would like the Wiimote controller [my emphasis]
As in a human being?;) At least try it before you decide you don't like it. I didn't think I would like sashimi either, but it is yummy.
Now, if you'd wanted to MS's pay-for-multiplayer system or the lack of any coherent system on Wii/PS3, that's one thing. But you dislike two systems based on incidental qualities, won't even try the 3rd, and throw up your hands and say that's it?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
DRAM Makers Suffer Due to Lackluster Vista Adoption, The Dying PC Market, and this story?
People arent adopting as fast as tech is pumping out. People dont like to change for change sake. As the popular saying goes, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Firstly he's talking about the DS and more generally he's saying there's no point in rushing to the next generation until you've run out of ideas on the current generation. He's not talking about "power", rather capabilities, thereby suggesting that we should see new devices when they have something fundamentally new to offer, not just more power.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Iwata is admitting that the Wii isn't as powerful as it should be
There is no "admitting". He is just repeating what he has said all along: that it makes no sense to deck out a game console with HD and all kinds of gadgets when the end result costs $600. That, and that Nintendo cannot (and actually has no intention to) subsidize such a system in the way that Microsoft (and Sony to a smaller extent) can and is willing to do.
That is, Nintendo will release a next-generation system when the technological advances allow a significant jump in gameplay improvement at a ca. $249 price point. Makes sense to me.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Funny but I was thinking that it meant.
Why have a long development cycle followed by a high introductory price when you can have a reasonable price and a constant evolution?
The Wii is plenty powerful enough right now. Most people don't have 1080P HDTVs or even HDTVs. The games on Wii are fun and selling well. The Wii is selling well.
The Wii is 100% compatible with the GC so you can play all your GC games on the Wii.
So if in two or three years we have the WiiHD for $225 will I feel ripped off? Not really since it will still be cheaper then buying a PS3 right now.
Like the PS2 it will take a few years for developers to get a grip on the PS3's programming model.
So in two years when the WiiHD comes out odds are that will have more power then the PS3. Play all the Wii and GC games. And cost about the same as the PS3.
Nintendo will not need to recover massive development costs and can include an HDDVD or BlueRay drive "which will be cheap and we will know who if anyone won the format war", HDTVs will be super common, Moore's law will have kicked in for a generation or two, it will have full backwards compatibility, and will have a very familiar programing model. AKA a bigger and faster Wii. In other words just like the PC.
I think Nintendo thinks that a 7 year live cycle for a game console is dumb.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Game devs will have to target the lowest hardware they can get away with using
In other words, either the additional capability goes to waste, or the market is fragmented around those with the upgraded version and not. This is quite possibly the worst idea that Nintendo could possibly have. There is a reason that nobody does 'SegaCD' crap anymore.
Well, if Nintendo can put out a new console two years from now that is just as good as a PS3 is today and still sell it for only $250, I would think that they were making a pretty smart business move. Iwata was talking about how Nintendo aims to hit the technology "sweet spot" with each release. Currently, Sony has overshot the sweet spot by putting too much into the ps3 to create a console with lots of potential, because they can't sell it very well because people either don't want to drop $500 at once on a console, or don't yet have a high-def television to justify the graphical horsepower (or they can't afford both the PS3 and the TV to play it on). However, in two years HDTVs will most likely be cheap and plentiful. So...
option 1 = pay $250 now for interesting games my current TV, and $750 later ($500 for a good TV, $250 for a WiiWii) for interesting games in HD.
option 2 = pay $1500 now ($1000 for a good TV, and $500 for a good PS3) for a handful of HD games that look really nice, but just aren't that interesting (because shiny games are expensive to make, and thus to profit must cater to the lowest common denominator)
And, maybe once Nintendo gets around to releasing the WiiWii, the dust will have settled on the whole blu-ray/hd-dvd mess, and they can use whichever drive becomes the standard for other high-def media.
One possible translation: Watch the HDTV Transition...
Sony and Microsoft leaped ahead, probably ahead of the game, on the output resolution. Its too good (read "costs too much") for what is currently out there.
Nintendo did not. They went cheap and new UI, which has proven to be a win.
But I'd bet that Nintendo really is eyeing the HDTV transition for "Wii 2.0". They are probably taking a page from Apple and keeping it as stealthy as possible (why hurt sales on the Wii 1.0?), and waiting until 42" HDTVs become common (probably after this christmas) before releasing a performance and graphics bump designed to take advantage of the new output resolution.
Test your net with Netalyzr
After owning an HD set, it's very very difficult to watch SD anything on it. When I first heard my wife say, "why isn't this in HD," I knew the "what's the big deal about HD" crowd is going to die off pretty quickly. "Fun" being such an subjective word, can be defined in many ways. Who says better visuals and sound are not part of this equation? Yes, gameplay counts as a huge part of the overall equation, but to snuff visuals and sound as being unimportant is simply turning a blind eye.
Yes, they do. UT3 developers have stated that the Xbox 360 game will have less content and less-detailed textures compared to the PS3, specifically because it takes up more than can fit on a DVD.
Games *do* need BluRay now. That's the primary reason I feel the PS3 has the long-term edge.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
- 1988: Genesis/ Mega Drive
- 1992: Sega CD / Mega CD
- 1994: 32X
The Mega CD and 32X were a pair of incremental upgrades to the popular Mega Drive system. They allowed Sega to hook into the capacity of the CD storage, then into the upcoming 3D movement. They were, however, typically considered failures. Much like movie sequels, the market for each new product is a sub-set of the purchasers of the previous. Because of this, games developers were reluctant to invest in the production of titles that had diminishing markets and the library of games suffered.Remember when you activated the Shop Channel and they made you read through the agreement and it said that, if you need to replace the unit, you must replace it through Nintendo if you want to keep your Wii Shop points and downloads? And they made you agree to that several times, and pointed it out several times?
Well - they meant it. If you wanted to keep your Wii Shop points and downloads, you needed to send the unit back to Nintendo. As a plus, they also copy all your settings and save data over to the new unit.
You do have to re-download all your Wii Shop purchases, but you don't have to re-buy them if you go through Nintendo.
I really can't fault Nintendo for your failure to read their terms and conditions. You did agree to them, since you can't use the Wii Shop channel without reading them and agreeing to them.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
My PS2 on the other hand was a launch version and it won't play a LOT of DVD's that came out past, say, 2004 or 2005. It also has this tendancy to get disc read errors for no reason and so when I actually want to play a game I have to boot, and reboot, and reboot, and reboot, etc... Sometimes I go through like 10 cycles of this and just give and go play my 360. Then the next day, without touching anything or even removing the game disc, it works fine.
Anecdotal evidence isn't worth a lot because everyone's experience is different.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
Changing the CPU or graphics ability on a shipping console is a colosally bad idea. The entire idea of a console is that you have a fixed set of hardware that run games in roughly the same way. Oh, you may have HDMI here or have the game installed to disk there, but the processing power remains the same.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Look, I think this is a statement that is being made to frame expectations on a DS sequal, and handle potential attacks on the Wii as well.
As you can see here I have been tracking the release cycles of all of the Nintendo platforms, and Nintendo has some pretty strong behavioral trends built up over the last 30 years.
Historically, a new console is release every 5 years and a new hand-held ever 10 years, with experimental platforms and incremental upgrades in-between (Virtual Boy, DS).
If the DS becomes the new "handheld" line as many expected but Nintendo has denied then it's in for a 10 year life cycle. Note that they still have not identified the DS as an upgrade/replacement for the GBA line which still commands some sales (GB Micro, etc...), so they're going to be careful not to cannibalize any remaining sales in that market.
Also, it's only a matter of time before Microsoft or Sony takes a direct attack on the Wii as literally being beefed up GameCube hardware in as a marketing attack since it has taken off so well. Unfortunately for them the Wii is strong with every other demographic of consumer, and if this does happen, I don't see it getting them far outside the gaming press.
You've got to step back and take a look at the big picture of what is said and the greater context of other statements and general behavior.
Granted Nintendo is slowly making changes structurally since Iwata took over as would be expected, but this is also a company that has been in business for over a hundred years, so they're internal culture and business strategies are clearly working for them to some degree.
Also, I think the Wii has yet to hit it's stride yet in development exploitation of it's features. Given that it's really lost a year of ground here, it could be that Nintendo is actively assessing the idea of letting the hardware dev cycle slip by a year or two with the Wii. Additionally, they're probably also trying to assess how to expand DS sales at the critical 6 year mark when normally they would be issuing a mid-level system improvement that doesn't effect platform compatibility (eg, GameBoy Color).
Oh well, I'm just rambling, it's all good.
Ya know, I call bullshit. I keep hearing this arguement, and I just haven't felt that yet. I got a 360 and have been playing games like Bioshock, Gears of War, and Blue Dragon. The other day, I played a trial version of Mario Galaxy at Gamestop, which happened to be using my same exact HD Samsung TV, and I was blown away by the graphics. I half expected to be revolted, because of what all these HD freaks are saying, and I could bearily tell the difference. Seriously, having played Metroid Prime 3 and Bioshock back to back, I was kinda dissapointed that HD didn't really make me go "wow" like everyone is saying (not that Bioshock's graphics are anything short of amazing, but so are MP3s). I think the "wow" is more an unconcious reaction to having spent 2x as much on something that isn't really noticably all that superior.
I love my new 360, but if anything, it's re-enforced my support for the Wii as a truely next-gen system. They don't really feel the night-and-day generation different, the way I thought I would. The PS2 is painful to play on now, I'll admit, but the Wii does what it does extremely well, if not better than what the other systems try to do.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
You seem to have missed my major point: it isn't hard to make a game engine run at different resolutions. It doesn't make memory requirements exorbitant. Hell, even DOOM can render to a dozen different screen sizes. With a console like the Wii using OpenGL, it is pretty much trivial for the game developers to enable higher resolutions when running on the more powerful device. It certainly doesn't approach double the effort. After all, it isn't like the resolution is hard-coded with assembly language. Even N64 games were written in C. And practically every 3d engine already includes a level-of-detail scaling system to use for rendering distant objects. It's been well established that 3d graphics is one of the most trivially scalable computing tasks, and you have yet to offer any reason why that can't apply to consoles.
And while is may not be such a good idea for Nintendo right now, the situation will probably be very different two years from now. Certainly when the HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing gets settled, Nintendo will have incentive to release a compatible, HD-capable Wii. But even now, Nintendo is preparing to release a new revision of the Wii that supports DVD playback. Would anybody be surprised if it included a faster GPU with better decoding features? Or if they added 802.11n support next year?
The days are long gone where games magically break if the clock speed of the CPU is too fast or too slow. Nobody in their right mind complains that their quad-core gaming rig is wasted on Half-life 2 just because the engine also runs on the original Xbox.
Well, Nintendo has been historically a company known to twist logic in less predictable ways.
E.g., back when the Playstation had more games coming out per year than the N64 had over its whole life, Yamauchi was giving interviews saying that it's Sony who will go bankrupt by releasing that many games.
E.g., back when people complained that whole genres, e.g., RPGs, had gone missing from the N64 for years, Yamauchi gave an insulting interview in which he called RPG players, "depressed gamers who like to sit alone in their dark rooms and play slow games."
E.g., when Nintendo had to justify why the GameCube has less horsepower than everyone else (without even having some gimmick like the wiimote to make up for it) _and_ lacks any kind of media playback capabilities, Nintendo just gave a flurry of interviews that somehow that's what will allow them to offer a better gaming experience. See, you'll have better games and a better experience with it _because_ it's underpowered and lacks a DVD player. Illogical as that may sound.
Etc.
Basically, historically the Nintendo way was to take whatever they felt like doing, or were able to do, and proclaim it some Holy Truth of the industry. It's not Nintendo who has a problem, it's everyone else, including the customers, who don't know what they're doing and what they want. They've been the worst example of someone who has no problem telling you a different lie than yesterday, if it better suits whatever they're justifying today.
Even Nintendo's ideas of milking a market have been... weird at times. E.g., in N64 times again, the whole freaking Europe market was used as an experiment in deliberately releasing only half the games, and trying to strong-arm the retailers into not importing the rest. Someone at Nintendo genuinely thought that having only a handful of games, and everyone buying the same games and seeing the same games on the shelves again and again, would make more money. (And while I'll admit that many EU releases were delayed by others too, read that paragraph again: it wasn't because of translation costs or whatever, it was a deliberate experiment in building brand-awareness for just a few games with a minimum of paying for shelf space.)
Now admittedly, Iwata isn't Yamauchi. I know. But, you know, Yamauchi picked Iwata as his successor. We're talking the same Yamauchi who got all his relatives fired from the company so noone could challenge his absolute rule. It makes me at least, skeptical than his chosen heir to the throne would think radically differently. I also notice that Iwata was the head of Nintendo's Corporate Planning Division during Yamauchi's hardline imperialist years, so I'm guessing he can't have had that radically different a vision.
At any rate, I'm betting that, in the tradition of Nintendo, there's no telling what he _really_ means. It could also mean
- "people are still buying the DS, so why bother designing the next one?" or
- "our engineers screwed up and the prototype of the next console doesn't work, so let's pretend that we actually like it that way" or
- "Wii sales are plummeting in Japan and soon even the 360 will overtake us, so we need the next console out _now_, cycles be damned" or
- "we'll pull the same stunt as in N64 times and make you buy a hardware upgrade for a console, instead of going with the cycle of releasing a new console"
Or probably something else that noone would have guessed.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.