Topic: G4 Interview with Iwata Reveals New Details

[BigJim]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
BigJim, the controller is pretty small, if you see it in Iwata's hands. I think the 3 inch range will get you to the x y buttons no problem.

If you mean the a/b buttons, there's no way it's only 3" from the d-pad to the a button. I'm pretty sure Iwata doesn't have the hands of a 5 year old, as small as they might be.

If you look at the stock photos with the hand models, the a/b buttons are down next to the "meat" of the palm. At BEST it's not comfortable, especially to transition back and forth, without releasing the grip on the remote.

Still, the controller isn't done. So who knows what they'll change.

[wandering]

Quote
Yeah, because this (with inset L&R buttons on the right side of the unit) is such an unreasonable request.

That actually is. The controller is designed the way it is because it would be uncomfortable to move your thumb around to hit various buttons while also holding the controller in one hand and moving your wrist around.

AS for adding a second z-trigger, that's not a bad idea...but it would magnify the controller's complexity. With the current setup, a non-gamer playing a non-gamer remote-only game only has to learn about the thumb button, index button, and peripheral features like the d-pad and select button.

In any case, I'm tired of people saying the controller is unfunctional. A button + b button = 2 primary action buttons, just like the N64. d pad = 4 selection/movement buttons, just like the N64. z1+z2= 2 triggers, just like...you know. And then add to that the select button, which CAN be used as an action button (it's a little out of the way, but then, so was the cube's y button), and, of course MOTION CONTROL and A TRADITIONAL SHELL....and you have one heck of a functional controller.

[theRPGFreak]

I'm having a hard time understanding your statements Ian. Are you saying that Nintendo's new console should put graphics first and copy the gameplay startegies that MS and Sony are following? If that's the case, then you are clearly mistaken. Unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo makes the most profit yearly on their sales because they don't flush their money down the toilet like MS and Sony have done. It's impossible, for a smaller company like Nintendo, to fit your needs. Why do you keep condeming Nintendo saying "This is BS! There going to loose!" When they are doing the best that is possible for them? They have come to realize that they are not going to be in the number one spot again, so they are just trying to make a new experience. People will buy a second console if it does offer a new gaming experience. If the Rev. was merely a follow up of the GC and tried to fix the problems the way you are making them sould they would, then they would fall face first. Even if graphicaly you had a Madden game that looked and played the same on the Rev as it would on another system, people would still only buy it for the other system! What makes the controller so great Ian, is that you can have new gameplay experiences that weren't possible before.

[KDR_11k]

During the industrial age Ian would have complained that those "cars" cannot neigh and won't eat hay.

[Pale]

Man, this junk is still going?

I guess Ian can win the award for "Creating the longest b*tch thread"...

[Don'tHate742]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
The Morph Ball was the select button! how do these rumors get started?

I could have sworn I read that you had to stab downward to morph Samus. You show me an article that says otherwise and i'll believe you.

[wandering]

http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-23521-2567-x-x-x&tag=gs_hp_flashtop_bg&body_pagenum=2

Quote
The analog stick controlled your movement. The A button let you jump, while the B button fired your weapon. The shoulder buttons on the analog attachment let you switch visors, scan, and lock on to targets, although the lock-on feature was less necessary thanks to the precision firing available via just looking around with the controller. You could shift to the morph ball by pressing the select button on the main controller's face, which felt surprisingly comfortable to do in the middle of action.

[Artimus]

It's almost as if everyone who has played it LIKES the controller. Wouldn't that be something to go by?

[Ian Sane]

"A button + b button = 2 primary action buttons, just like the N64."

The N64 has SIX primary action buttons, unless the only N64 game you ever played was Super Mario 64.

"I'm having a hard time understanding your statements Ian. Are you saying that Nintendo's new console should put graphics first and copy the gameplay startegies that MS and Sony are following?"

In short, no.

I'm saying Nintendo's new console should focus more on trying to compete in the existing market and not go off on a tangent to attract an unproven market at the potential risk of losing the existing proven market.  Nintendo doesn't have to make a remote controller in order to have "gameplay first" console.  In terms of gameplay I don't see much need to change since that's what they're best at.  They just have to encourage their allies to provide more variety in the lineup and not just make more Mario spinoffs and they have to time their releases better (ie: having a game longer than 10 hours as the launch flagship title, releasing realistic Zelda first and cartoon Zelda second).  I think with better marketing, less silly obvious screwups, and being a whole lot nicer to third parties Nintendo could make a traditional console that could seriously compete.  Ironically the Rev was doing that perfectly until they introduced the remote.

The only thing I want them to borrow from Sony and MS are their good ideas that Nintendo deviates from for no reason other than to be different.  That would be things like being very flexible about distributing demos, charging only $20 for Player's Choice titles instead of $30 and having lower third party licencing fees.  Good ideas that don't comprimise Nintendo's games themselves.

[Infernal Monkey]

Uh, they've almost lost the existing market as it is.  

[wandering]

Ian: In your ideal world, what, apart from exclusive Nintendo games, would you want to be different about Revolution as opposed to the competition?

From my POV, Nintendo already tried what you're suggesting: they played ball with the other guys. They made a traditional console, didn't make any big mistakes, offered interesting (if at times underwhelming) variations on their traditional games, courted 3rd party developers, etc. It kept NIntendo afloat, but certainly wasn't a resounding success, as I'm sure we agree.

Now, you point to various small mistakes that you think Nintendo made: no online, asking devs to make Nintendo franchise games, vague marketing, purple color, slightly higher prices for certain things, etc. (though ALL of these decisions are defendable, and probably seemed like good ideas at the time they were made. I actually think some of them were good ideas, but whatever.)
But I don't buy it. You could probably draw up a similar list for both xbox and ps2.

IMO, the 3 consoles were so undifferentiated from one another, that success and failure were determined by, not any minor mistakes, but rather by the consoles' various advantages. Playstation had brand recognition. Microsoft had deep pockets. Nintendo had NIntendo franchise games. Nintendo lost...and, IMO, no amount of minor tweaks would've changed that outcome.

If Nintendo were to do as you want them to, Ian, next generation we'd have a battle between Nintendo, with Nintendo franchise games + minor fixes to last generation's problems vs. Microsoft, with deep pockets + minor fixes to last generation's problems vs. Sony, with name recognition + major amplifications of last generation's problems (because, you know, they're the market leader and they can't fail no matter what /sarcasm). IN my mind, in this scenario, Nintendo would still lose.

Nintendo NEEDS to differentiate themselves in a major way....and that's what they're doing. And it'll probably work, judging by the ridiculous success of the DS....and the nearly UNANIMOUS praise among people who have actually played with Nintendo's new controller.

Quote
"A button + b button = 2 primary action buttons, just like the N64."

The N64 has SIX primary action buttons, unless the only N64 game you ever played was Super Mario 64.

How is the d-pad not a suitable replacement for the c-buttons? Even Miyamoto has said that he wished they had put a second d-pad on the N64 controller in place of them.

edit spelling and such

     

[Pale]

The d-pad isn't the same as 4 buttons because you cannot press two directions at once.  This comes up mostly in fighting games.

That said, having a d-pad up there has many benefits too... so it's really a toss up as to which is better.

[Ian Sane]

"How is the d-pad not a suitable replacement for the c-buttons?"

Push C-up and C-down at the same time on the N64 controller.  Now push up and down at the same time on a d-pad.  You can't.  That's why a d-pad is not a suitable replacement.

"From my POV, Nintendo already tried what you're suggesting: they played ball with the other guys. They made a traditional console, didn't make any big mistakes, offered interesting (if at times underwhelming) variations on their traditional games, courted 3rd party developers, etc. It kept NIntendo afloat, but certainly wasn't a resounding success, as I'm sure we agree."

Well that's the big difference in our opinion.  Basically what I want from Nintendo what you think they did last gen.  You think they played ball with the other guys and failed anyway while I think they showed up to play ball overweight and unprepared and got their ass whooped as a result.

The truth is to defend a lot of the decisions Nintendo made on the Cube you have to make up excuses.  When there are no excuses THEN you can say that Nintendo can't compete on even footing.

How can you possibly think that a company that LIED about online plans and then backed out and sabotaged the possibility of third party online games was competing on evenfooting?  And that's just one issue.

I could name some Sony and MS mistakes but they were so minor in comparison to Nintendo's and they usually addressed them quickly instead of pretending they weren't there (or in the case of Sony they got lucky as their crappy launch went largely unopposed and they had such a huge lead).  You can badmouth MS all you want, and I do, but they tried to meet the fan's needs and addressed issues.  Halo was laughed at at E3 but it came out on time and delivered.  MS was upfront about their online plans and delivered.  Sure it was pay-to-play but at least they had something and they pushed it hard.  The controller was a big issue so MS fixed it and without any compatibility problems that I can think of.  Weak Japanese support was always a big isssue so for the X360 MS has made deals with Japanese developers.  They're addressing an issue and letting the fans know about it.  That's why they beat Nintendo.  They fixed what was broken and listened to their fans instead of spindoctoring everything and keeping their fans in the dark.

Sony's big problem was cockiness as they fell into the trap of assuming they were untouchable.  And eventhough they're still number one it did bite them in the ass as MS is now a potential threat to Sony in North America.

[nemo_83]

Iwata needs to talk about attracting gamers from the other consoles rather than trying to get my grandparents to play games.

At least he alluded to Zelda being forwards compatible with the Rev controller for sword fighting.

[KnowsNothing]

There are more grandparents than Xbox and PS3 owners.  The potential market for nongamers is huge.  Nintendo's trying to attract nongamers because if they succeed, Nintendo now owns a huge share of the market, just like they used to before the PSP arrived.

[Ian Sane]

"There are more grandparents than Xbox and PS3 owners."

There are also more dead people and more insects and they're probably just as likely to buy a Rev as grandparents are.  I think it makes more sense to target people they know are interested in videogames instead of people who aren't and probably won't give a sh!t no matter what Nintendo does.

Though the ideal strategy would be to target both.  Sony not only introduced a large group of people to gaming they also stole existing gamers from Nintendo and Sega.  If Nintendo really wants to attract a new audience the ideal thing to do is to try to do it while at the same time attracting the existing market.  The Rev seems more like a tradeoff, like they don't care if the existing market buys it or not.

[odifiend]

Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
There are more grandparents than Xbox and PS3 owners.  The potential market for nongamers is huge.  Nintendo's trying to attract nongamers because if they succeed, Nintendo now owns a huge share of the market, just like they used to before the PSP arrived.

I really don't know why Nintendo thinks in this manner.  If you look at the average American grandparent's opinion on video games, "foolish non-sense" would be the most popluar opinion likely followed by "easy gifts for my grandchildren."  Does that not sound like your grandparents?  Old people will not be buying the Revolution for themselves, especially if they are a fixed income.  Even if the Revolution is the most inviting experience ever, I promise that many old people will not capitalize on it because they are so set in their thinking of what a video game is.  Nintendo does have a chance with involved parents though, but that isn't really going to move anymore systems unless you have divorce parents.
And just kind of an aside, a big reason Nintendo has the handheld world on lock is because of games like pokemon and nintendogs - games that give owners incentive to have different versions of the same game and with that multiple GBAs and DSes.  (How many people on this board have only one GBA?  Pokemon players: how many of you buy versions in pairs?  How many people own more than one copy of Nintendogs?) This phenomenon is almost impossible for Nintendo to duplicate in the console world.  So I think when Nintendo points to DS as a reason for Revolution's future success, I think you have to take that with a grain of salt, entirely different markets.

[KnowsNothing]

Grandparents were only an example.  Nongamers come from all age groups.

"I think it makes more sense to target people they know are interested in videogames instead of people who aren't and probably won't give a sh!t no matter what Nintendo does."

Well, that's where you and Nintendo differ.  Nintendo thinks, and I agree, that there's this whole big market of people out there that could be playing Nintendo, but aren't.  They aren't playing anything.  They aren't playing for a reason, and Nintendo is trying to rectify that. They're not like existing gamers, which probably are biased against Nintendo and plan to buy a PS3/Xbox 360.  These people are more likely to buy a Nintendo product than a Sony fan is.

However, they've said time and time again that they're still going to support the core gamers.  Just because you only choose to hear them talking about nongamers is your problem.  Right now you might be seeing an influx of "nongames" for the DS.  Well, Nintendo needs to go through with their plans don't they?  They need to get these products out there to attract nongamers.  But in reality they're supporting the core gamer too.  Right now there are a few nongames out, like Brain Training and Nintendogs, but if you look at the rest of the DS schedule it's also got games like Mario Kart and the New Super Mario Bros that are there for the core gamers (I was going to say "for people like you" but then I remembered that you hate fun).  There are more regular games for the DS out now and in the pipeline than nongames.  

[mantidor]

The comparison of grandparents to insects is total nonsense. if my grandfather was alive, I wouldnt see him playing Metroid obviously, but he would play a card game or something like backgammon. You people are so fixed in your paradigm of what video games are that you get to a point when you think that if you dont like it or find it too simple then its not a video game.

[Hostile Creation]

My grandmother plays Dance Dance Revolution and almost bought a PS2 so she could play it.

[Caliban]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If Nintendo really wants to attract a new audience the ideal thing to do is to try to do it while at the same time attracting the existing market.  The Rev seems more like a tradeoff, like they don't care if the existing market buys it or not.

Are you stupid in any way possible? Iwata did say that they will make games for the existing players but will also want to do games for other people that aren't common video-gamers. I don't know where in your twisted mind do you come up with these presumptions man. He stated they will support both markets, he didn't say one more than the other, he said both, (and I repeat again) both!!!! Now, I don't mean any insult to you Ian but I think sometimes it just seems that you can't escape your own logic loop and so you can't create other logic paths, and you sometimes over-think too. By the way, if Nintendo seems to want to create new markets don't you think that will create more buisness oportunities for new and old third-party companies that want to release new traditional games? I think it will, but that's just me anyway.  

[BigJim]

Have you paid attention to this generation? Nintendo's idea of being an "and" company has been to release a couple of token games for various segments and call it a day. Then they go back to their standby IPs and standard practices. This has been covered many times. Even PGC came to the same conclusions in their editorials or Blah Blah Blah discussions.

Their idea of an "and" company can alienate segments of their customers, be it genre fans, IP fans, or whatever, because the reality is that Nintendo alone is too small to be an "and" company that can satisfy the broad appeal of their customers.

Yes, Iwata said he'd make games for "everybody" yet again with Revolution. And THAT is a concern. Until Nintendo proves otherwise, Revolution could be more of the same strategy which has *not* worked to "everybody's" satisfaction, and those customers that feel alienated would have valid concern about possibly being alienated again for another 5 years.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Just a little fact for you guys on the whole older people playing games thing...the guys who were in their early twenties in the early 80's are in the 40-50 range today and in about 10 years will be around the age where they become grandparents, so nintendo making games more acessible to the older generation is not a bad idea, because there are quite a few people in that group who did game back then.

[Ian Sane]

"He stated they will support both markets, he didn't say one more than the other, he said both, (and I repeat again) both!!!!"

They stated that about the DS too.  Yet the ratio of first party DS games targetting towards non-gamers and traditional games has been very significantly in favour of non-gamers.  In fact I would say until Kirby and Advance Wars came out the only traditional game made by Nintendo on the DS was Super Mario 64 and that's a port.  So I look at the favourtism towards the non-gaming market on the DS and thus assume it will be similar on the Rev.  Nintendo said they would target both groups with the DS and in my mind they've at best given traditional gamers the bare minimum.  Plus nearly all of their brand new ideas are going to non-gamer stuff like Nintendogs, Electroplankton, and that brain teaser thing.  The traditional gamers are expected to make due with sequels.

"They're not like existing gamers, which probably are biased against Nintendo and plan to buy a PS3/Xbox 360. These people are more likely to buy a Nintendo product than a Sony fan is."

A Sony fan and a Playstation user are not always the same thing.  There are tons of gamers who are not biased against Nintendo but go with the competition simply due to necessity because the third party games they love are on another console.  I've always felt that if Nintendo was to target a specific group it should be hardcore gamers.  RPG or fighter or shmup or racing nuts all go to the Playstation because that's the only place they can get a decent selection of the genre they love.  Nintendo doesn't have enough variety to please them.  But they still like Nintendo and regard them as a great developer.  If Nintendo early on made sure to attract some of the key developers who make games like that they could establish their console as being the console to get for certain genres and thus attract large groups of hardcore gamers.  Sony and MS wouldn't even notice because often console makers (including Nintendo, in fact they're the WORST for this) look too much at the big blockbusters and don't realize the importance of the more underground titles.  The PS2 might have GTA3 but what REALLY makes it so huge is that it has so many hardcore genres under lock which keeps groups that may not even like Sony buying it.  The Cube really isn't a console for anyone except Nintendo fans.  There are no genres or subgenres that it is clearly the best choice for.  Even the N64 was the clear multiplayer, platformer, FPS, and wrestling game console.  That's the key to stealing away competing userbase.  Somehow Sony managed to steal an insanely large chunk of Nintendo's userbase.  That's because not everyone who owned a SNES was a Nintendo fan.  There are neutral gamers out there who follow their favourite games and those are who you steal from the competition.  That's a far safer group to target because Nintendo doesn't have to sell the concept of gaming to them or try to persuade them to take on a new interest.  They just have to have the right games on their console early on.

[ruby_onix]

Quote
Iwata did say that they will make games for the existing players but will also want to do games for other people that aren't common video-gamers. I don't know where in your twisted mind do you come up with these presumptions man. He stated they will support both markets, he didn't say one more than the other, he said both, (and I repeat again) both!!!!

Nintendo also said they'd target the "mature" market, in addition to the kiddies. They said they could do both. They couldn't.

This time around, they're saying they can expand from "gamer" to "non-gamer", but they've already made more sacrifices to the "gamer" way of thinking, and pinned the blame on the "non-gamer", than they ever did to the kiddie market in their attempt to include the mature.

Perhaps this makes sense, because Nintendo had a lock on the kiddie market which they didn't want to release. And their position in the regular videogames industry is pretty low right now.

But the mature market (carved by Sony out of the mass of non-gaming "former gamers" Nintendo had cast aside long ago) was a proven market, bigger than the kiddie one even. Nobody even knows for sure if Nintendo's new "non-gamer" market even exists.

Also, there seems to be a paradox in this thread and elsewhere, in that the pessimists seem to have more faith in Nintendo's ability to compete than the optimists do.


One or two years ago, Iwata said "The ONLY reason Sony beat us with the PS2 is because they had the advantage of a DVD player, and they launched before us. That will not happen again. We will launch at the same time as, or earlier than our competetors, with superior hardware, unmatched games, and we will win."

Then they found out the Xbox360's launch window, and said that they didn't mean Microsoft. Microsoft's a non-factor. They mean Sony. Nintendo will destroy Sony with the Revolution.

Now, Iwata's all like...

"Specs? Like...on paper? Uhhh... yeah... we're boned. We have no chance to survive. Make our time. But we're pretty sure that non-gamers don't know enough about games to see the difference."

"Does that make us cheaper? Uhhh... no comment. Probably under $400-500. Don't hold me to that."

"PS3 launch date? Umm... well... you see... we're not a Sony third party... yet (hyuck hyuck). So we don't actually know when the PS3 will launch. But it doesn't matter, because we wouldn't be able to compete anyways, and we think we've found a nice little market where we can hide. If you're a gamer, buy a PS3. Then please please pretty please buy a Rev as your second console, because hey, we're still Nintendo, and we need you. I know you guys didn't fall for that defeatist attitude with the GameCube, but this time we really mean it!"


(By the way, if Nintendo doesn't learn to compete, the non-gamer market will move to Sony as they become gamers, just as surely as the kiddie market moved to Sony as they grew up.)