Topic: "Revolution" / Nintendo's different tact / technolust vs. innovation

[Dryden]

  Artimus, this is a great thread.

 From Ian: "Though I would say right now the hardcore console is the PS2. Sure it has a lot a mainstream junk but it has the options. The PS2 lineup is full of hardcore games. There aren't any SNK fighters Nippon Ichi RPGs on the Cube for example. "

 Careful with a phrase like 'mainstream junk'.  I don't care what you say, mainstream games, however often they're repackaged and rereleased, are the reason that the PS2 has excelled.  Then they get the 'hardcore' exclusives like SNK.

 So, what do you want?  Do you want Nintendo to repackage the same games over and over again, and encourage it's partners to do so too, just to get back to the top?  Do I really want to see a Mario Sunshine 2?  A Wind Waker 2?  A Mario Party Sevenevermind... you see my point.

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"
This bring up an interesting question.  How well would Nintendo do if their console had literally no third party support?  The Cube and N64 didn't have very good third party support but it was there.  What if it was nothing but Nintendo's games?  Literally one title every two months.  Literally a library of less than 30 games.  Would Nintendo fans buy it?  Would enough people put up with that kind of dismal support for Nintendo to make their precious profit?  I don't think so.

Ohh... literally?

List of current Cube games from Nintendo:

1080 Avalanche
Animal Crossing
Cubivore
Custom Robo
DK: Jungle Beat
Donkey Konga
Donkey Konga 2
Doshin the Giant
Eternal Darkness
F-Zero GX
Final Fantasy CC (done with Nintendo resources)
Kirby Air Ride
Luigi's Mansion
Mario Golf: TT
Mario Kart: DD
Mario Party 4
Mario Party 5
Mario Party 6
Mario Power Tennis
Metroid Prime
Metroid Prime II
MGS: Twin Snakes
NBA Courtside 2002
Pac-Man Vs. (coding done by Nintendo, released by Namco)
Paper Mario: TTYD
Pikmin
Pikmin 2
Pokemon Box
Pokemon Channel
Pokemon Colosseum
Star Fox Adventures
Star Fox Assault
Super Mario Sunshine
Super Smash Bros. Melee
The Legend of Zelda: OOT Master Quest
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventure
The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Wario Ware Mega
Wario World
Wave Race BS

----

Current List of Cube games upcoming from Nintendo

Geist
Pennant Chase
Advance Wars: Under Fire
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Fire Emblem: PoR
Pokemon xD
DDR: Mario
Mario Soccer
Mario Baseball
Mario Party 7
Odama


That's 40 current titles (The Cube has been out for approx. 42 months) and 11 upcoming titles already announced for the remaining period (probably a little over a year). Its much closer to one game a month.

I don't remember offhand what last year's annual report said Nintendo is shooting for for an overall life of system software-hardware tie in ratio, but I know damned well it was less 50:1

Now looking at this from another angle... people clearly are not buying the Cube for third party titles right now. Looking at sales figures throughout the life of the Cube, we've seen precious few third party titles ever near the top of the sales figures. There've been a couple of exceptions, of course (RE4, SC2), but by and large people are already buying the system almost exclusively for the 1st and 2nd party content.  

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the average Cube owner wouldn't have bought theirs if there was no annual Madden game available, even though most of them don't buy the game in the first place.

[Spak-Spang]

The only way to avoid a crash with games is if Developers start treating games like ART again.  The casual mass market approach to games is attracting the occassional buyer of games, but once they get bored with the games they are gone...and with every game being the same, that won't take long.  

Ian is right that the hardcore gamers are the real target audience.  However, the hardcore gamers are players that are interested in seeing what these new games that will attract nongamers are.  Hardcore gamers are gamers that will play games no matter what.  They love games in all forms and just want to see the Art of gaming advance.  

Nintendo has always been a company that views games from an artistic stand point.  Why else do you think they made Wind Waker.  Nintendo isn't stupid.  They knew there could be some negative effect from the art style, but they did it anyway.  Why?  Because it was the best approach for the look, feel, design of the game.  Basically it was the best approach for the ART of the game.  

So although I agree that the hardcore gamers are important, I think targeting nongamers and hardcore gamers can be done at the same time.

[Spak-Spang]

To be fair with every company.  When you create a franchise everyone loves you HAVE to give a sequel.  It is what gamers want.  And if that sequel is good then they want another.

The balance is creating a sequel that captures the essence of the original game, and changes/modifies/ and enhances the game.  

Nintendo usually does a GREAT job of this.  Very seldom are the games just complete rehashs of the original games.  In fact the only series I can think that does that are the Mario Party games and the Pokemon Games.  

[jasonditz]

In fact, I'll go you one better: Nintendo needs to give out fewer 3rd party licenses, not more.

They need the Seal of Approval to actually mean something. There's absolutely no good reason to give companies like Acclaim and BAM! and Kemco development kits in the first place, they obviously have no clue how to make quality titles at this point.

If I were running the company, I'd spend more on acquiring smaller players that have proven track records (I can't say this enough: Capcom). I'd require that all third party titles pass a quality assurance test before they actually get released, and I'd base the licensing fees on the average ratings the game got from reputable fan sites. The only way a company like Kemco even sees the next console is if they go to Toys R Us and buy one. I'd also keep an eye on companies like THQ, Midway, and to a lesser extent Konami, and let them know in no uncertain terms that we want them on board, but we're not going to let them release crap either.

Its not just for the sake of Nintendo's reputation (although certainly that's an issue too), but for the third parties' sake. Third party software right now is rightly met with suspicion by Nintendo console owners. This would give it some credibility, and it would save these companies a lot of trouble in the end.

[Bren]

I agree with .  On one hand I don't want to see Nintendo consoles have less choice, but on the other hand I own a cube in large part because I know I will be able to get good quality games.  I would not describe my self as a hard core gamer, because I have too many other interests so I don't have the time I once did to commit to games.  That means I don't have time to mess around with bad games.  If it isn't a Nintendo game I wait until I have seen a bunch or reviews.  But if it is Nintendo, I know before the game is out if I want to preorder it.  I have no idea what the last non-Nintendo game was that I preordered.

At first I was disappointed about the Rev not being as powerful as the other machines, but then I started thinking.  The Rev is going to have everything I really want from a system, or so it appears:
1) Internet gamming - this used to not be important, but my brother lives in another state and I still want to play against him
2) Good controller - Faith required, but we all know how important this is if they can come through.
3) Company dedicated to good games - Nintendo is the company most focused on the actual game, and what you think after playing it, not before.

So PS3 and XBOX will be able to do better graphics.  I watched the PS3 tech demos, and there is some unbelievable stuff in there.  But I realized, I could still tell the difference between computer generated and real.  As long as that is true the graphics are really a small issue.  Plus, Sony was talking about the immersive game world.  Having everything interact correctly is as much if not more a programming problem then it is a hardware problem.  If you want every blade of grass, every door, every window, everything to react.  Well that is going to take A LOT of programmers, not just some fancy hardware.

Last thought, I am glad that Nintendo is opening up to more development houses.  I want to see what some small game developer houses can produce.  After all, these are hopefully the developers who didn't want to take place in the Sony/MS way of making blockbuster games, but actually want to create a really great game and take pride in it, not just some cool tech. My GBA might be my favorite game system I own (at least until those DS game start showing up), and I am pretty sure that isn't because of the graphics.

[couchmonkey]

I don't think putting more restrictions on third parties is going to help.  Although I like the idea of tighter quality restrictions (what hardcore gamer wouldn't?) I think it would only serve to turn third parties away.  Third party support is one of the keys to success for a console, and with few exceptions having more third parties on board is never bad for business, especially when your support isn't very strong, which is the situation Nintendo is in now.

Would Nintendo be getting the same support from Capcom if it had rejected P.N.07 and Megaman Battle EXE Chip Network-me-do?  Would fans of Matt Groening have bought different systems besides or as well as the Cube if the Simpsons games weren't available on it?  They aren't the best titles available, but people, especially casual gamers, still buy them or want the option to buy them.  Speaking of the Mario Party games, although a lot of us hate them or think they're over-sequeled, they still sell very well.  I think Mario Party is Nintendo's casual gamer franchise.

Of course, can this still lead to a crash?  Yeah, it could, and if that situation occurs in North America, I think Nintendo may be better equipped to handle it than MS and Sony since Nintendo is trying harder to reign in development costs and bring fresh experiences to the market.  I'm all for Nintendo changing it's direction, although I do hope it continues to produce some traditional games and sequels.

EDIT: On power: unless I've missed something, Nintendo has still not officially said it will be less powerful than the other consoles.  Please everyone, wait until you hear actual specs or see some graphics before you assume Revolution to be less powerful.

[WesDawg]

I get the feeling from this years E3 that Ninty doesn't really care about competing with Sony and MS anymore. In fact, I get the feeling that Miyamoto is close to retiring, and he just wants to make what he wants anymore, and not have to worry about market perception or if its pretty enough, or if its long enough. Just make things that he finds fun.

Even if Nintendo goes down this way, I don't think I'll mind it. I like 'em in their old age. They seem... content and focused on bringing some new things to the gaming table. I have no doubt there will be a new different and great Mario game available at the Rev's launch, and that I will thoroughly enjoy playing it. The only thing that could really make me mad is if Ninty does start to go bankrupt and some idiot at Microsoft or Sony or GM manages to buy them. It would keep the company alive I know, but... well Nintendo just wouldn't be Nintendo if they weren't free to do whatever they want.

I do like the idea of just flipping off all the third parties that have ditched them in recent years though, and building their own dev studios staffed with a few great smart men as project deisgners, and armies of young programemrs hoping to learn the secrets at the feet of masters. A console with only first party games... It would never work I think.

[Spak-Spang]

The only way I would support Nintendo putting higher restrictions is by allowing everyone to develop games with the Nintendo Quality Seal of approval.  But have an special Quality Seal for truely great games.

Nintendo should then award developers who recieve this special quality seal with ZERO licensing fees.

Also if I was Nintendo I would award any company willing to give Nintendo a 6+ month exclusive on a game free licensing fees.  

This promotes a higher standard of game quality without limiting 3rd party support.  It also allows 3rd party developers something to strive for.  If you make a quality game you get much more money in return.

This could also be great for smaller companies that can spend time making an A++ game and not have those licensing fees.  

All Nintendo would have to do is create a special group that judges games equally on a standardized chart for quality control.

[jasonditz]

Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey

Would Nintendo be getting the same support from Capcom if it had rejected P.N.07 and Megaman Battle EXE Chip Network-me-do?  Would fans of Matt Groening have bought different systems besides or as well as the Cube if the Simpsons games weren't available on it?  

I wouldn't go quite that far with rejecting titles. Even if something like P.N.03 has its flaws, its not an absolutely dreadful game. I was more thinking stuff like MC Groovz or BMXXX or Universal Studios Theme Park.

[Ian Sane]

"That's 40 current titles (The Cube has been out for approx. 42 months) and 11 upcoming titles already announced for the remaining period (probably a little over a year). Its much closer to one game a month."

Fine.  40 instead of 30.  Still ridiculously limited and still ridiculously small.  Plus if you think about they wouldn't make it to 40 because the console would tank so fast they wouldn't last 40 months.

In theory I like the idea of ensuring third party quality but it wouldn't work.  Third parties care primarly about making money and by limiting what they can release Nintendo would be limiting potential third party revenue.  It would just turn third parties off.  I agree with Spak-Spang in that some sort in incentive program to release quality games should be in place.  But they can't offer zero licensing fees.  Nintendo would then only make money off of bad third party games.  Some sort of discount would be good though or maybe some sort of rebate based on sales.  I think having some sort of perk for exclusives should be in place too.  Again though it can't be zero licencing fees.  No console maker can afford that.  Though one important thing is that regular licence fees should be a comparable price to Sony and MS.  They shouldn't screw over third parties that don't make good stuff.

Another idea would be a program where Nintendo will publish and distribute a game for a third party in exchange for complete exclusivity and that includes any special editions (ie: over 20% of content is reused).  Nintendo obviously has to approve of the game and it has to meet their standards of quality.  And if the Nintendo published exclusive is a new franchise the third party can then choose to publish their own sequel but it must be a six month Rev exclusive and they're not allowed to announce a port until a week after the game has been shipped.  This way a third party can't have Nintendo publish a killer game for them only to have the sequels jump ship to the competition.  The idea is an expansion of Nintendo's partnership deals with Square, Sega, Namco & Konami for the Gamecube.  The difference being this is open to anyone provided Nintendo feels they can deliver the goods.

[jasonditz]

40 1st and 2nd party titles. How many worthwhile third party games that couldn't be gotten elsewhere? 10-15?

If those first party titles weren't enough to sell the console on their own, there'd be a lot fewer Cube owners than there are.

[Ian Sane]

"If those first party titles weren't enough to sell the console on their own, there'd be a lot fewer Cube owners than there are."

People like options.  It's only 40 games if you like all 40 games.  Odds are for each individual of those 40 they would want to buy probably less than half of them.  Plus there's a huge psychological part of it too.  It doesn't matter how great the games are.  One game of month would scare people away.  People would assume that because of no third party support that the console wasn't going to last long and thus would stay away.

And it's not like you have 40 games to choose from right away.  You start out with only 1 or 2.  Then a month later 3, then two months later 4.  People would get bored really quickly and if you didn't like game 5 then you've got to wait another for game 6.  You would constantly be running out of games to play even if you bought every single title.

[PaLaDiN]

"This is a fun thread. I got a kick out of Paladin's remark about online. Buddy, can you not see Nintendo themselves is excited for online? No one forced them to this. They haven't given in to anything."

I call BS. Are you really convinced that Nintendo would have done this if Microsoft hadn't started Live? Because I'm not. They give all these excuses for not using online, then they start watering down the excuses, and then they finally stop making excuses altogether, and you expect me to believe they weren't dragged into this screaming and kicking?

"They've finally got the type of online they wanted. Quit living in your pipe dream where Nintendo still agrees with you about online."

What the hell? You don't even know what type of online they have, and you're telling me it's the type they want? Buddy, I think it's you who should quit living in your pipe dream where online is absolutely good and Nintendo has fallen captive to its enthralling appeal.

It's not like I developed this hatred of online gaming overnight. I'll be seeing you on the other side in a few years when you get sick of online games too... count on it.

And one last thing. Why do people always provoke me into yet another online argument? You all know how I feel. Get used to it, you're not going to change my opinion. Just walk away and shake your head at my delusions, if that's what you think they are.

[Artimus]

Who said all I want is online games? Who said I'm going to get sick of them? I want online not for MMORPGs, I want it so I can play multiplayer in games when I don't have anyone around to play with. Which is most of the time! If it's free it'll be my main way of playing multiplayer.

People don't provoke you, we get annoyed because you take every shot at online you can get. Maybe if YOU accept that it's a good feature for a lot of people things would be easier.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"This is a fun thread. I got a kick out of Paladin's remark about online. Buddy, can you not see Nintendo themselves is excited for online? No one forced them to this. They haven't given in to anything."

I call BS. Are you really convinced that Nintendo would have done this if Microsoft hadn't started Live? Because I'm not. They give all these excuses for not using online, then they start watering down the excuses, and then they finally stop making excuses altogether, and you expect me to believe they weren't dragged into this screaming and kicking?

"They've finally got the type of online they wanted. Quit living in your pipe dream where Nintendo still agrees with you about online."

What the hell? You don't even know what type of online they have, and you're telling me it's the type they want? Buddy, I think it's you who should quit living in your pipe dream where online is absolutely good and Nintendo has fallen captive to its enthralling appeal.

It's not like I developed this hatred of online gaming overnight. I'll be seeing you on the other side in a few years when you get sick of online games too... count on it.

And one last thing. Why do people always provoke me into yet another online argument? You all know how I feel. Get used to it, you're not going to change my opinion. Just walk away and shake your head at my delusions, if that's what you think they are.

Paladin, Nintendo has been experimenting with online connectivity since the NES. Their Famicom Disk Drive was tied into online, The Super Nes had the "satellite" network, and the N64 had a "Ram-net" for the ill-fated Rambus. Nintendo has CLEARLY been waiting for the right time to go online, and they've decided that the time is now.

Besides, it should be evident that Nintendo doesn't want online connecitivity purely for player-matching services, but only once they can figure out a way to use online connections to create something OTHER than PvP deathmatches or consistent worlds. Clearly, Miyamoto and Nintendo believes that they finally have some software that has a chance of not looking like a copycat of Rare's 64-multiplayer Perfect Dark 0.

Without speculating on what new software Nintendo is keeping under wraps, Animal Crossing DS is a perfect example of a game where online connectivity is used NOT to simply match players, but to create a meaningful player community that consists of more than trash talk and waiting for games. And the Revolution's online connectivity will also make buying Nintendo's retro catalogue of games painless, seamless, and appealing.

If Nintendo had the games for online connectivity, I'm sure they would've gone online ages ago. Heaven knows, they had the experimental technology to do it. But what good is an online network if it's only used to copycat Sony and MS' player-matching? In Online connectivity, Nintendo is the company with the MOST to lose if they can't do anything new with the online medium: without a compelling reason to go online, without their downloadable backlog of games and their aims at creating meaningful player relations via Animal Crossing, and whatever else they've got up their sleeve, Nintendo will only prove to the world that they are a copycata and second-hander.

Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

P.S. forgive me, I haven't argued with you yet about Nintendo and Online connectivity. &P

[Savior]

Nintendos "Super Backwards compatibility" system that is online based is proof enough to me that Nintendo isnt going online "kicking and screaming" They have interest in it.  They werent forced into it.  

[Ian Sane]

"They give all these excuses for not using online, then they start watering down the excuses, and then they finally stop making excuses altogether, and you expect me to believe they weren't dragged into this screaming and kicking?"

Nintendo's excuses were never about online gaming being a bad thing.  They said it wasn't profitable.  Their "we must make profit all the time no matter what" complex was acting up.  I still think it was a dumb move.  I still think that a short term loss to establish a foothold in the online marketplace would have been a worthwhile investment.  I still think they probably lost more by not going online since not having the feature hurt Cube sales.  But their excuse had nothing to do with the concept itself.

And even if they were dragged into it that's not always a bad thing.  The Cube used discs after years of Nintendo sh!tting on the concept in favor of cartridges.  I think the Cube has benefited tremendously from that change.  There are a lot of games that just plain wouldn't have been released on the Cube if they stuck with cartridges and it's not like all their games had huge load times either.  You could say Nintendo was forced to change in that situation.  But sometimes changing with trends is the right thing to do.  Nintendo isn't always right.  They don't always do what's best for gaming.

Though there was one thing that I was worried about in regards to online support that I'm not worried about now.  I was worried that Nintendo wouldn't be able to attract interest in their online plan because the competition already did it first.  I was worried they would be stuck playing catch up.  But they shouldn't be because of that download service.  Everyone seems to love that idea.  That alone will ensure that Nintendo online will be accepted.  Come for the download service, stay for online SSB.

[jasonditz]

I don't think its about Nintendo "finally coming around to the idea" with discs or with online... I think its about the idea finally being worthwhile. A disc-based console with almost no load times would never have been possible before the GC's release. They could've stuck a modem in the N64's expansion port if they wanted to... but would they have been able to offer the experience they want to offer?

Waiting for the idea to become profitable isn't that bad a thing. Sega spent big on free online for the Dreamcast, we saw how far it got them. Microsoft even offered a subscription service just to use their online service, and they still lost more than the budget of a small African nation on the deal.  

[PaLaDiN]

Alright... you guys win, I'll keep my personal vendetta against online gaming to myself now.

[jasonditz]

I've yet to be terribly impressed with online console gaming. I'm taking a "wait and see " approach for Nintendo's online offerings, but since there's no added hardware to buy there's no reason not to give it a try.

[PaLaDiN]

Back on topic... does Iwata's interview on cube.ign.com sound similar to my post or is it just my imagination?

[Artimus]

Which post?

[jasonditz]

You can read the original interview here

[Savior]

I've yet to be terribly impressed with online console gaming

I have. I enjoy Xbox live alot, the only problem is the I LOVE HALO 2s that keep talking obcenities in the game. When you play with friends its alot of fun.  I have a couple of friends in the States and its great to be able to play with them online and form things like Car Clubs in Forza Motor Sport.


Xbox 360 im not as optimist about. The inclusion of eye toy like cameras will most certainly be abused.