Topic: Miyamoto Checks Third Parties (Well, Sort Of)

[Pittbboi]

So Newsweek's Level Up had a chance to sit down with Shigeru Miyamoto the day after his keynote at GDC for a 30 minute interview (http://ncroal.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=549476).
It's the typical Miyamoto sage-like wisdom (which isn't at all a bad thing), but I was definitely pretty thrilled with this portion of the interview:

Quote
It's a good answer. One of the challenges that third party developers have faced when making games for Nintendo platforms is that they have to compete against the games that you make. Because you do such a good job, and people like Mr. Iwata and Reggie do such a good job marketing your games, it's very hard to compete against your games. When you look at the opportunity that the Wii has around the world, with a trajectory of growth that's faster than Xbox 360, and faster than PS3, it seems that Nintendo has a chance to maybe get to a dominant position that it hasn't had since the NES and the SNES. But the missing component is that third parties still seem to be able to do a better business on PlayStation platforms or Xbox platforms. So I'm wondering, even though it's not your job--and you're very busy with your own job, which is to make great games for Nintendo--is there something you need to do, or Reggie needs to do or Mr. Iwata needs to do, to help those third parties who are making great games for DS or for Wii reach the audience on your platform that you speak to so well from a development perspective and a marketing perspective? What does Nintendo need to do to help Nintendo gamers reach out to those games and buy them?

Bill Trinen, translator: He gave you a long answer, and you gave him a long question. [Laughs.]

Level Up: A fair exchange.

Miyamoto: I can see how it may seem like that's the case. People have said the same thing in Japan in terms of the sales of the third party games. Obviously one thing that Nintendo does, and we continue to try to do, is to create new interfaces. That's going to give third party developers the opportunity to come up with new ideas, and we think that there's going to be a great number of opportunities for people to do that with Wii. And with those new ideas, there's going to be the chance to really break out.

...

If there's only one piece of advice that I could give to the managers of third party companies, it would be that a lot of times it seems that when they're putting games out on Nintendo hardware, those games are being developed by their third-string team or their fourth-string team. Maybe that's because they see those products as being unique projects or somewhat smaller-scale projects. But when Nintendo puts out a title that is designed to really support and sell its hardware, that title is always developed by one of our number one teams. And so I think that when it comes to the question of trying to compete with our software, I would really like to see the parties try to do that with their number one teams rather than with the third- or fourth-string teams. [Laughs.]

EXACTLY

Honestly, this is almost something I would have expected Reggie to say, but Miyamoto is so right. I've always said, whenever the "Nintendo gamers don't buy third party because they have Nintendo games" argument came up, that it wasn't an issue of third parties sucking. Third parties don't suck in comparison to Nintendo, they just rarely fully commit themselves when it comes to Nintendo support. Seriously, most major third party developers have at least 1 or 2 IPs that could easily compete with Nintendo games, but those games rarely go to Nintendo consoles. When it comes to Nintendo consoles, third parties, as Miyamoto said, usually put their third or fourth-string teams into a title...and most of the time it shows. So of course their games get trashed by Nintendo's heavy hitters. And then they use that as an excuse to say that Nintendo gamers don't want third party games.

I'm glad Miyamoto said this. This is the kind of speaking out that I think Nintendo needs to do more of. And maybe with someone like Shigeru Miyamoto calling them out, more third parties will listen.    

[ThePerm]

one thing i'v been thinking about is Sega, Sega says they have problems developing on so many platforms, what they should really do is support one platform outstandingly. Of course it would be the Wii . Perhaps if Sega wasn't spread out like the Assyrian empire they would be a little stronger and make better games?

[ShyGuy]

Man those Assyrians.....

[Kairon]

*shrug*

The man speaks the truth.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Pittbboi saying something positive about Nintendo? AMAZING! I have to comment. Miyamoto is dead on, 3rd parties do have a tendency to not put much effort, or limit their team size when it comes to making games for Nintendo systems. Heck when was the last time we had one of the key teams making a game? Resident Evil 4 for GC? I don't know about the Red Steel team, but I'm certain that companies like EA (even though they are doing a very good job on Wii) do have smaller teams working for Wii, and I know for a fact Konami does.

[Pittbboi]

LOL

Well...There was ONE minor part of the interview that irked me...but I decided it would be best to keep that bit to myself as the part I mentioned above won out over it.

[Kairon]

I want to know, but at the same time I don't. Oh CURSE YOU MORBID CURIOUSITY!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I want to know, but at the same time I don't. Oh CURSE YOU MORBID CURIOUSITY!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Actually I think Sony probably gave a competing interview and pimp slapped Miyamoto's.

[Kairon]

You've been real sharp-witted recently GoldenPhoenix!

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Galford]

How about giving some "Money Hats" out Nintendo?

Nintendo stance towards third parties has improved, but Sony and MS is still far superior.
Even with it's recent screw ups Sony is still better at the 3rd party game then Sony.
Why should a company put a number #1 team on a Wii project if that same team put on an Xbox360 or PS3
project will make twice as much?

Look at most of the Wii's lineup, it's mini-games and kid games with graphics that barely make it past the Dreamcast era.
Third parties are looking at what's selling on the Wii and are acting accordingly.

Hear's another hint Nintendo, what about user created content?  
Both Sony and MS have plans in place you're pretending these programs don't exist.  

[Artimus]

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
How about giving some "Money Hats" out Nintendo?

Nintendo stance towards third parties has improved, but Sony and MS is still far superior.
Even with it's recent screw ups Sony is still better at the 3rd party game then Sony.
Why should a company put a number #1 team on a Wii project if that same team put on an Xbox360 or PS3
project will make twice as much?

Look at most of the Wii's lineup, it's mini-games and kid games with graphics that barely make it past the Dreamcast era.
Third parties are looking at what's selling on the Wii and are acting accordingly.

Hear's another hint Nintendo, what about user created content?  
Both Sony and MS have plans in place you're pretending these programs don't exist.

I don't really think anything you're saying here is accurate.

[NWR_pap64]

Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
How about giving some "Money Hats" out Nintendo?

Nintendo stance towards third parties has improved, but Sony and MS is still far superior.
Even with it's recent screw ups Sony is still better at the 3rd party game then Sony.
Why should a company put a number #1 team on a Wii project if that same team put on an Xbox360 or PS3
project will make twice as much?

Look at most of the Wii's lineup, it's mini-games and kid games with graphics that barely make it past the Dreamcast era.
Third parties are looking at what's selling on the Wii and are acting accordingly.

Hear's another hint Nintendo, what about user created content?  
Both Sony and MS have plans in place you're pretending these programs don't exist.

I don't really think anything you're saying here is accurate.

Ditto.

Sony is losing a lot of exclusive games while developers are favoring the Wii and XBOX 360. You can argue all you want about the games, but the game announcements have been coming like crazy, raging from new IPs, ports, exclusives and multi console releases.

I smells me a troller...

[NWR_pap64]

Double post...

[Djunknown]

Quote
Perhaps if Sega wasn't spread out like the Assyrian empire they would be a little stronger and make better games?

Virtua Fighter 5 is great, Sonic and the Secret Rings is good, while PS3/360 Sonic isn't....good. I'm sure AM2 could whip up a Beach Spikers sequel with Wii Controls...

But with the announcement of Sonic and Mario at the Olympics (SAMATO?), and the officially confirmed NiGHTS on Wii, things are looking up. For the collaboration with Nintendo, Miyamoto has his hand in it, he won't let Sega suck even if they tried to.I'm sure he'll 'end-up the tea table' a few times, but its for Sega's own good. Its too early to comment about NiGHTS, but Takashi's good track record outweighs the bad.

Quote
Third parties are looking at what's selling on the Wii and are acting accordingly.

I'd like to think that Wii had an impressive 1st quarter don't you think? EA is enjoying the fruits of their ports labor, why not the rest of the 3rd party pantheon?

[Galford]

How exactly are my comments trolling?

1.)Sony losing exclusives
Where are most of these exclusives going?  X360 last I checked.  Where are the Wii ports of VF5, DMC4, RE5, and Ace Combat?
Instead of these games we get Treasure Island Z and Nights.  While Nights could be good could it's done by the team that did Wii version of Sonic.  That doesn't inspire confidence in me.

2.)Dreamcast era graphics
Ok this was a little harsh.  There is no reason why developers are creating games that look worse then the stuff Factor 5 was pushing at the GC's launch.  I'm not expecting Gears of War, but there is no excuse for the crappy graphics that inhabit most of the Wii lineup.

3.)User created content.
While this is a niche, the X360 has the XNA program and the PS3 has Linux with C compilers.  For the first time since the Eighties homebrew is a reality on consoles.  Nintendo has a lone announcement in January about a homebrew program, nothing else.

While I realize my original comments could sound trollish, I see Nintendo slipping behind the curve again and pretending it's not happening.

[Infernal Monkey]

Quote
Even with it's recent screw ups Sony is still better at the 3rd party game then Sony.

I agree.

[Acefondu]

Gee, Nintendo couldn't spell it out any better than saying, "Quit putting crap on our system!" But he's right though. Developers are trying to make a quick buck on Wii while putting their stellar games on PS3/XBOX360 to cover costs.

[Ian Sane]

I like seeing Nintendo acknowledge this sort of thing.  Too often there's this attitude that all third party games are equal and thus have the same sales potential.  That's not true.  Some don't sell because the Nintendo console port is missing some feature or came out later than the competition.  Some don't sell because of the timing of their release.  Some don't sell because the third party ended up sabotaging their own sales by annoucing a port prior to the games release (RE4) or annoucing a higher profile game for the same series on a competing console at the same time (MGS).  Some don't sell because of poor marketing.  Some don't sell because they suck.  On the Cube it was like third parties thought that every game they released should sell huge.  The idea that maybe other factors, most of which were there own fault, could hurt sales wasn't taken into consideration.  Thus any poor third party sales was somehow the fault of the Cube userbase and thus ALL support should be withdrawn.  Like a third parties best and worst game are the same and if we didn't buy their worst game we won't buy their best.

Nintendo kind of seemed to have that attitude too.  The third party deals they set up seemed arbitrary like they had no idea what was a good deal and what was a bad one or what the userbase wanted or didn't.  It might just be that that was all they could get but any company that goes out to get Metal Gear and ends up just getting a remake and having their own team do all the work comes across as not "getting" third party support.  It seemed like they thought just having third party games is what mattered when a lot of it depends on what those game exactly are.

So I love seeing Miyamoto calling this sh!t out.  Not only is he letting everyone know that he knows third parties aren't pulling their weight but this means Nintendo recognizes that third party games aren't equal.  Sometimes they're junk and Nintendo understands why we don't buy those games as much as the first string stuff.  I'm hoping that since Nintendo recognizes this they'll realize that the current Wii support needs some work.  They need to have third parties giving them the first string team stuff.

[Smash_Brother]

Miyamoto didn't need to say it. Neither did Reggie.

The games industry isn't an idea, it's an equation.

It's simple: games will be developed and released where they will make the highest amount of money possible, period.

There is no debating this. There is no counter argument. The bottom line is profit.

If the Wii attains the highest userbase, then it DEFINITELY wins. Hands down, no question. The Wii is already the cheapest to develop FOR, meaning that a company will have spent less initial investment right off the bat because HD isn't required. If a 360 game costs $500,000 to develop and a Wii game costs $250,000 to develop, then that company will see that as an immediate $250,000 profit by comparison when it comes to deciding which console to dev for.

When you factor that into the MOST pertinent equation of "Which console will it sell the most copies on?", it's almost guaranteed to make more money on Wii, especially if it has the highest installed userbase and therefore the highest potential for sales.

So you see why it's silly to worry about this. After the barns are swept out, 3rd parties will have no choice but to develop for the Wii because it's where the money is.  

[Pittbboi]

Quote
The Wii is already the cheapest to develop FOR, meaning that a company will have spent less initial investment right off the bat because HD isn't required.

The Gamecube was the easiest to develop for as well. Didn't help it at all. Publishers don't care how easy it is to develop on a console. If they think their game has a better chance on a console that's as expensive as hell to develop for, they'll do it any way. This lesson was learned last gen, as Nintendo made "easy and cheap to develop for" one of their main bulletpoints for developers, and it didn't do a thing for them.

And if it seems like your mature game is going to have a better chance on a console with a lower installed userbase but a higher percentage of people likely to buy it, than on a console with a higher userbase but a lower percentage of mature gamers willing to buy it....then suddenly the 1 number isn't the bottom line.

And that right now is my biggest fear for the Wii.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi The Gamecube was the easiest to develop for as well. Didn't help it at all. Publishers don't care how easy it is to develop on a console. If they think their game has a better chance on a console that's as expensive as hell to develop for, they'll do it any way. This lesson was learned last gen, as Nintendo made "easy and cheap to develop for" one of their main bulletpoints for developers, and it didn't do a thing for them.

And if it seems like your mature game is going to have a better chance on a console with a lower installed userbase but a higher percentage of people likely to buy it, than on a console with a higher userbase but a lower percentage of mature gamers willing to buy it....then suddenly the 1 number isn't the bottom line.

And that right now is my biggest fear for the Wii.

First of all, the difference between developing a non-HD game vs. an HD game is SUBSTANTIALLY different than developing for the Cube vs. another system. HD requires that every texture in the game have a higher resolution, which basically means that you need to pay your texture artists for double the amount of time you could have without HD.

Second, I understand where you're coming from with the mature game argument, but the thing is, if that were true, the Xbox would have received all of the M titles last gen, leaving nothing for the PS2.

The Xbox sold itself as the M console, but the fact that Sony had a 20 million console lead on it meant that M games still went to the PS2 because of all the potential sales. If the Wii pulls far ahead of the 360, it won't matter which audience is where: those games will still come to the Wii.

[UniversalJuan]

Quote
Originally posted by: Pittbboi

Quote
The Wii is already the cheapest to develop FOR, meaning that a company will have spent less initial investment right off the bat because HD isn't required.

The Gamecube was the easiest to develop for as well. Didn't help it at all. Publishers don't care how easy it is to develop on a console.

Um...little bit of word bending there to help your arguement much? I believe Smash said the CHEAPest...not the EASIest. I'm just saying.

Cheap development + Large userbase + Game not being crap = Maximized profit. Or at least that's what common sense says to me, perhaps I should go ahead and look into that catscan....