Topic: Iwata Interview with Venture Beat

[BlackNMild2k1]

Discussion on WiiHD, Motion Control, Wii Vitality Sensor and a Price Drop.

Nintendo CEO: Wii care about your heartbeat, but not your iPhone, the recession or free games

Satoru Iwata: The common topic at this year’s E3 has been that the motion-sensing controller has finally become the industry standard. Nintendo started this idea three years ago, and now the other platform owners are doing the same. It’s a good thing because we believed that we were doing the right and now others have validated that. The video game industry as a whole now has a chance to further expand.

VB: It looks like there’s been a switch from racing to find the best graphics to racing to build the best motion-sensing control system. How does that change the typical console life cycle?

SI: The industry used to believe in a five-year cycle for graphics. That depended on the evolution of silicon chips. While the overall cost remained the same, we figured out how much more graphics could be done with the newest chips. Nowadays, dependence on computer graphics improvements isn’t as important as it used to be. That must be why the other companies are now paying attention to motion-sensing controls. As you know, a lot of people in this industry believe that the life cycle for consoles should be longer than five years. However, when it comes to the platform cycle, Nintendo has different opinions from the other companies. I think we have a different criteria about when to shift to a new platform. Technology companies would tend to focus on a technology roadmap about when certain technologies will be available at a given cost. Then they lay out their plan to make a certain kind of hardware. That’s how PC makers decide how to make PCs. With Nintendo, developers like [Shigeru] Miyamoto decide. As long as they are comfortable with the current technology’s ability to deliver meaningful surprises to the users, we don’t need new hardware. However, when they start demanding something new, when they see the existing hardware can’t provide what they need, then that is when we decide to launch the new hardware. As for timing, it may be three years from now, five years from now or eight years from now.

VB: You have one task to accomplish which the other console makers have already done. It seems that you need to develop a console for high-definition graphics.

SI: If we have an opportunity to make a new console, it will probably support HD because it is now common throughout the world. However, as far as the Wii is concerned, we have not found a significant reason to make it HD-compatible at this time. What is the significant meaning to the users? I don’t think we should do it unless we find that reason. If we decide for other reasons to make new hardware, then HD is one of the things we would naturally add.

more at the link above

[Caliban]

I'm not expecting a new Nintendo home console until after 2012.

[Ian Sane]

The common topic at this year’s E3 has been that the motion-sensing controller has finally become the industry standard.

I think this is a little bit premature.  MS and Sony may have announced concepts but they don't even have any full games announced yet.  The whole thing could end up as vaporware.  Both of their ideas sound VERY iffy with the cameras and everything.  I say we wait until the idea proves to be successful for all three console makers.  Then we can say this is a standard.  Sony already has motion control but it is such a joke that you often forget it even exists.

However, as far as the Wii is concerned, we have not found a significant reason to make it HD-compatible at this time. What is the significant meaning to the users?

It's good to hear that Nintendo will consider HD support a mandatory feature in their next console.  I disagree that there is no significant reason to make it HD-compatible.  Not because of the feature but because of the hardware.  The Wii is the market leader yet it is the norm for major third party games to be released on every console BUT the Wii.  The technological gap between the Wii and the other consoles is too large.  Since day one there have been tons of great games that you can point to and say "this can't be done on the Wii" and it's entirely because of the hardware difference.  This shows there is a clear need for a new Nintendo console to come out in the normal five year cycle.  For Nintendo to suggest otherwise is an outright lie because those games are the proof.  They're right there in front of you: great games that can't be releasd on the Wii because the hardware difference is too great.

Let's say Sony's and Microsoft's motion control ideas actually do take off.  So where's the Wii at then?  What advantage does it have over the competition?  The motion control is the only thing that seperates it right now.  If they match that feature then the Wii is the same as the other consoles, only it's using borked last gen hardware.  Right now the Wii's uniqueness creates a tradeoff but at that point it would be clearly inferior in a direct comparison.

I think Nintendo may want to keep the Wii around for a long time and they may plan to do so.  But they probably should release their next console in 2011 with HD support, hardware comparible to the competition and Motion+ integrated directly into the controller.  Sony and MS are attempting to catch up to Nintendo right now.  But Nintendo themselves are also behind in a different way.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think Nintendo may want to keep the Wii around for a long time and they may plan to do so.  But they probably should release their next console in 2011 with HD support, hardware comparible to the competition and Motion+ integrated directly into the controller.

I'm sure that is Iwata's plan, and its why he says he is keeping an eye on the competition and what they are doing. Nintendo isn't actually behind in anything other than resolution, but at the same time Nintendo has MS & Sony right were they want them... playing catch up.

When the time is right, all Nintendo has to do is release an upgraded Wii with HDMI support and native 1080p resolution, M+built in and full backwards compatibility with the balance board and do that before any advances from the competition happen to get a foot hold on the market. Nintendo will have all the Hype and MS & Sony will still be waiting on profitability and hopefully be unprepared to release another console to offset that momentum.

[Deguello]

I think this is a little bit premature.  MS and Sony may have announced concepts but they don't even have any full games announced yet.  The whole thing could end up as vaporware.  Both of their ideas sound VERY iffy with the cameras and everything.  I say we wait until the idea proves to be successful for all three console makers.  Then we can say this is a standard.  Sony already has motion control but it is such a joke that you often forget it even exists.

Can I, with the same reasoning, say HD isn't a proven concept?  I mean only barely half the console sold even use it.  Anyway, looking at it from Iwata's perspective as a Japanese citizen makes it even clearer, as more than 65% of all consoles sold since the Wii was released use motion controls (That, of course, being the Wii's dominance.)  The Wii, being #1, sets the standard for the rest of the industry (at least that's how it used to work.)  And anyway, why do the other two have to be using it (and using it well) for it to be standard?  Just because they were pigheaded and said "waggle" jokes for 3 years doesn't mean it wasn't being readily adopted by the customers as the standard.

Nintendo using an HD graphics card is a complete no-brainer.  I can walk into a Fry's and get an off-the-shelf graphics card that's like 3X those for about $100.  In 2011 they'll be cheap enough to put in wristwatches.  The real onus will be on those other two to make their graphics even betterer, beyond the just noticeable difference between WiiHD/360/PS4, since we have reached parity with how much grpahics can display vs. how much they can cost.

If anything Nintendo may be sealing a deal with ATI (or AMD, whatever) about that right now, because Nintendo doesn't really subscribe to this whole 10-year-life-cycle thing, because they launch new consoles when they need to.  I bet those graphics card companies don't really like this 10-year-life talk, mainly because it cheats them out of a lucrative contract that they expect.  I bet ATI in particular is quite fat and happy after their Wii card became the #1 console's, especially since it hasn't dropped in price at all.  That's a good relationship, I'd say.  Maybe one that will pay dividends, especially since Sony at least, will be in total survival mode and be unwilling to splurge on a more better graphics card.

See, graphics have become a commodity among games, mainly due to the fact that we have reached the end of them.  This is not to say that graphics won't get better ever, but they have reached the point where it CAN get too expensive AND the point where the human eye may not be able to tell an appreciable leap AND to the point where regular TVs can't make them any sharper.  MS and Sony's prize for getting there first is a steep bill and momentary mindshare, where as slow and steady Nintendo will get there with a wheelbarrow full of money and a knack for efficient polygon design.  Sometimes delayed gratification is better.

[ShyGuy]

I'm waiting for the Iwata interview with Tiger Beat.

Who is Iwata taking to the Prom?

[Chozo Ghost]

It's good to hear that Nintendo will consider HD support a mandatory feature in their next console.  I disagree that there is no significant reason to make it HD-compatible.  Not because of the feature but because of the hardware.  The Wii is the market leader yet it is the norm for major third party games to be released on every console BUT the Wii.  The technological gap between the Wii and the other consoles is too large.  Since day one there have been tons of great games that you can point to and say "this can't be done on the Wii" and it's entirely because of the hardware difference.  This shows there is a clear need for a new Nintendo console to come out in the normal five year cycle.  For Nintendo to suggest otherwise is an outright lie because those games are the proof.  They're right there in front of you: great games that can't be releasd on the Wii because the hardware difference is too great.

Adding HD alone wouldn't solve that problem. The problem is the Wii's CPU and other components are underpowered compared to the other consoles. So, maybe you can get the games running in HD, but so what? There's more to running game engines and AI and stuff that involves more than just HD. All of this would require a new console, so Iwata is right on the mark, I think. If Nintendo released a Wii 1.5 right now it should cause a schism in the hardware base and games designed for the 1.5 would break compatibility with the Wii 1.0 and just wouldn't work. Nintendo would be throwing away its substantial Wii installed base for no real gain whatsoever.

So instead of pushing out a 1.5 stop-gap system now, it would be much better to release a Wii 2.0 in a few years so that it can not only be able to compete with the competition of this generation, but also with the competition that will come in the next generation.

Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that the Wii is last generation hardware. You make it sound like it is no more powerful than the GC, and this isn't true at all. If you look at the graphical leap in Metroid Prime 3 versus in MP 1-2 or from Mario Galaxy over Mario Sunshine you can see there is some improvement. Is it a huge leap forward? No, but it is an improvement nonetheless. The GC's CPU is like 233mhz or so, whereas the Wii's CPU is over 700mhz. This is consistent with what Iwata said about the Wii being 2-3 times more powerful than the GC. Maybe not every game on the Wii makes use of this power (largely because many Wii games are rush-jobs and GC ports), but that power is definitely there. Adding HD wouldn't produce instant results anyway, because games that would make use of it would have to be made from scratch, so even if Nintendo came out with an HD Wii now, it would probably still be another 2 or 3 years before you start seeing it being fully utilized. So again, Iwata is right that Nintendo should just wait for the next generation.

The market has shown that HD and better graphics just aren't that important. If they were important, Wii Sports and Wii Fit wouldn't be the huge sellers that they are and the Wii would be in a distant third place. The graphics of these "non-games" could be done on an N64, yet they are by far ahead of even the best selling PS3 or 360 game to date in terms of sales.

[KDR_11k]

Iwata says there's no significant meaning to going HD because the customer doesn't care enough about HD to warrant buying a completely new system over it. The next system from Nintendo will offer reasons to buy it beyond the HD upgrade.

[MegaByte]

"That’s why we have to introduce this Wii Vitality Sensor. A lot of people must be wondering what the hell this is about." - Satoru Iwata

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, that thing was pointless.

[Ian Sane]

Can I, with the same reasoning, say HD isn't a proven concept?

HD isn't a "concept".  It is merely supporting a type of TV.

I see motion control as unproven as a standard because so many games are still made without it.  Realistically who besides Nintendo considers motion control as their first option when designing games?  Third parties are focused on the other consoles and thus are sticking more to the old standard.  Whether or not that is financially logical doesn't matter.  With the vast majority of developers motion control is not yet their de facto standard.  It's still the exception.

And the whole concept is still so rocky.  We still get tons of really lousy waggle controls where all we're doing is taking what used to be a precise button press and turning it into an imprecise "shake".  That isn't a standard.  That's not the future.  That's a novelty.  If it doesn't go beyond that then this will be seen as a silly fad ten years from now.  Motion controls still need refining and Nintendo themselves admit that or there would be no need for Motion+.

I think motion control has to take a big step still before anyone can call it a standard.  I'd say waggle has to no longer exist.

[Stogi]

^^^

I love how this post was made on the eve of Resort.

[Deguello]

HD isn't a "concept".  It is merely supporting a type of TV.

Well it's not standard either way.

I see motion control as unproven as a standard because so many games are still made without it.  Realistically who besides Nintendo considers motion control as their first option when designing games?

Why does that matter?  Why do MS and Sony have to be using it well for it to be a standard?  Don't they usually call this a competitive advantage?  And what does the pigheadedness of third parties have to do with whether the gamers/customers wanting motion controls?  It's like when sony refused VHS and made Betamax.  VHS was standard because the customers decided it was, and didn't need Sony's Stamp of approval.

Third parties are focused on the other consoles and thus are sticking more to the old standard.  Whether or not that is financially logical doesn't matter.  With the vast majority of developers motion control is not yet their de facto standard.  It's still the exception.

And they have suffered greatly because of it while Nintendo makes record profits.  And if it wasn't the standard, why did MS and Sony go to great pains to announce motion things at E3?

And the whole concept is still so rocky.  We still get tons of really lousy waggle controls where all we're doing is taking what used to be a precise button press and turning it into an imprecise "shake".  That isn't a standard.  That's not the future.  That's a novelty.  If it doesn't go beyond that then this will be seen as a silly fad ten years from now.  Motion controls still need refining and Nintendo themselves admit that or there would be no need for Motion+.

You have about 1 more month out of this argument before you can't make it anymore.  And Nintendo never really did "waggle" games, those were the aforementioned third parties who thought they could turn a quick buck by making garbage on the Wii.  And to say it's not "the future" is pretty laughable because Nintendo has made MS and Sony waste their time making motion controls for their audiences, whom they've groomed for 3 years on "waggle" jokes.

As for the motion plans of MS and Sony, they really screwed up at their conferences by differentiating the kinds of games their users can expect from Natal and ... PS3Wand.  They differentiated from "real games" and "casual games."  So the type of games we can expect on Natal and PS3Wand are the horrible ones on the Wii that everybody hates, and fail miserably.  Even better, third parties that like the PS360 porting paradigm probably will shy away from both Natal and PS3Wand, because they won't be able to port it to the other.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Best E3 ever.

[Ian Sane]

And Nintendo never really did "waggle" games

Twilight Princess, Warioland, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario.  These aren't "waggle" games to you?  They pretty much all are games using classic controls that map a button push here and there to a remote shake.  These are great games but it's still waggle.

And if it wasn't the standard, why did MS and Sony go to great pains to announce motion things at E3?

I'm saying it's not the standard YET.  Things are moving in that direction but we're not there yet.  It's premature to declare that now.

Why does that matter?  Why do MS and Sony have to be using it well for it to be a standard?  Don't they usually call this a competitive advantage?  And what does the pigheadedness of third parties have to do with whether the gamers/customers wanting motion controls?

It matters because if it's a standard then literally only ONE game developer in the entire world treats it as such.  They may be very successful with this but I don't think that's enough to make it a standard yet.  I think it has to be at the point where when people think of videogames motion control is what they think of.  It's what developer think of when they decide to make a game.  It's what everyone expects virtually ALL games to use.  We're not there yet.  Despite the Wii's success it is regarded and treated as something different that requires it's own specific games designed for it.  When motion control is truly the standard there will be no differentiation.  It'll just be videogames.  You buy a console and it will use motion control for all types of games for all types of audiences.

[Deguello]

Twilight Princess, Warioland, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Paper Mario.  These aren't "waggle" games to you?  They pretty much all are games using classic controls that map a button push here and there to a remote shake.  These are great games but it's still waggle.

Oh no another definition crisis!  Here I thought "waggle" was a pejorative for those crappy shovelware games like that one Konami just announced.  No, Nintendo using motion controls for an action isn't "waggle," mainly because their games don't suck like third parties do.  And this really isn't a good argument anyway, because you could make the same argument that all the D-pad really did was cut the stick off a joystick and map every joystick button to a D-pad button, and damn Nintendo and their "Cross-pressing."  You used to could use your right FULL FIST to control games, and now it's all dainty taps with the left thumb.  LEFT!  SINISTER!

I'm saying it's not the standard YET.  Things are moving in that direction but we're not there yet.  It's premature to declare that now.

It's there.  Anybody growing up with Wii will prefer motion controls.  And Since Sony and MS have announced their intentions to release motion controls, it validates Nintendo's strategy and solidifies its place in the future.  It's like how Touch controls are standard for handhelds now, and everybody in 2004 was making "LOL RUB!  Touch Minigames not for real gamers and not a standard."  It's hard not to crack a smile looking back at that and noticing every cellphone and iPhone and MP3 player since using touch screens as a standard and the PSP defiantly not using it.  Now I know, you're gonna say that the DS still has the D-Pad and buttons, too.  But so does the Wii.  While you may have a point about third parties not thinking about what makes good motion controls, that has no bearing on whether the customers prefer it and it seems that they do.

It matters because if it's a standard then literally only ONE game developer in the entire world treats it as such.  They may be very successful with this but I don't think that's enough to make it a standard yet.

You do know Nintendo's making record profits for the industry, right?  And have record pace sales that's beating even the PS2?  Just because everybody made fun of then for three years doesn't mean the CUSTOMERS (you seem to be forgetting these guys.) haven't been readily adopting Wiimote controls as the standard.

I think it has to be at the point where when people think of videogames motion control is what they think of.  It's what developer think of when they decide to make a game.  It's what everyone expects virtually ALL games to use.  We're not there yet.  Despite the Wii's success it is regarded and treated as something different that requires it's own specific games designed for it.  When motion control is truly the standard there will be no differentiation.  It'll just be videogames.  You buy a console and it will use motion control for all types of games for all types of audiences.

We'll never reach that point and the sad, scary truth is we have never HAD a point like that.  No one control scheme has dominated others completely.  D-Pad + buttons never FULLY replaced joysticks.  Analog control never FULLY replaced Mouse + WASD.  Motion controls will never FULLY replace analog.  And again, just because third parties make tripe on the Wii, doesn't mean that Nintendo is the same way.  Third parties may think the Wii doesn't deserve "real games" or whatever, but Nintendo has always tackled their Wii games, even ones labeled "casual" with the same kind of desire to make a good product that you don't see in things like Party Babiez or Clapping Party or Something Party.  And no control scheme ever had "all types of games for all types of audiences."  Games like Wii Fit were sorely missing from previous generations and most "exercise games" tended to be push-button movies and aimed for a middle aged 40-year-old woman.  Wii Fit, and the Wiimote, motion controls... in THIS Generation, opened this idea up for everybody.


I mean seriously, do the math yourself.  Nintendo makes motion controls and are the only ones who really push them and take them seriously.  They make record-breaking oodles of cash.  Everybody else either makes "waggle" jokes or makes sloppy games while making their "real" stuff on regular controllers. They rank from marginally successful to bleeding cash, even industry titans like EA.  Which one has a future?

[Ian Sane]

It's there.  Anybody growing up with Wii will prefer motion controls.

I disagree.  I say it's WAY too soon to declare something like that.  The Wii has been around only three years and you're talking about a whole generation of gamers that prefer motion controls?  If motion controls stay where they are now where 90% of the time we're just taking a button push and assigning it to a shake?  Where 90% of games designed for motion control are shovelware trash (not Nintendo's fault persay but it is the reality of the situation)?  In that situation do you think anybody growing up with the Wii will prefer motion controls or will the novelty eventually wear off? The way motion control is treated right now, whether it deserves it or not, is as a novelty.  It has no substance.  When used for waggle it's IDIOTIC because it makes a game HARDER to control.  Is that the future of gaming?  I doubt it.

I say the future of motion control isn't here yet.  We still have to see what the competition does.  We have to see what Nintendo does with Motion+.  What we have now is just so LAME.  Do you want this to be the future?  I think with motion control there is so much potential.  So before we declare this the standard let's see where it goes.  If it doesn't get much beyond this then either the future sucks or the whole thing will fizzle out in a few years as the world realizes how lame it is.  I just don't think the concept, as is, will have any legs.  I think regardless of sales, because disco could have seen as the new standard of music if you made the prediction at the right time, we need the best developers making the best games using motion control.  In my mind it still needs some legitimacy.  I don't think you can declare it the standard when the only developer that isn't using it as a joke is the creator of the concept itself.  Is it the new standard or just Nintendo's really effective marketing tool?

like how Touch controls are standard for handhelds now, and everybody in 2004 was making "LOL RUB!  Touch Minigames not for real gamers and not a standard."

And yet touchscreen controls are largely seen as a JOKE on the DS.  The DS got rolling once everyone realized that forced touchscreen usage was the sucks and pretty much just started making the same types of games they made on the GBA with normal controls.  The only developer that still forces touch controls down everyone's throat is Nintendo themselves.  Meanwhile third parties make great DS games that pretty much don't need or use the touchscreen at all and then clean up with those normal control games.  The DS isn't a huge success because of the touchscreen, it's because, like the previous Gameboys, it's a great portable with great battery life, a good price, durability, and a great selection of games that coincedently became great once everyone forgot the touchscreen was even there.  Nintendo could release their next portable without a touchscreen at all and I'll bet the juggernaut will just keep on rolling.  And the PSP doesn't struggle because it has no touchscreen but because like every other Nintendo portable competitor they just ended up making a lousier version of their console instead of making their portable something different that compliments their console and is equally essential.

[King of Twitch]

"When used for waggle it's IDIOTIC because it makes a game HARDER to control."

"And yet touchscreen controls are largely seen as a JOKE on the DS"

Can you provide some specific Wii and DS game examples?

"What we have now is just so LAME."

I thought MP3's and TP's aiming controls were awesome

[Deguello]

And yet touchscreen controls are largely seen as a JOKE on the DS.

By who?  Most of the very happy DS owners be loving the touchscreen.  Reviewers too.  Who thinks this?  Everybody loves Rhythm Heaven.  It's sold like 2 million.  That game not only uses just the Touch Screen, but you play it SIDEWAYS.  Nintendo game, too.  I think we are starting to see a little personal preference creep in here, which is fine, but it's not substitute for measurable public opinion which is "DS RAWX" Touchscreen and all. 

And yes you are right... it was third parties who were the culprits behind crappy touch screen.  They are also behind crappy motion controls.  It was when they stopped thinking of the DS as some kind of dump for all their knock-off cash-ins that they started making better games.  Wish they'd do the same for Wii.  But it's no biggie if they stop.  Despite having a large selection of shovelware, it's pretty much the case that none of them make any real headway, just like all those Nintendogs knockoffs in 2005 onward.  So it's their money and reputation they are ruining, not Nintendo's.

[Stogi]

Agreed. Only a few "shovelware" games were able to sell well and most of their sequels flopped. So that begs the question: Do people really like quality?

You tell me, Ian.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

"Can you provide some specific Wii and DS game examples?"

He can't cuz he hasn't tried them.

"I thought MP3's and TP's aiming controls were awesome"

Those are the only games he has, but they're LAME.  Despite following his high standards of judgement and the gaming press, he has a Wii and only a few games, all of which are stinkers.  Quite a metric, he has.

[elmerion]

I think you are not taking something into consideration, Nintendo´s estrategy on the wii wasn´t just to create a motion controller, it was to create a friendly controller, a friendly interface and along with a new face of advertisementes and games to attract new users into videogames, neither the controller, or the games would have attracted that many people, and is advertisements exactly what Sony and Microsoft lack, even if they have better hardware or software, they just can´t handle their user base, they just keep making what they think is the best, and as far as i can see, that is graphic centered videogames

I think Nintendo is doing a great job as a company, they just turned a new page in videogames, if the NES saved the videogames, the Wii made videogames friendly and put them in the map for a huge number of people

[King of Twitch]

[tombo125]

I have just one thing to say.  Motion control will never fully replace analog until some developer makes some way to play FPS with a motion controller.  I love FPS but they are terrible with motion control.  If they dont have an analog controller along with motion control with the next gen systems they will have made a big mistake.  Also there is a need for analog when you play things like the VC or sports simulations (aka madden).  I think the two controls will always be split 60-40 by usage, kinda like some people perfer PC games for their first person shooters.

[Stogi]

I honestly think that brain wave gaming is the future, but what do I know.