Post by: Kairon on September 18, 2005, 08:56:01 AM
Nintendo's Genre Innovation Strategy: Thoughts on the Revolution's new controller
Edit: Fixed Link
Some quotes:
Quote
Focusing on product innovation at the expense of commodity markets is a classic business strategy that is used successfully in non-game companies around the world. Companies like 3M are required as part of their strategic plan to have 30% of their revenue come from new products. They are constantly exiting markets when strong competition emerges and constantly competing with themselves by offering new products that outdate their existing products. Nintendo releases new genres where other companies release new products, but the basics are the same.
Quote
What you find is that selling innovative products early on can be dramatically more profitable and less risky than selling commodity products. The early market might not be as large, but the money is much better. You see this over and over again. Nintendo sells less but makes more money. Sony and Microsoft sell more, but make less profit.
Consider this tidbit. The Xbox, which focuses on highly mature genres catering to hardcore gamers has production costs of $1.82 million a title. The Gamecube costs half as much at $822,000 a title. The real kicker is that the Nintendo DS only costs $338, 286 a title to develop for, even less than the Gameboy. Some of these costs have to do with the hardware and development kits, but for the most part they are derived from the scope of the projects. Being able to develop successful titles at 1/5th the cost of your competitors is a major boost to your bottom line.
Quote
As a side note, folks who argue Nintendo should just make games for other platforms are completely missing the point. Nintendo needs to control their hardware platform in order to force innovation to occur in the control mechanisms. Other console manufacturers who rely on the hardcore audiences and standardized genres don’t see this need. They would happily standardize the console platform and make it into a commodity. Microsoft has historically made major comments about having one universal development platform.
The moment Nintendo loses control over their hardware, they lose a major competitive advantage in terms of creating new genres.
Quote
A ‘gimmicky game’ is really just another name for a new core game mechanic that hasn’t been polished. Donkey Kong is considered shallow and gimmicky by children playing it for the first time in this modern age. Yet it sported the same core game mechanics that eventually blossomed into an entire genre of highly polished 2D platformers.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Edit: Fixed Link
Post by: Arbok on September 18, 2005, 09:16:01 AM
Post by: ThePerm on September 18, 2005, 09:20:52 AM
Post by: Kairon on September 18, 2005, 09:52:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
DS games cost less to make than Gameboy games? ...what the hell? Did he take the most inexpensive DS game and compare it against one of the more expensive Gameboy games for that example?
Probably not. A lot of DS games use exceedingly simple concepts, so they save on the need to develop complex game systems. Pac Pix, Kirby Canvas Curse, Train Your Brain, The "Simple" series of games in Japan, Trace Memory, Trauma Center... Can you imagine any of these games involving long complex "design" meetings?
Meanwhile GBA games that work within their established genres still need a hefty amount of conceptualization and polish and in-depth game put in to stand out. Iridion, Tony Hawk, Metroid Zero, Advance Wars... even Boktai.
It's easy to see that you can get more profit and appeal out of a cheap ds game than the same amount of investment would net you on a traditional GBA game.
~Carmine
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: trip1eX on September 18, 2005, 11:35:51 AM
Post by: Renny on September 18, 2005, 12:04:31 PM
Post by: Rancid Planet on September 18, 2005, 12:55:29 PM
Post by: Arbok on September 18, 2005, 01:33:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironProbably not. A lot of DS games use exceedingly simple concepts, so they save on the need to develop complex game systems. Pac Pix, Kirby Canvas Curse, Train Your Brain, The "Simple" series of games in Japan, Trace Memory, Trauma Center... Can you imagine any of these games involving long complex "design" meetings?
Can you imagine Daredevil, Game & Watch Gallery 4, and the never ending supply of ports on the GBA having long complex "design" meetings?
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironMeanwhile GBA games that work within their established genres still need a hefty amount of conceptualization and polish and in-depth game put in to stand out. Iridion, Tony Hawk, Metroid Zero, Advance Wars... even Boktai.
Would you argue that it was cheaper to make "Advance Wars: Duel Strike" and "Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow" than their GBA counterparts? I wouldn't.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 18, 2005, 03:20:55 PM
Post by: Kairon on September 18, 2005, 03:31:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: KaironProbably not. A lot of DS games use exceedingly simple concepts, so they save on the need to develop complex game systems. Pac Pix, Kirby Canvas Curse, Train Your Brain, The "Simple" series of games in Japan, Trace Memory, Trauma Center... Can you imagine any of these games involving long complex "design" meetings?
Can you imagine Daredevil, Game & Watch Gallery 4, and the never ending supply of ports on the GBA having long complex "design" meetings?Quote
Originally posted by: KaironMeanwhile GBA games that work within their established genres still need a hefty amount of conceptualization and polish and in-depth game put in to stand out. Iridion, Tony Hawk, Metroid Zero, Advance Wars... even Boktai.
Would you argue that it was cheaper to make "Advance Wars: Duel Strike" and "Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow" than their GBA counterparts? I wouldn't.
Re: Game & Watch Gallery 4
Do you think this title got anywhere near the number of sales that Brain Training has received? Clearly, put the same amount of effort in a GBA game versus a DS game that uses the DS features, and the DS will probably net you a better return. This is why, from a business sense, it's important to keep innovating: innovation actually keeps costs down. Without it, you're forced to justify your game with ever more difficult and complex graphics, voice acting, cutscenes, more complex game structure, etc.
Re: Advance Wars DS
Of course I wouldn't argue that Advance Wars DS was cheaper than Advance Wars on the GBA, but here we see a game that is already high-concept, high-production value put on the DS. A game that takes advantage of the DS' features to put out a low-concept game that hasn't been seen before is the sort of situation that makes innovation so appealing business-wise.
I'm just asking which game got Namco more bang for the buck? Pac-Pix on the DS, or Pac-World 2 on...yeah...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on September 18, 2005, 03:51:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironRe: Game & Watch Gallery 4
Do you think this title got anywhere near the number of sales that Brain Training has received? Clearly, put the same amount of effort in a GBA game versus a DS game that uses the DS features, and the DS will probably net you a better return.
That was never my point. You seem to be confusing profits with development costs. I used "Game & Watch Gallery 4" as an example as it was likely cheap to produce, as was a lot of licensed movie shovelware that makes it onto the GBA.
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironI'm just asking which game got Namco more bang for the buck? Pac-Pix on the DS, or Pac-World 2 on...yeah...
Two different things. I never said that developers couldn't make off like bandits with developing for the DS (after all the games cost more than GBA games as well), but that's a totally different subject then how much these companies are sinking into the games themselves.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 18, 2005, 04:52:09 PM
And of course there will be exceptions, but comparing two games on an equal the DS *could* be cheaper.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 18, 2005, 08:48:54 PM
What kind of math is that? These days the "AAA" titles cost a few million to develop. Lots of people, expensive equipment and lots of time. Or do they consider every single stupid title noone cares about (Big Mutha Truckers? Charlie's Angels?) for that? No, doesn't make sense even then. Maybe just the figures they've seen quoted in articles when a game was especially cheap or expensive?
Design meetings aren't expensive, the design is nailed down in a few days by a few people, implementing it takes the years of time and tens of people.
Post by: MrMojoRising on September 19, 2005, 12:47:41 AM
So according to this DS is in direct competition with Xbox...since the 1/5th he gets is referring to that.
Also, by "hardcore" this article seems to mean "retard who only plays one f*cking genre." This is exactly why there are so many f*cking FPS's out there...but this "hardcore" group really isn't doing what the author explains they should do. Clearly Halo is the "genre king" but other FPS's do just fine. Even though everyone would love to overthrow Halo, they seem to get decent sales nonetheless.
"A few major games will dominate the mature genre and it is unlikely that Nintendo’s will be one of them. Nintendo’s fixation on new genres and their unwillingness to pander completely and utterly to the existing hardcore audiences has made their name mud with many of the most vocal elite in the game industry."
This is true, this must be why Nintendo no longer makes Mario or Zelda games. Oh wait, I was being sarcastic. That doesn't make sense at all, all of this genre crap is looked into way to deeply. He has a point with some of it, but it's just not that simple. This sounds exactly like something someone with business too much on their mind would come up with. You can't come up with a theory for everything! Real life doesn't just fit into a neat little formula like this.
Okay hold on, he explains my last arguement a little in one of the responses at the bottom:
"The fact of the matter is that genre king titles remain very profitable for them if a company can get a lock on the genre. And for several genres, Nintendo has that lock.
- Action RPG: Zelda
- Multiplayer Casual Racing: Mario Kart
- Creature trading RPG: Pokemon
- Party games: Mario Party
The games in these categories are nearly synonymous with the genre and it is unlikely that Nintendo will simply stop making them.
So what you'll find is that Nintendo will likely continue to promote hardcore gaming within the genres that they dominate. This is still in keeping with an innovation strategy.
If you like genres where they do not dominate, then yes you'll likely have to go to another platform or else put up with second tier titles such as Metroid Prime (as judged by the elite hardcore players of the world)
"
I would consider professional game critics to be among the elite hardcore players of the world, and they had great things to say about Metroid Prime.
Lastly, I would like to point out how much of an idiot this one guy who left a comment is:
"Actually, Nintendo seems to be just about ready to abandon hardcore gaming entirely. Miyamoto has said that this next Zelda game for GCN will be the last one of its type. Couple this with earlier statements to the effect that "there's no reason Zelda can't try other types of gameplay", and I suspect that the next generation of Zelda will bear even less resemblance to an action RPG than modern Zeldas.
Metroid is in a similar situation. I strongly disagree with your assessment that Metroid Prime and its sequel were second-tier. In the market for exploration games (games whose primary gameplay mechanic is exploring), these two games are just as good as Myst IV. Yet Retro Studios (the developers of the series) have stated that Metroid Prime 3 will be the last Metroid Prime game! Once that game is released for the Revolution, there will apparently be no new games featuring Metroid's unique blend of exploration with action."
I really don't think that Nintendo's comments on zelda mean that it's going to become an FPS or something...and the last metroid prime game means the last one in the series, not the last 3-D metroid game ever. With that I leave you with an apology for the rediculously long and slightly rantish post.
Post by: Artimus on September 19, 2005, 06:19:10 AM
The entire article is confusing hardcore with mainstream. It's really very off.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 19, 2005, 07:12:52 AM
It's incredibly on, for the most part. He exaggerates to make a point, but it's a very good point he's making.
Edit: Arrr, I forgots to be a pirate, mateys. Bilge-rats and whatnot.
Post by: Artimus on September 19, 2005, 07:38:13 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on September 19, 2005, 07:41:24 AM
I don't know...just a thought.
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 19, 2005, 07:51:13 AM
Christ, that's hard.
Post by: couchmonkey on September 19, 2005, 08:18:13 AM
Anyway, the compAARRRRison doesn't perfectly apply to Nintendo's situation, because they're not up-and-comers in a stable market where MS and Sony are the "old guard", but the basic idea is the same: relying on existing sources of booty and old ways of plundering is not always best.
Edit: More thoughts: Arrr, I really liked the parts where he discussed the fine-tuning of "genre kings". It be true that people come to expect more and more "trimmings" from the top games in each genre. There be no point in making a new FPS if ye don't have the budget for voice actors, elaborate cut-scenes, and dozens of multiplayer gameplay options. That's why Mario Kart Double Dash was a bit of a disappointment. As a genre king, I had high expectations for the game to offer more maps, more options, and more challenge. It delivered almost none of the above, and became even worse in a couple of regards.
The only place where I don't see eye-to-patch with this fella is on the notion of un-tuned game concepts early in a new genre cycle. While there be no doubt that The Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, and others have offered a more polished experience, Wave Race 64, Pilotwings 64 and Super Mario 64 all offered complete, finely-tuned experiences using the new technology, moreso than any of the early DS games. I agree that time made 3D games even better, and it is making DS games even better, but I think Nintendo can and should offer at least two really solid and complete experiences right at launch if it wants to make a great impression with Revolution.
Post by: hudsonhawk on September 19, 2005, 09:19:43 AM
Quote
Would you argue that it was cheaper to make "Advance Wars: Duel Strike" and "Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow" than their GBA counterparts? I wouldn't.
I would.
1) They both reuse resources from the GBA games (sprites, etc, and probably codebase as well)
2) While both of these games pushed the GBA hard, neither of them really push the DS. That means a lot less code optimization.
3) Note that he mentioned that dev kits infuence these numbers; the lower the total budget, the greater % of influence that will have on the total
4) It takes significantly less engineering to put DS games on silicon than GBA games (both physically and space-wise; again, when you have 32MB to work with vs. 2MB, there's a lot less optimization necessary).
Post by: Arbok on September 19, 2005, 10:12:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
4) It takes significantly less engineering to put DS games on silicon than GBA games (both physically and space-wise; again, when you have 32MB to work with vs. 2MB, there's a lot less optimization necessary).
Arrr, fair enough. I conceed, I wave t' white flag and sign me retreat.
(PS: Anyone randomly looking through these posts is going to be freaked when they come across any posts from Monday)
Post by: ThePerm on September 19, 2005, 10:14:18 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 19, 2005, 10:30:35 AM
Post by: Rancid Planet on September 19, 2005, 03:19:43 PM
