Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 12, 2004, 10:12:57 AM
GameSpy has published an interview between veteran industry writer Steven Kent and Satoru Iwata, President of Nintendo Co. Ltd. Iwata-san discusses Nintendo's hardware design philosophy, expectations for the next generation, the possibility of a GameCube/GBA portable hybrid, and much more.
The young executive spends much of the interview reiterating past statements regarding the unimportance of increasing technical specifications in the new systems.
...if the next generation of consoles only represents beefed-up technology, there will not be much of a future.
Iwata also talks about Nintendo's next console, giving it a tentative name for the first time:
The abilities of GCNext will be different from what you have seen from consoles in the past. What Nintendo is currently discussing is not about state-of-the-art technology for enhancing processing power. But what I, Miyamoto, and Mr. Takeda [engineering leader Genyo Takeda] are discussing is what should be done to entertain people in a new way; and in order to achieve this, what functionality must be added to our current technology.
There are many other interesting statements in this rare interview, so hit the link above to read it all.
Post by: Rich on April 12, 2004, 11:07:35 AM
Post by: jasongst on April 12, 2004, 11:19:01 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 12, 2004, 11:39:17 AM
Quote
"Please understand, I am not saying that technology is unimportant. I understand that technology is important. But if we are just focusing on technology and investing in an IT manufacturing plant to come up with higher performance processing [chips], we will not succeed."
That's exactly what I wanted to hear Iwata say and I'm incredibly happy he did. If that's all the interview was, it would be enough. Heh, I also loved how he's taken to calling the GCNext the "GCN"- mass confusion ensues stateside.
And jesus, guys, how long are we going to have to beat online gaming to death? There is NOTHING new to say about it, so don't even bring it up- it's pointless!
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 12, 2004, 12:17:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: jasongst
What disappoints me is that while Nintendo is experimenting with new features that hopefully enhance the gameplay experience they ignore a huge feature that people are already asking for: online gaming. They are letting their business mentality cloud their vision.
Let's not turn this into an online discussion, eh? And it should be painfully clear by now that a majority of gamers do/would not play online games even if given the choice(including myself)...And online gaming will never reach it's full potential until it can be provided free, which is a lot easier said than done...
Post by: GaimeGuy on April 12, 2004, 12:34:37 PM
Post by: - NintendoFan - on April 12, 2004, 12:50:14 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 12, 2004, 02:08:23 PM
Like the rest you I'm glad he said they shouldn't focus on "just" technology. That sounds like they are going to focus on improving the performance of the next machine while also innovating. It's very important that the next machine can match the other consoles in hardware. Innovating is great but they need a safety net. The N5 (I like that name better than GCNext) has to also be able to play the types of games that people like now. That means the specs have to match the other consoles and that means the controller has to be very adaptable for all types of games. If they make a purely "gimmick" console it better be the f*cking holodeck or it will bomb. No matter how great of an idea they come up with it won't take off overnight and they'll need "traditional" games to ease people in.
I am a little worried though since Nintendo has been the console maker who cried wolf lately. They've talked of innovation a lot and have delivered gimmicks like the e-Reader instead. If this new type of gaming they plan on introducing is as LAME as most of the other "new" stuff they've tried no one will care. They have to truly have something that's unique and worthwhile to play with.
Post by: Pale on April 12, 2004, 02:08:38 PM
Post by: Termin8Anakin on April 12, 2004, 03:08:56 PM
But they're looking for ways to save money for themselves AND developers, so either way, Nintendo i splaying it smart.
I personally wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo came up with the most powerful console, took the modest route and said 'Oh, this isn't THAT advanced is it?' then look at the competitors and said 'oh, thats all they came up with? oh ok'. how freaking funny would that be hahahah
Post by: nickmitch on April 12, 2004, 03:12:48 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 12, 2004, 03:37:37 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on April 12, 2004, 03:44:19 PM
I've seen one tech demo posted on IGN, Dark Sector. I watched it, and I don't think the game is clearly better looking than Resident Evil 4 or Halo 2 or Ninja Gaiden. I admit the game is obviously really early, and when I see it in person instead of on a tiny video I'll notice the little differences, but I honestly don't think most average consumers will be able to tell the difference.
I still hope Nintendo basically matches or beats the technology coming from Sony and Microsoft, because it will be necessary to impress people when they ask how it compares to the other systems in terms of power. But ultimately, when people actually see the games, they won't be able to tell the difference.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 12, 2004, 03:45:34 PM
Quote
I personally wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo came up with the most powerful console, took the modest route and said 'Oh, this isn't THAT advanced is it?' then look at the competitors and said 'oh, thats all they came up with? oh ok'. how freaking funny would that be hahahah
That's almost what Nintendo did this generation- the Gamecube is at least as powerful as the XBox and perhaps even more powerful, yet they seriously lowballed their own specs.
Post by: Djunknown on April 12, 2004, 04:35:59 PM
Quote
That's almost what Nintendo did this generation- the Gamecube is at least as powerful as the XBox and perhaps even more powerful, yet they seriously lowballed their own specs.
Hmm... Let's put it this way: As far as visuals, the 'Box is capbable of higher poly counts. Now we all can see the difference. However, its been said that the 'Cube can do better lighting effects(Or they can do more with texturing, something to that effect, I'm not a techie...). A prime example of its is Soul Calibur 2; most reviews when comparing the versions had that while the 'Box version is capable of higher resolutions, the 'Cube cersion was better lighting effects. Now that's just the visuals.
As far as Iwata's interview, it was well done, and inspires a sense of hope and confidence. The quote that hits home for me is this:
Quote
not just a beefed-up version of GameCube, but something that will be easy to program. In the long run, that will make game development on our new system more profitable."
With people going on how the costs of game production going up because the technology is getting more complex, and need more people to the same job (Like 3d modeling for example.), and that they barely break even, let alone make a profit, Nintendo wants to buck this trend. If they can do some cool stuff without all the fuss, Nintendo may save gaming again. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'd would love to think by the next generation, Sony's system is still hard to program, and that they see they can do more with the GCNext with less hassle/investment , hmmm.... maybe those 3rd parties start flocking back? Just a thought (Or a fool's hope...)
If Microsoft's XNA is any indication of "the next step", my guess is that you will no longer need a seperate cinematics engine, the in-game engine(s) should be impressive enough. Save some gigs! Just another thought....
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 12, 2004, 04:39:33 PM
Quote
Hmm... Let's put it this way: As far as visuals, the 'Box is capbable of higher poly counts. Now we all can see the difference. However, its been said that the 'Cube can do better lighting effects(Or they can do more with texturing, something to that effect, I'm not a techie...). A prime example of its is Soul Calibur 2; most reviews when comparing the versions had that while the 'Box version is capable of higher resolutions, the 'Cube cersion was better lighting effects. Now that's just the visuals.
Eh, technically speaking, the two most graphically advanced console games this generation, Rogue Leader and Rebel Strike, are on the Gamecube. They both push more polygons at a higher and more consistant framerate with more effects than any other console game- one of them is even a launch title that was made in less than 9 months! No XBox game has matched either Rebel Strike's or even Rogue Leader's level of graphical quality. Granted this isn't proof that the Gamecube is more powerful, but it makes you wonder why the XBox has yet to meet such a feat when Microsoft claims it's at least 3 times more powerful than the Gamecube.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 12, 2004, 04:59:28 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 12, 2004, 05:20:51 PM
Did they ever. So much so that it probably hurt them. A lot of people, including developers, didn't catch on to Nintendo's modesty and there's still a misconception among the public that the Cube has the weakest hardware. Next time they should just brag. It's not like blatantly lying about their hardware's abilities hurt Sony. Modesty doesn't create hype.
"Remember, it's not how powerful a system is, but how the developers use it... ^_^"
Yeah and most developers are lazy hacks who will never bother to make full use of hardware. So the best bet is to give them a fair bit of raw power in the hardware so they don't have to be talented to get great graphics. The really talented developers are going to get good stuff out of ANY hardware. So it's best for Nintendo to not assume everyone is as talented as they are. If they think they've included more than enough RAM, they should add more.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 12, 2004, 05:26:21 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on April 12, 2004, 05:48:40 PM
Quote
Heh, I also loved how he's taken to calling the GCNext the "GCN"- mass confusion ensues stateside.
"GCNext" = "GCN ext" = "GameCube extension" (or perhaps "GameCube external"?)
The N5's gonna be an add-on! The biggest, best, and most widely-supported add-on ever seen in videogame history! People will treat it like an entirely new console! Everything you think you know about add-ons is irrelevant!
Iwata is okay with calling at a "GCN", because it will be a GCN! No confusion needed!
Oh wait, I said Iwata, not Denis Dyack.
Hmmm... I still have my suspicions... but nevermind...
Post by: jasonditz on April 12, 2004, 09:19:16 PM
I agree 100% with Iwata. Spending a lot of time on powerful hardware is just silly, because any idiot with a hundred billion dollars to piss away can slap a commodity PC into a green box and call it "the world's most powerful console". The hardware should enable the enhancements, it shouldn't BE the enhancements.
Post by: Deguello on April 12, 2004, 09:38:39 PM
Definition time!
gim*mick
1. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
2. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
3. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
4. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
5. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.
And since the E-reader doesn't exactly allow you to cheat at gambling, #1 doesn't count. I'm so glad that somebody likes the E-reader and thinks it clever and innovatite. I do. It's a cool gimmick.
Post by: Kyosho on April 12, 2004, 09:54:25 PM
I do. The N64's cartridge system was one of its downfalls.
1) more space, 2) cheaper, 3) more freedom.
Post by: jasonditz on April 12, 2004, 11:30:49 PM
Reasons for a cartridge:
1. No Load Times
2. No Scratched Discs
3. No disc drive motors burning out, no lenses getting scratched
4. Battery Backup
5. In-cartridge peripherals (SuperFX chip)
Post by: KDR_11k on April 13, 2004, 02:54:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho
3) more freedom.
...?
I'd say the technology is unimportant as long as it doesn't restrict the games. If I want a crowd of a few hundred people on screen that should be doable, if I want to make a really big game that should be doable, if I want three kilometres view distance that should be doable. If the technology is advanced enough to allow for almost every game thinkable (note that this doesn't necessarily mean e.g. crowds of 10000 polygon characters, just something that can be recognized as a crowd and behaves like a crowd) everything else is superficial. The GC was a big advantage over the N64 because you could spend more polygons to allow for more complex levels or more characters in a game. The N5 should allow for larger crowds and levels, thus enhancing the gameplay possibilities. Apparently that's not enough for Nintendo's taste so they'll add more screens, a touchpad, etc (keep in mind that Iwata said the DS was a sample of the N5 in some ways).
Post by: Ian Sane on April 13, 2004, 08:21:02 AM
Yeah that sounds super. I can't wait to go back to paying $80 Canadian for new games and having virtually non-existant third party support and super sh!tty sound. WHEE!
You can talk about how the N64 was profitable and had some of the best games ever made for it but that doesn't change the fact that there were maybe four games a year released on it that were worth playing. I like cartridges but the cons far outweigh the pros. Having cheaper games and more games to choose from is more important to me. Plus the whole "scratching" issue doesn't matter to me because I'm not a big dumbass who treats his games like crap.
However I do think that a console that could play both cartridges and optical discs would be pretty cool. That way developers could decide which format would suit their game better. However this would require both formats to be supported out of the box with no add-ons.
Post by: Kyosho on April 13, 2004, 08:28:12 AM
because of the limitations of cartridges, I feel developers will be dissatisfied more so by the cons than the pros, and therefore we get the crop of developers leaving (again). Sure N64 had some of the greatest games of all time, but aside from Nintendo, how many companies are still producing quality games for Nintendo from the N64 era?
I think Iwata should definitely make the N5 backwards compatible. It's the one thing that will definitely catch dissatisfied Gamecube owner's eyes. It would be nice if the disc held more data so we dont have to disc swap.
Post by: jasonditz on April 13, 2004, 02:48:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"I want to see them go back to the cartridge-based system."
Yeah that sounds super. I can't wait to go back to paying $80 Canadian for new games and having virtually non-existant third party support and super sh!tty sound. WHEE!
The sound problem is a non-issue. CD-quality Ogg Vorbis files could easily be put on a cartridge. Saying "we should use cartridges" is not the same as saying "we should use 8 Mbit EPROMs like the SNES did. Here in the US the games cost $50 new for the N64, which is the same as most Gamecube titles.
Quote
You can talk about how the N64 was profitable and had some of the best games ever made for it but that doesn't change the fact that there were maybe four games a year released on it that were worth playing. I like cartridges but the cons far outweigh the pros. Having cheaper games and more games to choose from is more important to me. Plus the whole "scratching" issue doesn't matter to me because I'm not a big dumbass who treats his games like crap.
And how many games do you really consider "worth playing" now? It seems like last years Gamecube crop only saw a handful of really worthwhile titles itself.
Quote
However I do think that a console that could play both cartridges and optical discs would be pretty cool. That way developers could decide which format would suit their game better. However this would require both formats to be supported out of the box with no add-ons.
That would be nice, but probably would make the console prohibitively expensive.
Post by: jasonditz on April 13, 2004, 02:53:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho
jasonditz,
because of the limitations of cartridges, I feel developers will be dissatisfied more so by the cons than the pros, and therefore we get the crop of developers leaving (again). Sure N64 had some of the greatest games of all time, but aside from Nintendo, how many companies are still producing quality games for Nintendo from the N64 era?
Can we really blame the media format for lack of third party support? Nintendo switched to optical discs like you guys all wanted this generation, where are all the great third party titles? The reason many third parties don't like Nintendo's system is because they are flat out scared of competing with superior first party titles. That's not going away no matter what media format you choose.
Quote
I think Iwata should definitely make the N5 backwards compatible. It's the one thing that will definitely catch dissatisfied Gamecube owner's eyes. It would be nice if the disc held more data so we dont have to disc swap.
Why not make it backwards compatible with one of Nintendo's better selling past consoles? Is there any reason we couldn't, eg., offer SNES backwards compatiblity instead? There's no law saying backwards compatibility has to look at the immediately previous generation.
Post by: Kyosho on April 13, 2004, 03:33:12 PM
I look at it more from this point of view:
I am a vendor selling popsicles on the street. Then another vendor selling cream covered popsicles for the same or less price. All the kids start buying from him. Now, I decide to switch to cream covered popsicles and charge the same as the other vendor. Now, do you think those kids are going to be coming back to me just because I switched over?
"Why not make it backwards compatible with one of Nintendo's better selling past consoles? Is there any reason we couldn't, eg., offer SNES backwards compatiblity instead? There's no law saying backwards compatibility has to look at the immediately previous generation. "
Because cartridges are a done medium for a home console system. It's pointless to offer SNES compatibility because you can fit god knows how many games onto one GC disc and exactly how many people out there still can find all their games. Also, i'm willing to bet the format of the SNES carts vs N64 carts differ too much so there would be no uniform way of uniting the two into one system. But the fact is this: Business practice has never skipped the previous generation in favor of the generations before that. Does going back to hi-fi over CDs sound good to you? How about 8mm over DVD? or wait... 5.25" floppies over CD?
FYI, the last i saw when good N64 games were actively selling at BB, they were selling between 59.99-69.99 MSRP.
Post by: jasonditz on April 13, 2004, 04:44:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho
"Can we really blame the media format for lack of third party support? Nintendo switched to optical discs like you guys all wanted this generation, where are all the great third party titles? The reason many third parties don't like Nintendo's system is because they are flat out scared of competing with superior first party titles. That's not going away no matter what media format you choose"
I look at it more from this point of view:
I am a vendor selling popsicles on the street. Then another vendor selling cream covered popsicles for the same or less price. All the kids start buying from him. Now, I decide to switch to cream covered popsicles and charge the same as the other vendor. Now, do you think those kids are going to be coming back to me just because I switched over?
On the other hand, you might drive away your loyal customers who didn't want creme in the first place.
Quote
"Why not make it backwards compatible with one of Nintendo's better selling past consoles? Is there any reason we couldn't, eg., offer SNES backwards compatiblity instead? There's no law saying backwards compatibility has to look at the immediately previous generation. "
Because cartridges are a done medium for a home console system. It's pointless to offer SNES compatibility because you can fit god knows how many games onto one GC disc and exactly how many people out there still can find all their games. Also, i'm willing to bet the format of the SNES carts vs N64 carts differ too much so there would be no uniform way of uniting the two into one system. But the fact is this: Business practice has never skipped the previous generation in favor of the generations before that. Does going back to hi-fi over CDs sound good to you? How about 8mm over DVD? or wait... 5.25" floppies over CD?
You can significantly change the cartridge specification and still offer backwards compatibility just by embedding the old port somewhere in the new port. For that matter cartridge ports are a lot cheaper than optical drives, why not have several ports supporting all the old Nintendo cartridge systems on the thing?
Quote
FYI, the last i saw when good N64 games were actively selling at BB, they were selling between 59.99-69.99 MSRP.
What currency is that in? I only ever saw one or two N64 titles that cost more than $50, and you could always find them for $50 somewhere if you shopped around.
Post by: Kyosho on April 13, 2004, 11:18:29 PM
Cartridges drove away developers hence drove away customers. At the same time, the cons of carts also drove away customers (e.g. $$$)
"What currency is that in?..."
US. I am not talking about the cost of N64 titles NOW. I am talking about when they were actually making games for it. How do I know? Because I had the N64 since the day Mario 64 came out and sold for 59.99-69.99 at Kay Bee's.
I'm gonna stop replying to your messages after this. It's a pretty moot point you have here. Nothing past or preset supports any of your claims.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 14, 2004, 12:55:07 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 14, 2004, 03:44:21 AM
$50 for a game that lasts 10 hours is peanuts in comparison to every other form of entertainment.
Get over it.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 14, 2004, 05:22:29 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 14, 2004, 11:24:50 AM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 14, 2004, 11:35:58 AM
exactly!
I was at the Redwings- Nashville hockey game a few days back and the 2 tickets cost me over $200 US for 3.25 hours, worth every penny IMO. So $50 for a game is very reasonable. In fact I think games are too cheap for the costs incurred making them.
Post by: Renny on April 14, 2004, 11:52:12 AM
Post by: jasonditz on April 14, 2004, 12:36:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho
"On the other hand, you might drive away your loyal customers who didn't want creme in the first place. "
Cartridges drove away developers hence drove away customers. At the same time, the cons of carts also drove away customers (e.g. $$$)
If that was true we'd expect the Gamecube to have a bigger market share than the N64...
Quote
"What currency is that in?..."
US. I am not talking about the cost of N64 titles NOW. I am talking about when they were actually making games for it. How do I know? Because I had the N64 since the day Mario 64 came out and sold for 59.99-69.99 at Kay Bee's.
N64 titles now cost about $5-$10. I bought one 6 months after launch and never paid more than $50 for a game. You really need to shop around more, there's a whole world out there past Kaybee Toys.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 14, 2004, 12:39:43 PM
Fun fact: Mafia and Unreal II are 60 Euros on the XBox and 10 Euros on the PC...
Post by: jasonditz on April 14, 2004, 12:39:58 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 14, 2004, 12:53:11 PM
Post by: Kyosho on April 14, 2004, 01:29:26 PM
Again, you're not and never taking into consideration any past situations that might have affected the current situation.
Back when the N64 came out, Fry's, Best Buy, Toys R Us, The Good Guys, and KBs were the primary places to buy games because those places were the cheapest compared to generic stores. It just so happened that I bought Mario 64 @ KBs which at that time ALL the stores priced it between 59.99-69.99. I already did the price search. I live in SoCal so perhaps it may be cheaper in your area because of less demand.
Based on the broadest definition of the word "entertainment", then 50$ is peanuts compared to other things. But some people such as myself value certain entertainment over others ignoring costs. For example, I'd pay 80$ to go see a 3 hour DMB concert than to pay 50$ for the latest RPG.
Post by: jasonditz on April 14, 2004, 03:49:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kyosho
"If that was true we'd expect the Gamecube to have a bigger market share than the N64... "
Again, you're not and never taking into consideration any past situations that might have affected the current situation.
Not at all, I'm just saying if cartridges were the problem you'd have expected the situations with third party support and market share, even if they didn't get hugely better after the switch to optical discs, to stop getting worse, they didn't.
Where is all this vaunted third party support that discs were supposed to provide? Three years later I can still count all the really worthwhile exclusive third party titles on one hand. Was a disc-based system really worth the hassle for a bunch of sloppy PS2 ports?
We could dispute the market share situation at any rate by saying it has never been third party titles which have moved Nintendo consoles, but first party titles. At any rate, the Gamecube has had to seriously undercut the competition on price, something the N64 never really had to.
Quote
Back when the N64 came out, Fry's, Best Buy, Toys R Us, The Good Guys, and KBs were the primary places to buy games because those places were the cheapest compared to generic stores. It just so happened that I bought Mario 64 @ KBs which at that time ALL the stores priced it between 59.99-69.99. I already did the price search. I live in SoCal so perhaps it may be cheaper in your area because of less demand.
Could be a regional difference. Here in MI even if Best Buy was $60 on a title when it first came out one could always find the title at Target, Circuit City, Media Play, or Meijers for $50.
Quote
Based on the broadest definition of the word "entertainment", then 50$ is peanuts compared to other things. But some people such as myself value certain entertainment over others ignoring costs. For example, I'd pay 80$ to go see a 3 hour DMB concert than to pay 50$ for the latest RPG.
Everyone has different tastes. I don't know who this DMB fellow is, but for $80 he'd better provide me with dinner as well over the 3 hours. On the other hand I almost certainly will drop the $50 when Tales of Symphonia launches. Hell, if it was $59.99 I'd probably still get it.
Post by: jasonditz on April 14, 2004, 03:53:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
"33% more than PC games isn't peanuts. "
$50 for a game that lasts 10 hours is peanuts in comparison to every other form of entertainment.
Get over it.
What about books?
Post by: Geno911 on April 15, 2004, 02:40:43 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 15, 2004, 03:26:04 PM
I read very very fast
Post by: ThePerm on April 15, 2004, 05:05:48 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 15, 2004, 05:12:09 PM
Quote
"What about books?"
I read very very fast
Not to mention that books are free at the library.
