This is a very strange stance for a company whose only requirements for a Wii or DS license are a business license and office address. They already have one of the lowest barriers to entry in the industry -- why alienate a large segment of developers who are virtually identical to dozens of companies already pumping out games on your platforms? This is especially true given Nintendo's admitted problems with WiiWare and DSiWare, which indeed go beyond a poorly organized shop interface.

the difference could be explained like this.
Renegade kid works outta there home offices, if they dont make quality
games they dont eat, so quality and value is important to them.

a Hobbiest, has other support so is likely to try a bunch of ideas of little value til they get their "angry birds".  Lets see if any of this sticks
attitude.
The difference is dedication.
the way i see what he says.

Hobbyists aren't any less capable than companies that meet the basic requirements Nintendo has. A business license and office address don't magically impart game design skills. Look at something like Cave Story: that game was made by one guy in his spare time, and it's better than almost everything else on WiiWare.

If Nintendo wants to ensure quality on its download services, it needs to take a more active role. Don't set up arbitrary rules; reject games because they suck, not because the guys who made it did it out of their homes.

That's the problem -- Nintendo doesn't really care about ensuring quality (just look at what's available in the downloadables for proof) as much as they care about keeping their business model intact, an artificial caste system.  That worked in the past, but with the growing availability of technology and communication, everything's moving towards ability of non-professionals to showcase their work to the world, and all of the creative industries are fighting a losing battle.

Nintendo should just embrace homebrew, then there will be no defensible reasons (other than region locking) to hack their hardware.

It's sounds like a win/win to me since Nintendo gets first crack at the enthusiast crowd and can hand pick the cream of the crop to put them on larger projects and the homebrewers will all flock since they have a platform with an audience for their work.

Funny thing is that Nintendo is actually releasing student-created games on DSiWare in Japan. They just applied for the trademarks.

It sounds like they are saying this to gain 3rd party support.  I don't think they really care since it people will still buy Mario and Zelda games, but it would put a dent in the shovel-ware market they allow the 3rd parties to put out on their systems since they can get the same experience for a fraction of the cost.

Nintendo wants to keep games prices high, which means they don't want little 99 cent indie game experiments on their system.  The problem is I'm not going to stop buying those 99 cent games.  I'm still going to shell out premium prices for first party Nintendo titles but now instead of wasting money on a $30 throwaway game for my 3DS in between big releases I'm just going to download some cheap time waster for my iPod.

So the biggest problem is for third party developers.  Nintendo is trying to comfort third parties by telling them that they still have a home on Nintendo consoles.  Unfortunately most people own a console in a addition to an ipod or smartphone and those devices are only going to get more and more popular.  In my mind Nintendo (and MS and Sony, for that matter) should embrace the stupid little throwaway games and let third parties deal with it.  In the end the market will dictate the types of games that it wants, and I think there will be room for all sorts of different price points.

I think the best solution is to move away from the tradition of releasing every game on a console at the same price....right now it's $60 for an Xbox/PS3 games, $50 for a Wii game, $40 for a 3DS game, etc.  Occasionally budget titles show up, but even those are all the same price ($30). The App Store and Steam have taught us that lowering the price of games in general and providing a continuous spread of prices from $1 to $50 is the best sales model.

Wow I've gotten off topic.  IN CONCLUSION, Nintendo should support garage developers that sell 99 cent games, independent devs that can charge $5-20, and premium devs that can charge $20-40.  There is room in the market for all of them.

Totally agreed KN. The other thing that's conveniently ignored is that free apps very often make more money through ads than their pay app equivalent, so comparing the retail prices directly doesn't tell the whole story. Of course, that may not work so well on a system without heavy web integration like the 3DS.

This is the same sort of nonsense that Iwata got a lot of criticism for in his GDC Keynote.  Considering all the crap they've embraced being on the Wii and DS, they have a lot of nerve saying "We don't want your kind here" to the most "Indie" of Independent developers.  Whether any of us like it or not, extremely cheap "App"-like games are here to stay: it makes it easier to new people to get into the industry, and it's more approachable for people like Nintendo's Blue Ocean market.  And the competition is good for the consumer, as it encourages sales of the larger titles to compete.  Of course, Nintendo doesn't like the thought of people getting gaming experiences for $.99 when they're charging just under the same amount for emulated NES games that Sony charges for emulated Playstation games.  -_-'

The real problem with the App Store model isn't that you have$1-3 games; it's that the consumer has been conditioned to wait for sales, since almost every game will, at some point, drop down to .99 or 1.99.

Nintendo has a policy of never dropping the price on their games to make sure people don't try to wait out a price drop. I'm not saying they should ban price drops on the download service outright, but they should require Nintendo's permission to do so. The sales on the App Store are done to get a game in the top 10 sales list, at which point they can raise it back up to normal. If Nintendo makes it clear that sales aren't going to be common, developers won't be able to play that game and will likely avoid the $1-2 price range, preventing a lot of the downward spiral of pricing.

With that policy, as well as Nintendo's current policies of requiring game prices to be approved by them and not giving developers any money until they reach a certain sale point, allowing hobbyist developers on their download services wouldn't likely have any real negative effect on the system, and would probably bring some really good games to the service that wouldn't have otherwise come to it.

Their WiiWare and VC services would be doing better if they had more sales actually. Bundle deals too.

If software isn't selling, a BIG sale is just the thing to get peoples attentions. maintaining a high price point for your games means nothing if no one is willing to pay it.

What they don't want is the Indie stuff on XBLA. The vast majority of stuff on the service is just a riff on the tutorials included in the dev kit. "Who wants a massager?"

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/pachters-podium-iwata-like-a-record-company-president-battlefield-3-has-no-prayer-to-top-call-of-dut/

Of course not.  They'd rather have stuff like My Aquarium and that Fireplace WiiWare program, which are just as bad from where I stand.

Stricter standards for Home Consoles can only be a good thing, but unless it's across the board, it only deters others to focus on other consoles. That's why a strict standard on this won't work.

If this was about mantaining a level of quality then it makes sense.  But it isn't.  It never was.  Nintendo went on and on about the Seal of Quality in the NES days but that only blocked outright buggy products.  The NES was crawling with all sorts of terrible games.  It's always been about control.  Nintendo invented a sweet model back on the NES where you have to pay a licencing fee to make games for the system and that has been the model to this day.  Money was the true incentive.

And here it's just because they're threatened by cheap disposable games.  If they promote it and help it become a success then no one will buy $50 games.  Reggie is more or less saying exactly that.

The thing is I bet core gamers WILL continue to pay $50 for games.  It's the casuals who won't.  Nintendo found a successful business model selling that market $50 games like Wii Sports Resort or $30 games like Brain Age.  That's the same market as Angry Birds.  They want quick disposable entertainment.  It's the core gamers, the old market, that Nintendo has handed to Sony and MS on a silver platter, that wants something more and will pay more for it.  Casuals want singles, core gamers want albums.

Realistically the Wii Series is overpriced.  If one only has a casual interest in games there is no real need to buy a dedicated videogame system.  Getting games on the phone you already bought for other reasons makes more sense.  The dedicated videogame system is for gaming enthusiasts who have higher standards.  Back in 2006 when Wii Sports took the world by storm there was no iPhone, no apps, no Angry Birds or FarmVille.  Now there is serious competition for the casual gaming dollar and Nintendo is overpriced.

So try to snuff it out and pretend it doesn't exist, Nintendo, if that makes you feel better.  I'd say the battle is already lost.

If that were true, then they wouldn't offer an alternative at all; such as Wiiware.

I  think they are saying, more or less, that little dollar games would eventually shape the field where developers aren't trying to do something create, but instead be the next hot cash-in.

It's going to be interesting when the prices for the virtual console and 3D classics for the Nintendo 3DS are revealed. As much as Nintendo would like to, I don't think they will get away with charging $4-5 for every Game Boy game without a lot of complaints. Hell, I think plenty of people will complain if it's $3.

Actually, the only thing the seal meant was that the product was LICENSED by Nintendo. It meant absolutely nothing whatsoever in terms of the quality of the product, it just meant that the company behind it paid Nintendo the licensing fees to authorize it. This was done because of the various unauthorized products that existed at the time such as the Game Genie, and quite a number of games by Tengen and some other company that made Bible based games. Those products were not licensed by Nintendo which meant licensing fees were not paid and Nintendo wasn't happy about it. But that doesn't mean those products weren't quality products. Certainly they were probably of better quality than much of the stuff that was licensed.

The neat thing about the unlicensed games is they came in different colors and were shaped differently than the official licensed NES carts. I owned a few Tengen games like Vindicators and Gauntlet II which were on black carts that had a different case.

If those pea green games cost more than $1-$2 each then forget it. if the colorized versions cost more than $2-3, then forget it. if GBA games cost more than $4-$5 then forget it. Downloadable DS games shouldn't cost more than $5-$10 depending on the game. The majority of 3DSWare games/software should be in the $5 range too.

And while I'm on the topic, dev's should be able to pick their own price points for their software. They should know ahead of time that Nintendo is gonna require a certain amount before they see a dime back so it should be up to them to decide how many copies must be sold before that pre-determined amount is met.

Why?
Because maybe as an indie dev I would rather sell 10k copies for $3each and start receiving my money after 3500 copies sold vs selling 4k copies and start recieving my money after the 2000 copies sold.

As always, Nintendo prefers to innovate and change on their own terms. If Nintendo ever changes their tune, it's because they've came up with their own unique solution.

What Nintendo really needs to do is move away from flat pricing for Virtual Console games. Certain games are worth more than others, and the prices should reflect that. Given the announced games, Link's Awakening is worth quite a bit more than Super Mario Land. I'd have no problem whatsoever paying $5 for LA, but there are plenty of GBC games where that wouldn't be true.

That's a matter of opinion. I have to disagree, though. SML was a classic which sold millions of copies. It was the GB equivalent of SMB after all.

Link's Awakening is the second best Zelda game ever; SML is quite a bit further down on the list of Marios.

Yeah, that would tones of sense.  I mean you see it as stores that sell used games.  There's a place I go to all the time for old games and it isn't like every NES game is this price and every SNES game is that price.  Some NES games will go for $2 while I paid $20 for the Legend of Zelda.  They charge $30 for Super Mario Kart because it's a popular title while other games are $5.  Ebay is the same way.  There are huge fluxuations in prices for games on the same system depending on how popular the game is.

Though the thing is that some of the VC titles are actually a bargain.  While some games are overpriced some titles like Ogre Battle are an absolute steal.  If Nintendo got the idea in their heads to have price fluxuation on the VC they might also get it into their head that they could charge $20 for Super Metroid.

What is a big problem with this online store model is that there is only one store so there is no price competition.  There is one store in the entire world that sells the product.  So no wonder we don't get sales or any sort of pricing based on demand.  The lack of physical supply also means that no one is trying to unload excess merchandise.  It isn't really any extra cost to Nintendo if a game isn't selling well at it's current price point.

That's only a tiny part. The rest is genuine garbage produced with the best of intentions. Think Atari crash era.

Well that's fine. Microsoft solves that by keeping indie separate from the rest of the service (and a higher threshold to publish on the main service). They don't have the most optimal solution, but at least they have something.