Support NeoGAF

[bequietdrive]

Just came across this article and thought it was a really interesting read.
Full article

Most people know you as “the indie guy”, but when you worked for Microsoft, you negotiated Xbox contracts with major third party publishers such as Lucas Arts, Activision, THQ, and Midway. You also worked on major Xbox deals involving Sega and Electronic Arts. At Nintendo of America, you built business relationships with small developers and worked closely with Nintendo of America’s licensing department.

What do you personally believe caused Wii U’s third party support to collapse and fall apart? I’m talking specifically big publishers like EA, Take Two, etc. If Nintendo had asked for your advice on how to fix these third party relationships, what advice would you have offered?

Adelman: It really comes down to the business case for these publishers. Nintendo consumers buy Nintendo systems primarily for the first party content. There’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in that publishers feel that they can’t compete with Nintendo first party, so they choose not to invest in making high quality products for the platform. There are some notable exceptions to this over the years like Rayman Legends but many times third party publishers set low sales projections for their games, and then decide a development budget based on that. I can’t say outright that they’re wrong either.

There have been cases where companies decided to pull out the stops and make a great game for Nintendo platforms only to find that consumers weren’t interested. And it could be because consumers have been burnt by third party games on Nintendo platforms before.

For Nintendo to break this cycle, I think they need to invest and absorb some of the risk for third parties who try to embrace the features of Nintendo platforms and help communicate to consumers which games are on par with Nintendo first party games in terms of quality. Sony and Microsoft spend a lot of money securing exclusives – or at least exclusive features – on the top games and since Nintendo doesn’t really do that, third parties focus on the other systems. I’m not sure about Sony, but I know Microsoft also has a team of technical people that will go work with a studio for a few weeks or even months to help them make their games as good as they can be on those platforms.

If Nintendo doesn’t want to be a first-party-only system, they may need to be more aggressive in securing those games and making sure that they’re high quality.

But why was it so difficult to get things done at Nintendo?

Is there a lot of bureaucracy, additional layers of management, and red tape?

Is it because NOA offices are not very autonomous, and you need to always report to Japan (NCL)?

Adelman: Nintendo is not only a Japanese company, it is a Kyoto-based company. For people who aren’t familiar, Kyoto-based are to Japanese companies as Japanese companies are to US companies. They’re very traditional, and very focused on hierarchy and group decision making. Unfortunately, that creates a culture where everyone is an advisor and no one is a decision maker – but almost everyone has veto power.

Even Mr. Iwata is often loathe to make a decision that will alienate one of the executives in Japan, so to get anything done, it requires laying a lot of groundwork: talking to the different groups, securing their buy-in, and using that buy-in to get others on board. At the subsidiary level, this is even more pronounced, since people have to go through this process first at NOA or NOE (or sometimes both) and then all over again with headquarters. All of this is not necessarily a bad thing, though it can be very inefficient and time consuming. The biggest risk is that at any step in that process, if someone flat out says no, the proposal is as good as dead. So in general, bolder ideas don’t get through the process unless they originate at the top.

There are two other problems that come to mind. First, at the risk of sounding ageist, because of the hierarchical nature of Japanese companies, it winds up being that the most senior executives at the company cut their teeth during NES and Super NES days and do not really understand modern gaming, so adopting things like online gaming, account systems, friends lists, as well as understanding the rise of PC gaming has been very slow. Ideas often get shut down prematurely just because some people with the power to veto an idea simply don’t understand it.

The last problem is that there is very little reason to try and push these ideas. Risk taking is generally not really rewarded. Long-term loyalty is ultimately what gets rewarded, so the easiest path is simply to stay the course. I’d love to see Nintendo make a more concerted effort to encourage people at all levels of the company to feel empowered to push through ambitious proposals, and then get rewarded for doing so.

Loads of really interesting stuff about Nintendo's company culture, VC etc.

Full article

 

[Deleted member 125677]

It really comes down to the business case for these publishers. Nintendo consumers buy Nintendo systems primarily for the first party content. There’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in that publishers feel that they can’t compete with Nintendo first party, so they choose not to invest in making high quality products for the platform. There are some notable exceptions to this over the years like Rayman Legends but many times third party publishers set low sales projections for their games, and then decide a development budget based on that. I can’t say outright that they’re wrong either.

I really, really agree with this. So many seem to believe the lack of third parties only comes down to "lacking dat 8GBDDR5", which is probably the least important reason.

 

[thewhitehawk]

I really, really agree with this. So many seem to believe the lack of third parties only comes down to "lacking dat 8GBDDR5", which is probably the least important reason.

I wouldn't say it's the least or most important reason, but when you have to much more popular platforms with a much more similar hardware parity, investing resources into creating a lesser version of the same product that will return significantly less sales deteriorates most of the motivation to invest in the Nintendo system.

How Nintendo treats most third-party games, barring a few exceptions, is also a big part of the reason. Sony and Microsoft seem to be much more hands-on and helpful when it comes to third-party games, even towards small independent studios.

 

[Ushojax]

Even Mr. Iwata is often loathe to make a decision that will alienate one of the executives in Japan, so to get anything done, it requires laying a lot of groundwork: talking to the different groups, securing their buy-in, and using that buy-in to get others on board. At the subsidiary level, this is even more pronounced, since people have to go through this process first at NOA or NOE (or sometimes both) and then all over again with headquarters. All of this is not necessarily a bad thing, though it can be very inefficient and time consuming. The biggest risk is that at any step in that process, if someone flat out says no, the proposal is as good as dead. So in general, bolder ideas don’t get through the process unless they originate at the top.

There are two other problems that come to mind. First, at the risk of sounding ageist, because of the hierarchical nature of Japanese companies, it winds up being that the most senior executives at the company cut their teeth during NES and Super NES days and do not really understand modern gaming, so adopting things like online gaming, account systems, friends lists, as well as understanding the rise of PC gaming has been very slow. Ideas often get shut down prematurely just because some people with the power to veto an idea simply don’t understand it.

This is the single biggest problem with the company. They have too many higher-ups who do not understand the current gaming market. Not so much people like Iwata and Miyamoto, but the people whose approval they need to develop new ideas or bring the company up to speed with online/account systems. You can picture the wrinkled suits who insist that people buy Super Mario Bros separately for every console they own.

Thankfully things are slowly getting better.

 

[Boy Wander]

The way he describes the culture, I'm surprised Nintendo are even as far down the road as they are when it comes to online and other 'modern' features. Sounds like a real pain to get anything greenlit. Also makes Iwata sound ineffectual as a leader given that his peers have the ability to veto decisions and it seems he doesn't have the balls, or doesn't feel able out of respect, to shout them down. What a mess!

 

[hiryu64]

Haven't read the article yet, but OP's highlights explain so much about why Nintendo always seems to operate in Cloudcuckooland. I have a friend who works for a government-contracted IT company, and he's always telling me about how the most senior officer always shoots down reasonable ideas, ignores technical realities, and generally makes his life way harder than it needs to be just because he was a colonel or whatever and is the type that doesn't understand modern technology but will never admit that he is wrong. Nintendo sounds like a company full of these types.

It may not be the whole story, but honestly, I don't know what I expected.

 

[sörine]

Fuck the Drip Feed. And no, we're not getting VC games as soon as they're ready, we already know there's a gigantic schedule backlog going by what Natsume and Capcom reps have said. So infuriating.

 

[radcliff]

What does he say about VC (I can't access the site from work)?

 

[JoeM86]

What does he say about VC (I can't access the site from work)?

Basically saying about how the slow drip is better for each game, and is also the only way it can be done since contrary to belief, a lot of work goes into the VC titles and they're not just sitting on them.

 

[IceMarker]

Really good read! I was hoping we'd get some more recent insight to how the Nintendo company backbone works. Honestly it doesn't sound all that surprising to me, but at the least very assuring, especially considering that they have slowly been embracing more of modern gaming's advances.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

For Nintendo to break this cycle, I think they need to invest and absorb some of the risk for third parties who try to embrace the features of Nintendo platforms and help communicate to consumers which games are on par with Nintendo first party games in terms of quality. Sony and Microsoft spend a lot of money securing exclusives – or at least exclusive features – on the top games and since Nintendo doesn’t really do that, third parties focus on the other systems. I’m not sure about Sony, but I know Microsoft also has a team of technical people that will go work with a studio for a few weeks or even months to help them make their games as good as they can be on those platforms.

If Nintendo doesn’t want to be a first-party-only system, they may need to be more aggressive in securing those games and making sure that they’re high quality.

This is painfully obvious to everyone, it seems, except Nintendo themselves. Building bridges with a few Japanese publishers is a good start, but they need EA, Ubisoft, Acti, Warner, Deep Silver etc on board else they're going to continue to lack the biggest third party exclusives on their future consoles.

There are two other problems that come to mind. First, at the risk of sounding ageist, because of the hierarchical nature of Japanese companies, it winds up being that the most senior executives at the company cut their teeth during NES and Super NES days and do not really understand modern gaming, so adopting things like online gaming, account systems, friends lists, as well as understanding the rise of PC gaming has been very slow. Ideas often get shut down prematurely just because some people with the power to veto an idea simply don’t understand it.

This sounds like a horrible way to work.

Can't access the full site from work, but thanks for those tidbits OP.

 

[hwy_61]

Basically saying about how the slow drip is better for each game, and is also the only way it can be done since contrary to belief, a lot of work goes into the VC titles and they're not just sitting on them.

Also, how they decided to charge more for certain titles. In short: because people will pay the higher price.

 

[Trago]

This is the single biggest problem with the company. They have too many higher-ups who do not understand the current gaming market. Not so much people like Iwata and Miyamoto, but the people whose approval they need to develop new ideas or bring the company up to speed with online/account systems. You can picture the wrinkled suits who insist that people buy Super Mario Bros separately for every console they own.

Thankfully things are slowly getting better.

Exactly. The failure of the Wii U should'a finally woke these suckas' up. They really need to start building better relations with western third party publishers too, because they wont get anywhere with Japanese pubs only.

 

[repeater]

A great interview, fascinating to get this kind of insight into how Nintendo actually operates. Adelman comes across as a really thoughtful and reasonable guy,

 

[Starwolf_UK]

The structure sounds a lot worse than I imagined. There can be lots of silly ideas so there does need to be a stop gap at the top but it sounds like certain concepts get killed persistently by the same people. It is also good that the executive board are not a load of yes men but at the same time it is sad Iwata might know he is wasting his time trying to get some thing through.

I thought at this present moment most peoples objection to the drip feed model was how America doesn't have games that are ready as they are out in the Europe (e.g. Donkey Kong Country which is even the US ROM).

Also, how they decided to charge more for certain titles. In short: because people will pay the higher price.

It wasn't more rather why there was only one tier (i.e. not less) but it is like you said people will pay anyway (their data suggests nostalgia purchases are the main buying force) and pricing is subjective (games have deferent values to different people is the argument).

It is a shame there was not a follow up question show there are now tiers on GBA games in America and GB games worldwide (not to mention Wii U retail games some games are €50 like DKCTF while others are €60 like NSMBU) implying this thought process is starting to be changed.

 

[Oregano]

Also, how they decided to charge more for certain titles. In short: because people will pay the higher price.

That is literally the exact opposite of what was said. He said the reason they went for a flat rate on the Wii is because charging different prices would be making value judgements on games and it would feel exploitative to charge higher for games because they are better/more popular.

 

[Dryk]

Also makes Iwata sound ineffectual as a leader given that his peers have the ability to veto decisions and it seems he doesn't have the balls, or doesn't feel able out of respect, to shout them down. What a mess!

I have a friend who works for a government-contracted IT company, and he's always telling me about how the most senior officer always shoots down reasonable ideas, ignores technical realities, and generally makes his life way harder than it needs to be just because he was a colonel or whatever and is the type that doesn't understand modern technology but will never admit that he is wrong. Nintendo sounds like a company full of these types.

Like he said, it's Kyoto. It's a very traditional city in a country whose baseline culture already has a heavy emphasis on conformity and respect for your elders. If Nintendo isn't going out of their way to encourage criticism within the hierarchy then it's just not going to happen.

Also you could tell even when he was still working there that Adelman was frustrated that his input was next to worthless. Truly the employee Nintendo needs, but not the one it deserves.

 

[hwy_61]

That is literally the exact opposite of what was said. He said the reason they went for a flat rate on the Wii is because charging different prices would be making value judgements on games and it would feel exploitative to charge higher for games because they are better/more popular.

I must've misunderstood it. I'll go back and reread.

 

[thefro]

The way he describes the culture, I'm surprised Nintendo are even as far down the road as they are when it comes to online and other 'modern' features. Sounds like a real pain to get anything greenlit. Also makes Iwata sound ineffectual as a leader given that his peers have the ability to veto decisions and it seems he doesn't have the balls, or doesn't feel able out of respect, to shout them down. What a mess!

Iwata was significantly younger than the rest of the board for several years (he was in his 40s when he took over as CEO). It hasn't been until recently that they've appointed a few new members younger than Iwata and the older members of the board became the people in Miyamoto's peer group instead of Yamauchi's folks.

I don't think it's a big surprise that they finally seem to be changing some of their ideas.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

A great interview, fascinating to get this kind of insight into how Nintendo actually operates. Adelman comes across as a really thoughtful and reasonable guy,

He's always seemed like a good guy, and I'm glad to see him on board helping to market indie titles now. Didn't he leave Nintendo because they were too stifling and stopped him from interacting with customers on Twitter.

 

[Shaanyboi]

He's always seemed like a good guy, and I'm glad to see him on board helping to market indie titles now. Didn't he leave Nintendo because they were too stifling and stopped him from interacting with customers on Twitter.

Don't know if he ever came out and said that, but one could easily assume so considering his sudden silence on social media after he made a disparaging comment regarding region-locking. Super shitty.

 

[The Boat]

This is a very, very interesting interview, thanksgor sharing.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

It's a minor miracle a game like Splatoon is being made and pushed like it has been.

 

[Gurgelhals]

It kind of puts into perspective why Hiroshi Yamauchi made sure that no other family members were working at the company when he took over the company in 1949 (he was only *22* years old at the time) and quickly went about firing many long-term employees.

 

[Orakio Rob]

This looks very interesting, as we rarely hear anything about how Nintendo really works. I'll read the full interview. Thanks for sharing, bequietdrive.

 

[Dryk]

Don't know if he ever came out and said that, but one could easily assume so considering his sudden silence on social media after he made a disparaging comment regarding region-locking. Super shitty.

"I had been strongly encouraged to stay off of Twitter—or at least say only things that were clearly safe—so after the region-locking comment they just said I needed to stop completely," Adelman said. "When people started complaining that I wasn't active on Twitter anymore, it was suggested that a PR person could just post in my name. I thought that was about the worst idea I'd ever heard, so I left it as is and let the silence speak for itself."

http://kotaku.com/nintendos-indie-champion-leaves-after-nine-years-1615413692

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

wow. excellent read and very insightful.

 

[ChaosXVI]

Very fascinating read, although to be honest, many of these findings have been assumed by many of us already:

Nintendo is not just Japanese, but old-school Japanese, that's been obvious for ages now.

Nintendo has too many people at the top who do not understand the modern industry, and thus are dead weight with too much power. Again, something a lot of us had already assumed.

Not to say it isn't interesting to see these things confirmed for us from within, but a lot of this information isn't exactly "new news".

A shakeup definitely is needed in Nintendo's upper levels, and I bet it happens whenever Miyamoto retires, because that will likely lead to quite a power struggle/vacuum, and it'd be the perfect time to clean house and streamline things a bit.

 

[Kai Dracon]

This kind of confirms one of my suspicious - that while the public constantly attacks Iwata and Miyamoto - since they are the only really visible figures - for being responsible for all Nintendo's problems, the conservative, super-Japanese structure of the company means it is not nearly as simple as that.

Iwata has usually seemed a bit too observant on what's happening in the industry in most regards. Miyamoto is skeptical of fads and trends, maybe too much so, but doesn't actually sound stupid.

An army of supervisors, middle managers, and division heads who have no idea what's going on in the rest of the world however, does sound as if it'd bog everything down no matter who is the "king" at the top as Americans perceive it.

 

[Messofanego]

There have been cases where companies decided to pull out the stops and make a great game for Nintendo platforms only to find that consumers weren’t interested.

Which of these Wii exclusive games (Madworld, No More Heroes, Lost In Shadow, The Last Story, Fragile Dream, Ju On: The Grudge, Elebits, Zack and Wiki) did Nintendo give full marketing push to and still failed?

If there have been many third party failures, I can see why third party people have stopped developing for those consoles if even proper marketing and being a good game doesn't do the job.

Cause look at the Wii U exclusives (Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, ZombiU), it's significantly shrunken for third party big budget exclusives. That is most likely down to low install base and less Wii U units so developers bail out.

What are the chances for Xenoblade Chronicles X on profit? Cause that looks pretty big budget. The Wii Xenoblade Chronicles sold really well apparently with a much bigger install base.

 

[Percy]

Sounds like there are too many out of touch old men at the top in Kyoto.

The VC stuff really is extremely frustrating to read. The Wii U has been out for a while now and looking at the VC selection it currently has available in it's store is shocking at this point. Ridiculously small SNES selection, no N64 (Yeah yeah, "Wii mode" and all that shit.), no Gamecube... adding Wii to it a lot sooner than any of us were expecting is great and all, don't get me wrong, but all signs are pointing to Wii games being released on the drip feed like everything else.

It's an incredibly irritating approach, whatever the reasoning.

 

[sd28821]

This kind of confirms one of my suspicious - that while the public constantly attacks Iwata and Miyamoto - since they are the only really visible figures - for being responsible for all Nintendo's problems, the conservative, super-Japanese structure of the company means it is not nearly as simple as that.

Iwata has usually seemed a bit too observant on what's happening in the industry in most regards. Miyamoto is skeptical of fads and trends, maybe too much so, but doesn't actually sound stupid.

An army of supervisors, middle managers, and division heads who have no idea what's going on in the rest of the world however, does sound as if it'd bog everything down no matter who is the "king" at the top as Americans perceive it.

yep sadly it wont matter to the people who attack them

 

[Diddy Kong]

great read.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

http://kotaku.com/nintendos-indie-champion-leaves-after-nine-years-1615413692

Such a dumb backwards idea. Really does make it sound like the decisions are made by dinosaurs who don't understand social media.

 

[Calamari41]

Great interview. Hopefully this kind of thing being confirmed allows people to cut Iwata a little bit of slack... I mean, it's pretty obvious when he's giving his "vision for the future" speeches, he isn't outlining the set path that he is going to go down, but rather is trying to convince his audience of aged, out of touch executives holed up in their offices.

Same goes for Nintendo of America. You really think Reggie isn't fully aware that they needed to have a PSN-style account system a generation ago?

 

[Messofanego]

I found his thoughts on Valve's services and price discounts interesting.

Ultimately, it comes down to discoverability. If the eShop – or any other platform – can make it easy for people to find the games that they like, then there is no problem with letting in lots of crap because people won’t even see it. The problem is that that technology doesn’t exist. Valve is really trying to tackle this problem head on with some interesting experiments like the Steam Curators and online forums, but it is pretty evident that they haven’t solved it yet. Probably the most obvious sign of this is that the biggest factor in driving sales is still price discounts. If people didn’t feel that they were taking a big risk every time they bought something, there wouldn’t be as big of a need for 90% off discounts.

Also, this is so true on console digital search platforms!

I’ve heard stories of people who knew what game they wanted and still struggled to find it in the Wii Shop because they may not have known the exact spelling or even where the search functionality was.

Playstation's search engine is really bad, from my experiences of trying to find certain games on launch for PS4. It reminds me of Indie Game The Movie's most intense bits! They won't often show up so I'm left to the whims of what Sony puts front and center on the PSN shop.

 

[Metallix87]

Honestly, this should surprise no one. The absence of Yamauchi can definitely be felt.

 

[Calamari41]

I found his thoughts on Valve's services and price discounts interesting.

Also, this is so true on console digital search platforms!

Playstation's search engine is really bad, from my experiences of trying to find certain games on launch for PS4. It reminds me of Indie Game The Movie's most intense bits! They won't often show up so I'm left to the whims of what Sony puts front and center on the PSN shop.

I think that the Wii U's eShop actually has a pretty damn good setup and curation. New releases and sales at the top front and center, broader categories below that (virtual console, indies, eShop exclusives, etc), then different genres and franchises categorized below that, with things like "multiplayer games," "puzzle games," "Donkey Kong games," "top rated games," etc. All on one page that you simply scroll up and down on.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

This kind of confirms one of my suspicious - that while the public constantly attacks Iwata and Miyamoto - since they are the only really visible figures - for being responsible for all Nintendo's problems, the conservative, super-Japanese structure of the company means it is not nearly as simple as that.

But if it's negatively affecting the company, surely it falls on Iwata to fix it? And even if the Japanese side of the company is so mired in its ways as to be irreparable, then Iwata should at least give NOA some freedom from that political bullshit and rebuild them as a more autonomous division that isn't just sat there passively until the brain trust in Kyoto tells them what to do. That's where improving third party relations in the West is going to come from. Never mind the hardware specs or the quality of first-party titles, if company intrigue is stopping business from being done internally, then imagine how impossible it must be for third parties to navigate.

 

[Dr. Zoidberg]

while the public constantly attacks Iwata and Miyamoto - since they are the only really visible figures - for being responsible for all Nintendo's problems, the conservative, super-Japanese structure of the company means it is not nearly as simple as that..

Not only them but Reggie and NOA in general get blamed for a ton of shit that they likely have no control over.

 

[Stilton Disco]

This kind of confirms one of my suspicious - that while the public constantly attacks Iwata and Miyamoto - since they are the only really visible figures - for being responsible for all Nintendo's problems, the conservative, super-Japanese structure of the company means it is not nearly as simple as that.

Iwata has usually seemed a bit too observant on what's happening in the industry in most regards. Miyamoto is skeptical of fads and trends, maybe too much so, but doesn't actually sound stupid.

An army of supervisors, middle managers, and division heads who have no idea what's going on in the rest of the world however, does sound as if it'd bog everything down no matter who is the "king" at the top as Americans perceive it.

While it confirms that the rot is firmly rooted into the entire system, I don't think we can just let Miyamoto and Iwata off the hook entirely.

Ultimately they are still the two most influential members of the company, and we've seen their influence in running NOA and altering the cause of game development can have disastrous effects, and while they've both proven time and again that they're incredibly intelligent, and creative visionaries, they've also made statements and decisions that have pissed off customers and industry peers alike, and left their fingerprints all over some of Nintendo's biggest fumbles.

Really, all this tells us is what we already knew; Nintendo needs to clean house and get some strong leadership, that actually understands the industry they're in, in place, while retiring anyone unwilling to modernise, including Iwata and Miyamoto, if need be.

 

[Tobor]

but I know Microsoft also has a team of technical people that will go work with a studio for a few weeks or even months to help them make their games as good as they can be on those platforms.

Pointless for Nintendo to try this, as the hardware is underpowered and Nintendo themselves don't know how to utilize unique features(gamepad, for example).

 

[BeatResetsTheWorld]

Pointless for Nintendo to try this, as the hardware is underpowered and Nintendo themselves don't know how to utilize unique features(gamepad, for example).

Except that's not true...Nintendoland made wide use of the gamepad in a number of different game types and the system launched with it. Not to mention they have upcoming games that will make even better use of it (Splatoon, Starfox, Zelda, etc)

 

[Tobor]

Except that's not true...Nintendoland made wide use of the gamepad in a number of different game types and the system launched with it. Not to mention they have upcoming games that will make even better use of it (Splatoon, Starfox, Zelda, etc)

They haven't found a use yet that's compelling to consumers.

The Wii remote had a killer app from day one, while the gamepad is still waiting after two full years.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Except that's not true...Nintendoland made wide use of the gamepad in a number of different game types and the system launched with it. Not to mention they have upcoming games that will make even better use of it (Splatoon, Starfox, Zelda, etc)

Nintendo land failed to grab any real attention amongst the consumer, and hardly justifies the Gamepad's forced inclusion.

Meanwhile we have no idea how well the three upcoming games you mentioned will use it. It certainly can't be vital to Splattoon, as it's entirely optional, we have no idea what Starfox will even end up being yet, so the entire game could be bollocks, let alone the Gamepad implementation, and so far all we've seen Zelda U use it for is inventory and a map, which isn't a good enough trade off for the WiiU's lack of power, added complexity or selling it a loss despite a hefty price tag.

 

[Azure Dream]

Very good interview, especially the point about indie developers working in isolation for so long.

Except that's not true...Nintendoland made wide use of the gamepad in a number of different game types and the system launched with it. Not to mention they have upcoming games that will make even better use of it (Splatoon, Starfox, Zelda, etc)

Several of Nintendoland's minigames "justified" the gamepad by removing functionality that would otherwise be present in a normal game. In many (but not all) cases it wasn't bringing something to the table, it was taking it away from the television, just to put it on the Gamepad. Giving F-Zero a bad camera angle doesn't justify the Gamepad.

This is the single biggest problem with the company. They have too many higher-ups who do not understand the current gaming market. Not so much people like Iwata and Miyamoto, but the people whose approval they need to develop new ideas or bring the company up to speed with online/account systems. You can picture the wrinkled suits who insist that people buy Super Mario Bros separately for every console they own.

Thankfully things are slowly getting better.

Their reaction time to public feedback, especially from outside of Japan, can be utterly glacial. If it's a big enough problem, they eventually get there. But where Sony or Microsoft would be out there within days with a "We've heard your feedback, this is why we did this" or "We're going to make this change, it will take some time," Nintendo says quiet, for weeks, sometimes months. Occasionally their answer is "maybe next console generation," which is ridiculous.

And then there's the stories about developers asking for features out of their online service, only to receive blank stares back, because they have no point of reference, no real idea what features other services have, or how they function. They refused to learn from what their competitors did sometimes five years prior.

 

[captmcblack]

Great article.

I wish there was a way to get more autonomy for NOA, who (at least in theory) would have the best chance to bypass the strict JPN hierarchy for game/company business decisions that could benefit the company at large. I also appreciate the third-party stuff - anyone who's been at this thing for long enough can see how third parties have been all about the moneyhats for years now.

Without a hammer to force participation as necessity for their survival (like having absolute dominance of the console market along with relative hardware/feature parity), Nintendo has to moneyhat games. Hopefully, in the event they do this more often, they make the right picks. Simple marketing deals aren't enough either, since stuff like that is probably only enough to get the ultra bare minimum support (like "hey, we at least made a barebones third party port of a common yearly release"). They probably have to Street Fighter V some games to get relevant titles outright.

 

[Stumpokapow]

he calls bob (of bob's game) an actual crazy person in this interview and then talks about mental health pressures independent developers face and how they should work together to support each other.

 

[Ansatz]

What Wii U should have been according to this thread:

- Nintendo attracting 3rd party support, which entails them cultivating an ecosystem where that type of software can sell viably. The best way to do that is to release equivalent software in order to draw that audience in i.e. westernized output (Gamecube)

- Traditional controller in the box, anything else can be sold as an optional accessory at best (think of releasing the Wiimote/Wii Sports as an accessory to Gamecube, not such a good idea is it. Imagine if they did that and the Wii never happend)

- Online infrastructure because gamers today are more concerned with youtube, streaming and social media, not actually playing video games. For example for some people the Luigi Death Stare meme and the MK TV function itself is more of a selling point than great play controls or item balancing.

So basically turn it into a generic MS / Sony machine because that is what currently sells.

Anyway I think they are doing an amazing job of slowly getting back on track without compromising the quality of their main titles. I mean sure they are experimenting with crap like Pokemon Shuffle, various pricing models and perhaps some Amiibo unlockables are taking it a step too far, but the core gaming experience is still intact in their main titles and better than they've ever been.

 

[Gonzo The Great]

There was a lot of debate about whether to charge more for Super Mario Bros. 3 as opposed to Ice Climbers, and we ultimately decided on a fixed price per platform for a couple reasons. First, it’s simpler to manage from an internal processing perspective. If each game had a separate price, there would be lots of opinions about each game, and consolidating all of that feedback would be very time consuming. Second, there was a little feeling of holding people’s childhood hostage if we priced certain games higher than others.

What horrible, horrible reasoning. I can't say I agree with his comments regarding the Virtual Console at all. Considering they release like one game a week, it can't be that time consuming to decide on which games are worth more. Hell, they already started doing it with GBA games, but their NES catalog hasn't been touched. It's like this company is terrified to change their existing business model. Nobody is going to buy Ice Climber for $4.99. Not even people who grew up with the game, because it was never good to begin with. A faster way to make "lesser" games like Urban Champion sell is by dropping their prices dramatically. I'd wager that most people would be willing to try it out for only 99 cents. Even if it's a temporary sale, it's better than having it sit in digital limbo. I don't know how they have the "data" to justify the drip feed model when they haven't tried anything else. A lot of people got sick of waiting for their favorite game to show up and stopped using the service altogether. Sure, I don't expect them to release their entire back catalog on one day, but the rate at which they release games is still far too slow for my liking. N64 games were promised over two years ago and I'm still waiting. What's holding them back? Poor VC sales? Wouldn't that be a sign that the drip feed model hasn't been working?

The thing is, it's nine years later and the prices haven't gone down. Nintendo's excuse is that they don't want to "devalue" their software, but considering that in this day and age people can download triple A games on Steam for 90% off, it's time for their business model to evolve. They need to pay attention to the industry more closely, or I fear for Nintendo's future as a hardware manufacturer. I believe that the discontinuation of Club Nintendo is a sign of things to come, so hopefully Nintendo has finally learned from their mistakes.