Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 04, 2005 05:44 PM
from the that's-some-chutzpah-right-there dept.
GameCube (Games) Businesses
IGN has an article discussing an interview in which Nintendo President Satoru Iwata talked about the possibility that the Nintendo Revolution's fundamental difference from other offerings may alienate third party developers. From the article: "If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo" Refreshing to hear such an honest assessment from company president.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Nintendo Revolution May Alienate Third Party Developers 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • If you read the article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Admiral Ackbar 8 (848624) on Friday March 04 2005, @05:55PM (#11848937)
    It also says that this new console will be so "revolutionary" that it may pull in more third party support.

    I read this as: our new system will be fundamentally different than other systems coming to the market. You won't be able to make a game for the other systems and easily port it to Revolution.
    • It also says that this new console will be so "revolutionary" that it may pull in more third party support.

      That will really depend on how the big software companies react in the near future. If everything becomes "EA style" (let's buy everyone so we don't have to innovate), then third-parties won't support Nintendo. On the other hand, if game companies hire really good game designers and actually try to innovate, they might love that new innovative Revolution console.

      Unfortunately, it seems game compani

      • Re:If you read the article... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SetupWeasel (54062) on Friday March 04 2005, @06:51PM (#11849415) Homepage
        That will really depend on how the big software companies react in the near future.

        I disagree. Nintendo will make enough good games to make the console worthwhile. With that in mind, it will depend on the consumers. If more choose the revoloution, the industry will shift that way.

        Unfortunately, it seems game companies prefer staying with what worked in the past and not try new things... otherwise, we'd see much more third party games on the DS

        You will see more third-party games. Developers simply can't port their previous code to the DS as easily as they can for the PSP. So a lot of derivative games are coming out more quickly for the PSP. The DS is likely to have more than twice the user base of the PSP for quite some time. Third parties like money, and plenty of them are signed on.
    • This is already been a partial issue with them in the past. Both the n64 and cube controllers really appeared to be designed around a super mario game, to the detriment of other established genres. For example, Street Fighter games had a working setup on the SNES controller, which made the transition to the PSX and PS2 controllers straightforward compared to the n64. While the n64 remained a distant second in fighters, owners were treated with a wholly new, innovative and fun design for the genre, now know

  • I feel a bit confused. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by game kid (805301) on Friday March 04 2005, @05:56PM (#11848950) Homepage
    "If the next generation platforms are going to create even more gorgeous looking games using further enhanced functionality, and if that next-gen market can still expand the games industry, then I'm afraid that third-parties may not support Nintendo," he said.

    I feel a bit confused. Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better, and those better ones could destroy his chances of getting other developers to develop for the Revolution? (thus hurting its sales?)* Frankly I think it's already done so then; I remember some years ago when the show Extra were offering free PS2s and GameCubes but said they could not offer XBoxes (XBoxen?) due to extreme demand for them. I remember long lines shown in the news for the PS2 also (people shouting PS2! PS2!), but never heard of such massive demand for the 'Cube-only lots of ads and good games like a Zelda or two.

    *To those who think I should know these things because of my username (I remember such a post a while back): I'm game kid, not game expert. Give me a break, please.

    • GameCube (Score:4, Informative)

      by MonkeyCookie (657433) on Friday March 04 2005, @06:19PM (#11849153)
      I remember when the Gamecube came out and there was a rush to get it. I know some of my friends had trouble finding one. It sold out during its initial release, but it wasn't like the popularity of the PS2.

      I think that the XBox came out around the same time, which got a bit more attention, although it didn't sell as well initially.

    • Re:I feel a bit confused. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2005, @06:37PM (#11849299)
      Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better[?]

      Well, that depends on what you mean by "better," don't it? I'm pretty sure the president of Nintendo is going to believe that his company's console is "better" than its competitors. But which console will have "better" graphics? Which console will have "better" controllers? Which console will have "better" games? Is a "better" game one with "better" graphics or something even "betterer?"

      If you RTFA, he goes on to say that third party publishers and developers may also be attracted to the Revolution because it's different. If anything, he's saying that the typical schlock factories like EA won't have an easy time porting their unimaginative drivel to the Revolution because it will operate on entirely different concepts from the PS3 and XBox whatever. That's quite a lofty goal, but I'll wait until E3 before I do much thinking about it. I'd prefer to witness the unveiling without preconceived notions.

      If you're worried about graphics, note that the most popular of the three currently selling consoles is the weakest when it comes to graphics, a fact that has held back graphics on the XBox and Gamecube, much to my displeasure.
    • I feel a bit confused. Is he saying that the other consoles like PS3 and the second XBox may be better, and those better ones could destroy his chances of getting other developers to develop for the Revolution?

      No, what he's saying is that the Revolution will be nothing like your usual game console, it will have additional features and it will be a totally different concept of gaming. Thus, third-parties might have to decide on whether to make a game only for PS3 and Xbox2, or exclusively on Revolution, be

    • I think he's saying it will be different. Probably more focused on gameplay than flashy graphics. I really hope Nintendo are moving in the right direction because the game industry blandness that is creeping in worries me. Also, in the competition they probably couldn't offer Xboxes because they were too expensive, not in terms of console price, but usually they have to send competition prizes out by mail and the price of sending something as big and heavy as an xbox is phenomenal. For a long time the xbox
    • I'm guessing this confusing sentence was the result of quick and messing translation. I took the statement to mean that Nintendo is trying to do something a little different with it's next-gen console besides from beefing up the specs for faster, pretty graphics. I'm guessing that what ever they've got up there sleeve might not be kosher for some developers. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case given some previous talked about rumors [slashdot.org] about the Revolution.

      I hope that Nintendo is really trying some

  • Not entirely true... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordZardoz (155141) on Friday March 04 2005, @06:28PM (#11849224)
    What it will end up discouraging, if it is that different from other platforms, is porting.

    If a publisher was intrested in putting a game on Revolution, it would get there. But if the publisher was on the fence, and wanted to whore the game out on every platform, the Revolution would likely be skipped.

    It is possible that the Revolution will be similar enough to make porting to it a viable option, but gameplay dependent on Revolutions unique features would not be as portable.

    END COMMUNICATION

  • Nintendo says do or die? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DuckofDeath87 (816504) on Friday March 04 2005, @06:32PM (#11849252)
    That is a pretty bad /. title and article. Nintendo said that 3rd parties will be alienated if they dont like nintendo innovations. However, if these companies like the innovations, they will probably make games only for the revolution.

    Sounds like a rather bold business plan. I suppose Nintendo has decided to take very big risks in order to innovate gaming further and of course make N #1 again.

    Good Luck N!

    I for one welcome our new innovative gaming overlords.
    • I for one welcome our new innovative gaming overlords. Amen.
    • Nintendo said that 3rd parties will be alienated if they dont like nintendo innovations. However, if these companies like the innovations, they will probably make games only for the revolution.

      Let me just add that third-parties would have to like the Revolution a whole lot to make games exclusively for it. Or Nintendo would have to go the Sony/MS route and pay them off.

      Rob
  • If we look at the Gamecube, and even further back, it's easy to see Nintendo's stegnth, especially lately, has been in releasing incredible in-house titles. I'm talking Metroid Prime (1 and 2), SSBM, Paper Mario, Pikmin, and Animal Crossing (with exceptions like Viewtiful Joe). I don't expect Nintendo's platform to have the breadth of games PS3 will have; what I do expect is that, like in the present, it'll still be my favorite console because of depth (I have a PC for my RTS/FPS/GTA needs).

  • Look at Nintendo's History (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ALeavitt (636946) <aleavitt@@@gmail...com> on Friday March 04 2005, @08:20PM (#11849897)
    If the Revolution is really so different as to discourage third-party developers from bringing out games, it would be a really brave move on Nintendo's part. However, look at their history. It is full of brave moves. The video game market had already crashed and burned when Nintendo wanted to bring out the NES. People thought that it would fail, but Nintendo pushed it anyway and changed everything. Then Sega came out with the Genesis, a superior system to the NES (at least hardware-wise) and Nintendo waited to bring out the Super NES until it had the right technology and the right gameplay ideas. They brought out Virtual Boy, which was completely different from anything on the market. Granted, that was a failed experiment, but it was an experiment nonetheless - not just an advance. With the Gamecube, they decided to shun the online players that Sony and Microsoft were going after, and have instead focused on the community aspect of multiplayer. Now there's the DS, an innovative, if imperfect, competitor for Sony's straight technological advance, the PSP. I have a feeling Nintendo knows what they're doing with these risks. They aren't going after the largest market share, they're trying to make good, innovative games that consistently change how we think of video gaming.
    • I agree with most points here, except it looks like youre trying to lump the Genesis in with the NES, implying the SNES was much better than the Genesis. The Sega Master System (8bit) came out around the time NES was big....then Genesis came out a year before the SNES and had roughly the same power. SNES's only real technological advantage was that it had 6bit color(128) while Genesis only had 5bit(64). Not only that, but if memory serves me correctly the Genesis had a more advanced sound chip than the SNES
        • It's all subjective. If you prefer the way an FM synth + some PCM (YM2612 for FM and Z80 for single channel PCM) sounds over the way very limited multichannel PCM hardware sounds, then yeah, the Genesis had better sound hardware.

          I thought the SNES sounded way more advanced since I mainly played PC games at the time which usually didn't have any PCM music at all.
  • I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good. I don't want VR goggles or gyroscopes built into my controllers. I don't want to flail my arms in the air so I can move my onscreen character from point A to point B. What I do want is to sit on my couch, with a comfortable controller in hand, and play my games.

    • Take your stagnancy somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcasaday (562287) on Friday March 04 2005, @11:05PM (#11850628)
      I for one think the state of gaming right now is pretty damn good.

      I, on the other hand, am very happy to see a company pushing to make games that are better than just "pretty damn good." You may be content with the way games are right now, but others, like myself, yearn for something more.

      I think the games we play now don't even scratch the surface of what is possible with interactive entertainment. So, I'm encouraged when a game company says that it's going to do something so different, so out there, that they believe it may alienate them from potential partners within the industry. It means that I'm not the only one out there who is a little disappointed with "the state of gaming right now."

    • Re:Take your revolution somewhere else (Score:4, Funny)

      by cowscows (103644) on Saturday March 05 2005, @12:13PM (#11853015) Journal
      How can you be so insanely cynical and negative towards something you know nothing about. At least save that crap for when they announce what this "revolution" is. Then you can at least pretend to know what you're talking about.

      Normally people don't start talking that bitter about the future until they're like 80 years old. If you are 80, and you play video games, then good for you, weirdo.
        • Innovation will not always work in your favor.

          You're absolutely right. That's also what Iwata is saying.

          Nintendo heads should know this after some of their innovations have already blown up in their faces.

          Some of their innovations have been tremendously successful too. You cannot grow if you only make safe choices.

          When something works exceptionally well, why toss it out the window?

          Who said anything about that?

          If it comes to the point where the president of Nintendo says that the i

  • "Revolution" is fundamentally different? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgoemat (565882) on Friday March 04 2005, @09:33PM (#11850235)
    It seems to me that they are saying that there will be something fundamentally different about their new system that it will not be able to play games that are on current systems. Therefore, if 3rd party developers make a game for the new system, there is no way they could make a similar game on the other systems and vice-versa because the concepts are completely different. Maybe the interface won't be a standard controller (maybe an eye-toy like device, microphone, gloves that know where they are in 3d space and what your fingers are doing, etc.).

    Think about it like this... Let's say current consoles are like decks of cards. You can play lots of games with a standard deck of cards (poker, rummy, etc.) and there are different types of cards with their own games (Rook, Uno, etc.). Let's then say that Nintendo's "Revolution" is like a board game. It's very hard to play Risk, Chess, or Axis and Allies with a deck of cards, just like it would be hard to play Poker or Uno as a board game.

    Then again maybe they're just using all this vagueness to hype the system before it's out.

    At any rate, we are still looking at E3 as a launching pad for the "Revolution" platform, and are deliberating if we should feature the actual console, visuals, or simply illustrate the concept behind it. At the same time, while we are aiming to make some form of a positive impression, we also want to avoid giving away too much, and are therefore currently in a dilemma about the situation. What we are sure of, however, is that fun isn't something that can be expressed in figures, and we are ever mindful of how we can illustrate the difference offered by our particular brand of fun."

    • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by KevinKnSC (744603) on Friday March 04 2005, @06:00PM (#11848988)
      It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
      1. Mario Revolution
      2. Zelda Revolution
      3. Pokemon Revolution

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2005, @06:07PM (#11849053)
        And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware. MS and Sony, and Atari and Sega in their day, all just churn out identikit consoles and handhelds. Nintendo invents. They try dual screens, they try tilt controllers, they try VR headsets, they try linking portables to consoles, they try bongos. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's a disaster, but it's always innovative.

        Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico. That's a grand total of 2. You say Nintendo is all about Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon? I point out that every Mario and Zelda introduces new ideas (unlike every new Halo, which introduces more guns and less plot), and raise you Animal Crossing and Pikmin.
        • To be fair, the VirtuaBoy was never a VR headset, more of a VR table decoration you can look into.

          Also, you forgot the Power Glove and the action/jumping pad from the late 1980s.

          Sega had some interesting stuff. I do believe they beat Sony with the Sega CD. The Sega Channel was interesting, as was the 32x.
        • And yet for all you may diss their games, Nintendo are the only company that ever remotely innovates with hardware.

          Nope. The bongos you cite as a Nintendo innovation are obviously inspired by Konami's various musical instrument controllers and their associated Bemani games, Dance Dance Revolution being the best known.

          Sony's EyeToy was also very clearly innovative. Essentially every game Nintendo had made that required a specific controller has failed, from the R.O.B. to the Super Scope - they gave up

        • The Dreamcast was VERY innovative... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Man In Black (11263) <ze-ro.shaw@ca> on Friday March 04 2005, @09:34PM (#11850237) Homepage
          MS and Sony, and Atari and Sega in their day, all just churn out identikit consoles and handhelds.

          Well, I can't vouch for Sony and Atari, but I won't stand idly by while someone claims that Sega doesn't innovate... This is the same company that released Typing of the Dead, Samba de Amigo, and Seaman for crying out loud. That takes some balls right there. Plus, I'd argue that the Dreamcast was easily one of the more innovative consoles in history. Lets take a look...
          • The Dreamcast was the first console to come with a modem, and pretty much opened the door to online gaming for the unwashed masses. Phantasy Star Online being one of the more popular MMORPGs at the time, and the first to appear on a console.
          • It was also the first system to feature analog triggers on the controller, which seem to be the norm these days. (Actually, this honor should probably be given to the 3D controllers that Sega released for the Saturn... but these were after-market controllers released near the end of the Saturn's life. Plus, the Dreamcast controllers are quite obviously based on their design).
          • They released a microphone that could be used to talk to other people online in Alien Front Online (Take that SOCOM and XBox Live).
          • The Dreamcast can link with the NeoGeo Pocket on a number of games, which could easily be considered inspiration for Nintendo's GC-GBA linking features.
          • The Dreamcast was also the first system (and might still be the ONLY system, I'm not sure) that actually generates a VGA picture internally, thus allowing for easy hookup to a VGA monitor without using an expensive upscan converter.
          • The idea of the VMU was an incredibly unique idea, allowing you to take a little bit of the game with you in the form of minigames, not to mention letting you trade saves away from the console.
          • They also offered a mouse, keyboard, driving wheels, light guns, twin sticks (japan only), and even maracas as controllers.


          If you don't consider all THAT to be innovative, then I really think you'll be disappointed with whatever Nintendo has up their sleeve...
          • It takes balls to make not one, but two games about bass fishing - and to provide special controllers for it.
          • With a maximum party size of 4, it's no MMORPG. Yes, it's an MORPG, but that's not the same thing.

            The Xbox does VGA internally, except it's passed through a TV output circuit (which does support progressive scan video VGA mode: 480p = 640x480).

            Otherwise, though, the Dreamcast was pretty innovative, which is why it's still my favourite console (and I own as much Dreamcast stuff as I can get :)).
            • You're thinking of a device called X-Play, IIRC. It was a 2400 baud modem (seriously!) that went into the cartridge slot first, then had the game cartridge piggy-backed in, similar to a game genie or the old Sonic and Knuckles cart.

              Theoretically, the X-Play could support any game, but I believe it only supported some of the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat games, and a small smattering of EA Sports titles. The modem itself was quite expensive ($100 for a 2400 when 28.8k was pretty much the standard), and
        • What's so innovative about ICO? The way it makes you put up with 45 minutes of cinematics before you even start playing? Most games already have too many splash screens and whatnot, but this just beats a dead horse.
        • Seriously, the only games I've ever seen on non-Nintendo consoles that were remotely innovative were Katamari Damacy and Ico.

          Those are the same ones I would have mentioned, heh. Though really Sony can only clame credit for Ico -- Katamari Damacy was produced by Namco.

          If you're going to include all games release for that company's system, then the Grand Theft Auto games, while different iterations of the same basic idea, do at least present something new compared to most of the rest of the industry.

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04 2005, @06:12PM (#11849092)
        It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
        1. Mario Revolution
        2. Zelda Revolution
        3. Pokemon Revolution

        And all Sony need for success is Final Fantasy MCMLXVIII. And all Microsoft need for success is Halo 5: "The Second Half of the Ending Credits".

        The fundamental difference is that every new Mario or Zelda takes the familiar characters and builds a completely new gameplay experience around them. In contrast, every new Final Fantasy takes exactly the same gameplay and plot outline and slots in new names for the villains, and every new FPS is just like all the ones before it but with slightly more realistic physics and slightly different shaped guns.

        Hell, I've never even bought a Nintendo console, and they can still get me raving like a fanboy. That's what I call impressive.
          • The only problem is that you're not right that they always build completely new gameplay. The Metriod games are starting to become spookily similar to Halo.

            I agree with most of your post, but that one sentence makes almost no sense. Beyond the fact that both games are Sci-fi FPS's involving people in powersuits, there are few similarities between the two. Comparing Metroid to Halo is like comparing Mario to Castlevania.
          • Dude, gameplay where you navigate a massive world and unlock certain areas by gaining abilities in order to get through them never gets old. That's why Nintendo keeps doing it.

            It sure beats "do a mission, come back, get some arbitrary award, go do another mission" that seems to plague most of the 3D platformers.

          • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:4, Informative)

            by MMaestro (585010) on Saturday March 05 2005, @01:37AM (#11851073)
            Could you please give some example of a way Mario or Zelda has been "innovative" with its titles on GC, or even any titles since going to 3D?

            Since going 3D? Mario 64? Need I say more? Since the GC? Wind Waker's huge ocean world with near no load times and dozens of islands which you could attempt at anytime of your choice (although not necessarily complete.)

      • Re:If it's that different.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Man In Black (11263) <ze-ro.shaw@ca> on Friday March 04 2005, @09:48PM (#11850300) Homepage
        It's Nintendo. The exact amount of amazing required for them to have a successful console is:
        1. Mario Revolution
        2. Zelda Revolution
        3. Pokemon Revolution

        Actually, I'd attribute their more recent disappointments in the console business to a failure to produce on your third point. What Pokemon games were released for the N64? Pokemon Snap (A game where you take pictures of Pokemon), Hey You Pikachu (A game where you talk to Pikachu), Pokemon Stadium 1 & 2 (Which let you battle Pokemon in 3D, primarily meant to enhance the Gameboy games), and Pokemon Puzzle League (A decent puzzle game with a Pokemon theme). Why did they not release an elaborate 3D RPG similar to the Gameboy games, except with killer graphics? A game like that could have easily made millions for Nintendo, and possibly saved the N64 from it's destiny!

        Now, what Pokemon games have they released for the Gamecube? Pokemon Channel (A game where you arrange programming for a Pokemon-themed TV station), Pokemon Box (An accessory that basically only exists to transfer Pokemon between the GBA games and a GC memory card), and Pokemon Colloseum (Basically an updated version of Pokemon Stadium). Again, where's the 3D Pokemon RPG that kids would obviously be interested in?

        I'm not even a fan of Pokemon myself, but I am a fan of Nintendo and it seems like such a glaring omission in Nintendo's plans that it kind of grates on my nerves. Why waste their time on dreck like Pokemon Channel when they could be working on the game that might actually SAVE the Gamecube (or at least pull it out of the sewer for a short while)? Then again, the Pokemon fad has died down a lot since the N64 was around, so it might be a moot point by now....
        • As you said, the Pokemon thing isn't quite as fierce as it was 5 years ago... but they are in fact working on a fully 3D Pokemon RPG for the gamecube. http://cube.ign.com/objects/716/716652.html?ui=gam efinder
      • You forgot Metroid Revolution
    • I... what? No one even knows what the console will be like. How are you already passing judgment? Also, how are profitable consoles "strikes?" What game are we playing? I'll admit that the N64's good game selection was a bit anemic, but I've been very impressed with the Gamecube, and until Halo 2's giant hype machine, the Gamecube was still neck and neck with the XBox domestically.

    • RTFA, eh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Suddenly_Dead (656421) on Friday March 04 2005, @07:51PM (#11849768)
      Yay for not reading the article. They are basically saying that some third part developers will not like the Revolution, as it will require on their behalf the implementation of the new, secret features of the console. The console is about innovation, and direct ports from other systems won't be as easy because of this (think about the DS, but possibly taken further).

      It also goes to say that some third parties may get totally pulled in by the console, perhaps even shifting their focus to it.

      The third parties will either like it, or think that the console's new features are insane crap and completely dump it. They're being quite honest.

      Iwata once more compared Revolution to Nintendo DS, and said that like its portable the machine could gain the eye of consumers who normally don't care about games. "On the other hand, what we are trying to do is such a different thing, and people have come to realize that the approach we have taken with Nintendo DS can actually expand the market beyond what existing platforms can do. Therefore I believe there should be more third parties who are willing to support Nintendo's new ideas."

      Nintendo's president suggested that third party support for Revolution could depend entirely on whether or not publishers find the console appealing. "If we receive the support of the licensees, I believe we will expand third party support," he said. "If our ideas cannot be appealing enough, then we cannot receive third party support."

      The person who submitted the story to /. just chose to show the negativity.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.