The Nintendo Factor - By AdmiralPrice
Table of Contents:
Preface Setting the Stage
Section 1 Failure to the Third Power
Section 2 When the Dust Settled
Section 3 Why a Revolution?
Preface Setting the Stage
Lets face it: Nintendos popularity is slowly yet surely dieing out. In the days of old, Nintendo was the king of gaming, the sultan of all things entertaining. And yet, in the matter of five to seven years, Nintendo became a word quite embarrassing for any college or high school attendee. The proud father of gaming had been reduced to a third place in America, and a second place in Japan (where really there are only two consoles). It seemed, for a while at least, that Nintendo would become a third party developer, much like Sega. Those fears were put to rest when the Big N revealed information about their new console, Codenamed Revolution. But with the death of old fears arose new ones, and questions about the direction Nintendo was taking began flooding the internet. Was Nintendo a niche player? Was Nintendo poor when compared to Sony and MSoft, and thus doomed to sulking in the third place corner? And, most importantly, why was Nintendo doing what Nintendo was doing? This last question will answer all the others, and this last question is what Im going to focus on in this article.
Nintendo has, and always will have, a few characteristics. I will list them here:
1) Nintendo is a very proud company
2) Nintendo is a very stubborn company
3) Nintendo values innovation above all else
4) Nintendo is a company with incredible family values
5) Nintendo has never changed
Nintendo has again and again demonstrated these characteristics throughout its video-game history. Since their first venture into video gaming, Nintendo intended to carve a path of its own, choosing not to follow the arcade style games that were primarily being made. Instead, Nintendo introduced the NES (Famicom), a system which focused more on complete games, an intuitive (yet simple) controller, as well as family friendly entertainment. Nintendo first party games were incredible, and the success of the NES/Famicom brought other developers into the market. People started creating different types of games. The day of Pong became history, and the day of games like Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy began. With a simple controller and a few first party games, Nintendo changed the shape of the industry, and took gaming from a true niche and made it extremely popular.
When Nintendo debuted the Super NES (Super Famicom in Japan), it unknowingly began a revolution. The SNES is arguably the best system of all time, bringing about new players and setting the stage for true mainstream gaming. Old franchises evolved, and vague, uninteresting, shallow storylines became deep and invigorating. The FF series became legend, the Chrono series was introduced, and one of the greatest Zelda and Mario games blew all competition out of the water. Nintendo was so high up the mountain, the only place left was going down. And that would happen, and very, very fast. As my mother (a former CEO of a rather large bank) always reminds me, where there is a product that generates huge amounts of revenue, there will be lusty stares of big fish. When Sony approached Nintendo to create a CD drive for their next console, they were aiming for part of that profit. Nintendo, as everyone knows, refused to switch from cartridge to CD, a move that would cost them dearly. In hindsight, we see things clearly. Yet, at that time, CDs were an unproven and new technology, one not worth the risk. But by sticking to the old, Nintendo unknowingly caused their own downfall. What took place after this is all very famous history.
Sony debuted the PSOne, a system that used the CD drive. And though Nintendo had a system with better visuals, a better controller, and proven Nintendo know-how, the cartridges didnt have enough space to develop and were ridiculously expensive. Thus, Square and Enix switched to the CD drive, and Nintendo lost a lot of third party support (albeit a lot of it had to do with their dream team of developers idea). Nintendo never recovered. This, to me, is when Yamauchi-sans mental stability came into question.
Section 1 The Current Generation
Why, many people ask, has the GameCube failed? Even Nintendo, it seems, considers the Cube a failure (though not complete). The answer is many fold. Sure, the Cube did many things right, but when facing so much adversity, the Cube was destined for failure. Here are the reasons, why I think the Cube failed:
1) Change of administration
2) Recovering from the N64
3) Image
4) Adapting to industry standards
Ill comment on each of these aspects separately.
Change of Administration
This to me, really, is a key that a lot of people miss on. When Nintendo changed hands from Yamauchi-san to Iwata Satoru (yes, the Japanese have the last name first, so Ill do that too since, hey, most people at Nintendo are *gasp* Japanese!), it not only changed heads, it completely changed perspectives. A lot of what was already in motion, I believe, was not to the wishes of Iwata-san. He took over when a project was already in full motion (the gamecube), when an ideology for the next-gen had already been established. Iwata-san is all about innovation. He is, in fact, a very innovative developer, as can be seen through his Super Smash Brothers and Kirby projects. The basis of his entire philosophy seems to be on innovation. It is said that work on the Revolution began shortly after Iwata-san took over as the fourth President. This further fuels my argument that he was unhappy with the Game Cube, and thus wished to correct the wrong that was taking place in his own way. This dynamic difference in thinking and theory resulted in lots of internal confusion in Nintendo. Iwata-san believes in ease of developing and innovation, both of which the GameCube contradicted. Thus, Iwata-san was not able to function at his highest because he was handed something he didnt believe in. The Revolution is his system, a system he fully supports and believes in. More on that later.
Recovering From the N64
During the N64 period, Nintendo completely alienated itself. It stubbornly stuck to the cartridge, refused to work with developers, and all in all thought itself unbeatable. At this time, arrogance replaced pride, and Nintendo felt, as the industry leader, it could not be wrong. After all, was it not Nintendo that created the current gaming market? Was it not Nintendo that absolutely changed the face of gaming? Both those things were true, but Nintendo refused to realize that in the business world, no one cares. Its all in the money, and because developers didnt see any way to profit by sticking with more expensive and harder to develop for cartridges, they changed the CD format. Many influential developers, especially Squaresoft, made bold statements by releasing exclusive, big name games for the PS. Nintendos software lineup slowly but surely slumped, and at the end, more people bought a PS than a 64. How does this tie into the failure of the GameCube? The answer is rather simple.
Nintendo lost market share. Thats the simple answer. When a company loses market share, then debuts a product a year after its competitor, AND doesnt have any real features to positively differentiate between the product and their competitors, the company will lose even more market share. The Cube debuted much after the PS2, had no DVD drive, suffered from bad relationships with developers, and had a CD that was smaller than all of the other competitors. Though Iwata-san was able to repair many broken relationships (SquareEnix comes to mind), it was too little, too late. By then the PS2 had already established itself as the standard, and the Cube was steadily falling shorter and shorter.
Image
The image of a system is created much before it actually comes into its own. It is created from six months before the launch to six months after launch. The Cube launched with Luigis Mansion as its number 1 game, and really didnt have any software that appealed to the older gamer. To make matters worse, Nintendo showed a Cel-Shaded version of Zelda at E3. Though the game was amazing (receiving a 40/40 from Famitsu, only the 4th game to do so at that point in Famitsu history), it further added to Nintendos kiddy image. Mario Sunshine contributed to the image as well, when older gamers took the water can as a poor substitute to a gun. Put off, older gamers left the Cube and went looking elsewhere.
Adapting to Industry Standards
This, I believe, is the Game Cubes biggest failure. Instead of trying to carve a new path, Nintendo instead followed the industry. This was the first time Nintendo ever did such a thing. From its inception as a video game company to the N64, Nintendo looked at no one else to set its standards. However, with the Game Cube, Nintendo would rather follow than lead. The Game Cube is so inherently similar to the other systems that it suffered greatly. The only real features to differentiate were price, DVD drive, and controller. With all the other factors involved, such as image and past generation performance, Nintendo was bound to lose out. What Nintendo should have done is find another way to set itself apart from the competition.
When two products are almost identical, brand loyalty and past performance of the company play a major role. When looking at the Game Cube vs. The Playstation 2 (most people at that time had discounted Msoft), the PS2 had greater developer support, a DVD drive, and a larger library of games. The Game Cube was cheaper (albeit without the DVD drive and with smaller size discs), and that was just about it. Thus, most people, after weighing these factors, chose the PS2. Had Nintendo gambled a bit more and actually come up with a way of differentiating itself from the competition, it may have regained a lot of market share. But alas, it was not done. Yamauchi-sans grand legacy ended on a very sour note.
Section 2 The Fork In the Road
So now we come to a very critical time. What is Nintendo going to do? Well, lets first look at a few factors:
1) Who is leading Nintendo?
2) What had Nintendo learned?
Now, lets discuss these factors.
Who Is Leading Nintendo?
When The GameCube was under development, Yamauchi-san was leading Nintendo. Now, with the Revolution, it is Iwata-san. What is the difference? The difference is rather huge.
Yamauchi-san has never played a video game before. Ever. And he is actually very proud of that fact. Thus, for Yamauchi-san to say what gamers want is rather unfounded. Also, Yamauchi-san never truly realized the importance of developer ease. He believed that the customer interacted with the software, and thus the hardware didnt need to be too much. It needed to be inexpensive, but not really anything special. This is clearly reflected by the Cube.
Iwata-san is clearly different. He has worked as a developer since high-school, when he created games on calculators and shared them with friends. He has played and understands games, and clearly realizes the need for developer friendly systems. He also seems to believe that the hardware sets the tone that the software follows. This makes the two men very, very different. And with Iwata-san in command, we can clearly see the shift in Nintendos philosophy (DS, Reggie Fils-Aime).
What Has Nintendo Learned?
Nintendo has learned two major things: please developers and dont follow the competition. Hopefully, the reasoning was fully explained in the pervious section. Nintendo can not afford to lose out on market share once again. Its past failures were many fold, but the two biggest were not following their own path and alienating developers. As has been illustrated by the Nintendo DS, the Big N has learned a lot over the past few years. So what does it have in store for us? How about a Revolution.
Section 3 Why a Revolution?
So, what IS the Revolution? It is:
1) Focused on mass market appeal
2) Inexpensive and appealing in many ways
3) Relatively underpowered and lacking HD support
4) Innovative
Focused On Mass Market Appeal
In todays VG industry, there are three groups: Sony Fanboys, MS Fanboys, and Nintendo Fanboys. The lines are so clearly drawn that to gain any extra market share is almost impossible. Most people who bought an Xbox will buy a 360, most who bought a PS2 will buy a PS3, and most who bought a Cube will buy a Rev. The change in the percentages will be minimal. So how does Nintendo regain market share? The answer is simple, but its implementation is rather difficult: it expands the market. Currently, only 10-20% of Americans own a system. The number is higher in Japan. However, most of the people who own systems are 13-25 year old males. Realistically, there are only so many 13-25 year old males. Thus, Nintendo is looking to expand the market to beyond this demographic. They want to expand it to the 5-65 year old humans. The old, the young, the rich, the poor, the male, the female, the idiotic, and the smart. This way, Nintendo can regain market share without directly competing with Sony and MSoft for the existing demographic. Dont get me wrong; Nintendo WILL release games for the 13-25 year old males. They will, however, also do their best to release games for many other demographics. How do they do that? Read on.
Inexpensive and Appealing
The mass market wont drop major money on something that they dont know much about. So how does Nintendo lure them? They make the Revolution low priced. The rumors point towards 200 dollars, though it could be less. However, low price isnt the only thing they need to bring in new types of players. They need developers willing to take risks, as well as something appealing for old gamers who have stopped playing.
To address the first issue, the Big N has made the Revolution relatively inexpensive to develop for. This should provide much incentive for developers, though this does come at a price for the hardcore gamer (more on this later). Games will be cheaper to produce, and thus they will be cheaper to buy. Look for Nintendo to lead the charge and develop many games meant for different demographics. Once developers see these types of game sell, they will contribute their own. This way, more and more non-gamers will be brought into the fold.
To address the old gamers who have left gaming, Nintendo has developed the Virtual Console, a system of downloading and playing old Nintendo games on the Revolution. This is true backwards compatibility, and has the potential of bringing back many old gamers who have since left gaming.
A third way to bring people in ties in directly to the fourth reason why the Revolution will be revolutionary. Thus, I will focus on that point later.
Relatively Underpowered; Lacking HD
Let me make a bold statement now, one that will no doubt cause a lot of readers to cringe: The Revolution will not have graphics comparable to those of the 360 or PS3, not even in Standard Definition. Before many ask for my head on a platter, I shall put forth my reasoning. First, Nintendo has always maintained that it will never price the Rev for $300. If at $400 Microsoft is loosing $200 for every system sold, how do we expect the Revolution to compete when it will be generating revenue on every system sold (Nintendo, in its history, has never lost money for any system sold)? Some say that its priced at $400 because HD takes a lot of processing power and RAM. That is definitely true, but it does not take 3.2 GHz of processing power, or 512MB of memory. The truth is, those who think that Nintendo will try and graphically match 360 or PS3 in standard def are truly mistaken. Nintendo has stated clearly beforehand that the Rev will be about 2-3 times as powerful as the Cube. Developers have stated that it is roughly 2 times as powerful as the Cube. Compare that to the rough 10-15 times power of the original Xbox for the 360, and youll understand quickly that graphical comparison is not what Nintendo is going after. To stay in a $200 price limit, Nintendo has to give something up. Sadly, that thing is graphical power.
However, to suppose that Nintendo games will be ugly is truly idiotic. Look at screens of Resident Evil 4, or perhaps the most beautiful game of this gen, Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and think about doubling the detail and realism. Clearly, the games will be beautiful when viewed alone. The trouble comes when Nintendo fans look at them in comparison of PS3 and Xbox360 graphics.
Innovative
This is the main selling point of the Nintendo Revolution. The Rev will ship with a controller that defies convention and paves a new path for itself. Does this sound familiar? The last time Nintendo did that, the controller became convention (N64s analog, as well as the NES). The controller creates so many possibilities that developers are reportedly incredibly excited. The most talented teams have already started work on Revolution titles (One of Ubis top teams is developing Red Steel). The excitement of developers and gamers alike will create an amazing amount of opportunities, driving gaming forward. Another aspect of the controller is that it will be incredibly intuitive and easy to learn. Thus, non-gamers can pick up the controller and almost instantly grasp the concept. Games will become faster as the controller will respond to natural reflexes. This in turn will create more intense games, games that will be too intense to play with any other type of controller. Only good can come out of this innovation. Only good can come out of this generations Nintendo.
And this is the Nintendo Factor as I see it. This is Nintendos philosophy and steps towards fulfilling their goals. Nintendo has played its cards, and Sony/MSoft have played theirs. All we can do now is wait, pray, and believe.
Also ich fände ein cooles 2D Mario super.
