Nintendo's pressure to make iOS games(marco.org)
marco.org
Nintendo's pressure to make iOS games
http://www.marco.org/2011/08/14/nintendo-investors-want-iphone-ports
12 comments
I’m really not sure why he shouldn’t criticize Nintendo because you think there are similarities to Apple – similarities that are ancient by now. That just doesn’t make sense on any level.
similarities that are ancient by now
The Wii came out in 2006, the iPhone was released in 2007. Both were created with a simple user interface and slick design, and both changed their respective industries.
Are their similarities really so ancient?
The Wii came out in 2006, the iPhone was released in 2007. Both were created with a simple user interface and slick design, and both changed their respective industries.
Are their similarities really so ancient?
You were mostly talking about the NES and the Gameboy.
I mentioned each in one line, and decided to not discuss the merits of the DS (which was amazing for its time in 2004).
Ultimately, though, I only talk about consoles to illustrate how Nintendo and Apple develop their products in similar ways.
Ultimately, though, I only talk about consoles to illustrate how Nintendo and Apple develop their products in similar ways.
I was thinking about nintendo the other day. It boiled down to this: If they produce a new original zelda game on a new console, then I'd pay $300 for it. They have me by the nostalgia balls so to speak.
If they made a Zelda game for iOS for $9.99, then I'd buy it.
Why would they sell something for $9.99 when they could sell it for $300?
What about secondary markets. Not everyone has an iPhone. Some kids are just getting game boy advances. It's going to take a while for Nintendo's brand to die off, and they have time to wow us with great games.
Fools like me will give them money for a chance to reconnect with my childhood.
If they made a Zelda game for iOS for $9.99, then I'd buy it.
Why would they sell something for $9.99 when they could sell it for $300?
What about secondary markets. Not everyone has an iPhone. Some kids are just getting game boy advances. It's going to take a while for Nintendo's brand to die off, and they have time to wow us with great games.
Fools like me will give them money for a chance to reconnect with my childhood.
> Why would they sell something for $9.99 when they could sell it for $300?
Because there could be hundreds of other people who don't act and think like you for every one that does.
Because there could be hundreds of other people who don't act and think like you for every one that does.
Simple answer: Scale.
There are maybe 1000 people like you. About 80 million potential customers at the 9.99 price point.
There are maybe 1000 people like you. About 80 million potential customers at the 9.99 price point.
It remains to be seen if the app store model can support games with the kind of production costs a game like Zelda incurs. So far it looks a lot more like flash games for $1.
They could start with porting their existing games like Square Enix and others did. But the question is whether they want their titles to remain exclusive.
I think if they want to remain a giant, they'd continue with what they do and strive for a next breakthrough. Whether they will succeed is another question.
If they give up the exclusivity of their own titles and move on to software-only like Sega (or maybe a combination of their own hardware platform + publishing to other platforms), they might still be great in the industry, but there'd be many alongside them.
I think if they want to remain a giant, they'd continue with what they do and strive for a next breakthrough. Whether they will succeed is another question.
If they give up the exclusivity of their own titles and move on to software-only like Sega (or maybe a combination of their own hardware platform + publishing to other platforms), they might still be great in the industry, but there'd be many alongside them.
Following the Sega path would not be a good idea IMHO.
They would be like you said one game editor among many, wouldn't have control over the platform and loose intimate knowledge of the system games runs on.
And last but not least, they'd loose media coverage and brand power. There are only three big console brand, they get free media coverage when they sneeze while Sega happened to be talk about from time to time, when someone remember they still exists.
Sega had no choice, it reconverting or die. Nintendo don't have to (yet) and I hope they won't. IMHO, it's just typical handwaiving of greedy short-sighted investor that want a higher ROI, now, regardless of what's better for the company. Yeah the mobile game pie is larger then the console one but would the marketshare achievable by Nintendo's game be bigger than on an exclusive console ?
And last but not least, they'd loose media coverage and brand power. There are only three big console brand, they get free media coverage when they sneeze while Sega happened to be talk about from time to time, when someone remember they still exists.
Sega had no choice, it reconverting or die. Nintendo don't have to (yet) and I hope they won't. IMHO, it's just typical handwaiving of greedy short-sighted investor that want a higher ROI, now, regardless of what's better for the company. Yeah the mobile game pie is larger then the console one but would the marketshare achievable by Nintendo's game be bigger than on an exclusive console ?
I think the app store can definitely support games that are $20 or $30. Already Square has released several titles approaching $20 in price, and they have been very successful.
Nintendo is leaving money on the table because of NIH (not invented here) syndrome and their shareholders have a right to be disappointed.
Nintendo is leaving money on the table because of NIH (not invented here) syndrome and their shareholders have a right to be disappointed.
Calls for Nintendo to produce for iOS sound like those criticisms of Apple in the 90s where pundits suggest they ship Windows machines.
Nintendo is all about their franchises, and millions buy their consoles just to play Zelda or Mario. They'd dilute their brand and cannibalize their console sales if they began producing for iOS.
Nintendo is all about their franchises, and millions buy their consoles just to play Zelda or Mario. They'd dilute their brand and cannibalize their console sales if they began producing for iOS.
Or as an economist might put it: demand is highly elastic with regard to price.
From what you are saying it sounds like you'd buy both. Also, in the context of kids; people should be thinking of the iPod touch as the direct competitor to the GameBoy and a lot of kids have iPods.
I have a hard time believing that casual games are "the future" and that high end gaming isn't going to continue being a major force.
We're really going to live in a future with incredible technology and not have amazing total-immersion environments?
Casual games are reaching an untapped audience via iOS and facebook, but there are hundreds of millions of people who want the most advanced games that are available. Are we really going to be too lazy to put down the ipad and walk down the hall to the holodeck?
We're really going to live in a future with incredible technology and not have amazing total-immersion environments?
Casual games are reaching an untapped audience via iOS and facebook, but there are hundreds of millions of people who want the most advanced games that are available. Are we really going to be too lazy to put down the ipad and walk down the hall to the holodeck?
I think it's that casual gaming is a rapidly growing niche and the gold rush is still on. So it gets all the press and the inevitable conclusion that there must be something that it will replace, which is true in the sense that people have a finite amount of time to do things, but how many gamers do you know who are playing little other than Angry Birds or whatever the hell else these days?
Portable gaming might be a different bag though. Those are largely regarded as time-wasters anyway, and some of the titles you see on Wii-Ware and DSi are also available on App Store and Android Market (e.g. And Yet It Moves), so clearly someone sees an intersection there. I regard portable gaming consoles as mainly for kids personally, and I don't think there is direct competition but time will tell.
Portable gaming might be a different bag though. Those are largely regarded as time-wasters anyway, and some of the titles you see on Wii-Ware and DSi are also available on App Store and Android Market (e.g. And Yet It Moves), so clearly someone sees an intersection there. I regard portable gaming consoles as mainly for kids personally, and I don't think there is direct competition but time will tell.
>I regard portable gaming consoles as mainly for kids personally
I strongly disagree. Consoles these days are mainly about pushing polygons and being a cinematic experience. Handheld games (as in DS and PSP) usually allow developers to be a bit more creative while still offering an experience similar to what we've come to expect on console and PC games: hours of content with things like plot and heaps of content to motivate us to keep playing.
When you buy an iOS game, you can expect maybe 20 levels at 3 minutes each or 100 levels at 30 seconds each. There's no real reason to complete these games, and you'll probably only beat them because you have nothing better to do. DS and PSP games are probably best described as "toilet games". That is, they're for when you have loads of time to waste and there's no rush to finish up. You want to keep playing these games, whereas iOS games are for when you want whatever you're waiting for to start.
If anything, the indie game market on PC is comparable to the current handheld market. They're full games that aren't meant to dethrone the big budget games, but they're instead a good way to tide you over until the next big release, with maybe a few spectacular titles in between. iOS and Android games are more like flash games, and while they're extremely popular today, I expect the market to decline without fully collapsing. People will always want to play these little time-wasters, but they'll stick with what's familiar and not actively search for anything new.
I strongly disagree. Consoles these days are mainly about pushing polygons and being a cinematic experience. Handheld games (as in DS and PSP) usually allow developers to be a bit more creative while still offering an experience similar to what we've come to expect on console and PC games: hours of content with things like plot and heaps of content to motivate us to keep playing.
When you buy an iOS game, you can expect maybe 20 levels at 3 minutes each or 100 levels at 30 seconds each. There's no real reason to complete these games, and you'll probably only beat them because you have nothing better to do. DS and PSP games are probably best described as "toilet games". That is, they're for when you have loads of time to waste and there's no rush to finish up. You want to keep playing these games, whereas iOS games are for when you want whatever you're waiting for to start.
If anything, the indie game market on PC is comparable to the current handheld market. They're full games that aren't meant to dethrone the big budget games, but they're instead a good way to tide you over until the next big release, with maybe a few spectacular titles in between. iOS and Android games are more like flash games, and while they're extremely popular today, I expect the market to decline without fully collapsing. People will always want to play these little time-wasters, but they'll stick with what's familiar and not actively search for anything new.
I suspect you're right about the basic nature of iOS and Android, but only half-right about portable consoles at least historically. Portable consoles have also filled the 'nothing better to do' niche in the past (Tetris was hugely successful on Gameboy) and this is where I expect they'll face stiff competition from iOS and Android.
We'll just see less crap on portable consoles, and the players that put out quality titles won't be affected a great deal.
We'll just see less crap on portable consoles, and the players that put out quality titles won't be affected a great deal.
I certainly agree that the nature of games/gaming devices (especially portables) is changing, but I question whether it behooves Nintendo to be a follower.
I'm constantly annoyed by the fact that I can't use my Wii as a networked media interface to my TV and that it doesn't support HD. But I've never regretted purchasing the Wii, since there are so many games that are just plain fun, many with nearly unlimited replay ability (Wii Sports:Golf).
Much like Apple, Nintendo has a legacy of software-hardware tie-in. It's worked well and I can't see why they would easily cede the hardware aspect to Apple.
I'm constantly annoyed by the fact that I can't use my Wii as a networked media interface to my TV and that it doesn't support HD. But I've never regretted purchasing the Wii, since there are so many games that are just plain fun, many with nearly unlimited replay ability (Wii Sports:Golf).
Much like Apple, Nintendo has a legacy of software-hardware tie-in. It's worked well and I can't see why they would easily cede the hardware aspect to Apple.
>Much like Apple, Nintendo has a legacy of software-hardware tie-in.
This is the most important point in a nutshell. Shigeru Miyamoto can decide that the next Mario game should have a mechanic that allows little sisters to point a wand at the screen and collect star bits while the older brother does the "hard" stuff, and Nintendo can create the hardware to bring this to life. (I'm not saying that's the history of the Wii, just that it's Nintendo's competitive advantage.)
This is the most important point in a nutshell. Shigeru Miyamoto can decide that the next Mario game should have a mechanic that allows little sisters to point a wand at the screen and collect star bits while the older brother does the "hard" stuff, and Nintendo can create the hardware to bring this to life. (I'm not saying that's the history of the Wii, just that it's Nintendo's competitive advantage.)
Nintendo needs to make it as easy to make and sell games on their hardware as it is for developers to make cell phone apps.
Without that, their small exclusive library won't be able to compete with an army of developers making all types of games on iOS and Android. Developers not only make games, but they promote a platform by showing their friends their games/apps, and doing marketing to get sales. Anything that goes viral is great advertisement not only for the app/game, but also for the platform.
Whoever controls the developers WINS. I thought Steve Ballmer also knew that, but his actions(or lack of action in Mobile) speak louder than repetitive words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
Without that, their small exclusive library won't be able to compete with an army of developers making all types of games on iOS and Android. Developers not only make games, but they promote a platform by showing their friends their games/apps, and doing marketing to get sales. Anything that goes viral is great advertisement not only for the app/game, but also for the platform.
Whoever controls the developers WINS. I thought Steve Ballmer also knew that, but his actions(or lack of action in Mobile) speak louder than repetitive words... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE
This would be the stupidest thing Nintendo could do. Ever.
There's a market for phones, and there's a market for consoles and handheld games consoles. The games on each platform are also completely different -- as they should be. Casual gaming is great, but the market for real games is also great.
Not everything is a zero sum game.
There's a market for phones, and there's a market for consoles and handheld games consoles. The games on each platform are also completely different -- as they should be. Casual gaming is great, but the market for real games is also great.
Not everything is a zero sum game.
Same was said about Sega. Controlling hardware consoles and nurturing brand new ecosystems is no longer a winning proposition in today's market. There's too much competition and title lifespans are shorter. By the time Nintendo releases a new gaming console it's already obsolete. They need to ship games, not cling to outdated models.
Are you saying Sega is a model for success? The same Sega that was so bankrupt after going software only that it was bought by a pachinko machine company (Sammy) that eventually gutted the game development teams to right the sinking ship? That Sega? I can't tell if your comment is meant to be sarcastic.
Nintendo needs to be an Apple (which it arguably already is), not a Sega. Keep the hardware software vertical integration. It's Nintendo's most valuable asset.
This is a Michael Dell "sell Apple and return the money to the investors" moment. Nintendo isn't the most profitable company in the world for a quarter and it's time to give up and start share cropping? Ridiculous.
Nintendo needs to be an Apple (which it arguably already is), not a Sega. Keep the hardware software vertical integration. It's Nintendo's most valuable asset.
This is a Michael Dell "sell Apple and return the money to the investors" moment. Nintendo isn't the most profitable company in the world for a quarter and it's time to give up and start share cropping? Ridiculous.
this is a solved problem - the PCIe interconnect for desktop graphics and MxM for laptop graphics give an extremely tested and viable way to upgrade graphics cards.
Hell, even the latest Sony Vaio Z comes with an external graphics card (http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/sony-vaio-z-with-external-graph...)
It is completely viable to create an upgradable platform that does not obsolete itself by the time it is released - the problem is not technology itself, it is the console manufacturer management notion that it is a good idea to have planned obsoletion every 3 years or so to get people to buy new hardware.
Give me an upgradeable PS3 with an SSD and Steam (rather than the 10 times slower Bluray) - and tell me that it wont kill desktop gaming.
Nintendo, MS and Sony will be killed by mobile gaming - the latest Kal El pre-production silicon has a 12-core GPU and a 4-core CPU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvaDtshLY8&feature=playe...
Just a matter of time before Crysis 2 works on your big screen TV through mini HDMI - what remains to be figured out are the controllers
It is completely viable to create an upgradable platform that does not obsolete itself by the time it is released - the problem is not technology itself, it is the console manufacturer management notion that it is a good idea to have planned obsoletion every 3 years or so to get people to buy new hardware.
Give me an upgradeable PS3 with an SSD and Steam (rather than the 10 times slower Bluray) - and tell me that it wont kill desktop gaming.
Nintendo, MS and Sony will be killed by mobile gaming - the latest Kal El pre-production silicon has a 12-core GPU and a 4-core CPU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvaDtshLY8&feature=playe...
Just a matter of time before Crysis 2 works on your big screen TV through mini HDMI - what remains to be figured out are the controllers
It won't kill desktop gaming. Upgradeable consoles have been tried before and they don't work. When only a percentage of your customers upgrade you just fragmented your market. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to buy PS3 games if you had to check the box to see which of 3 different graphics cards were supported?
this is accepted practice. All games come with an indication of minimum system recommendations ("nvidia 9800 or greater").
Customers already accept that they cannot play certain games (Crysis?) if their system is not upto mark. Windows 7 has the notion of a graphics "score" as well to figure out whether to turn on Aero.
The only reason why this is not done is forced obsoletion - the customer behavior has existed for a decade or more.
Customers already accept that they cannot play certain games (Crysis?) if their system is not upto mark. Windows 7 has the notion of a graphics "score" as well to figure out whether to turn on Aero.
The only reason why this is not done is forced obsoletion - the customer behavior has existed for a decade or more.
Actually, Nintendo's old cartridge-based games already did this to some extent. You were simply plugging in a circuit board, which could, and often did have additional processors, memory, etc on it.
Usually they didn't. Zelda was the first NES cartridge with battery backed memory for save games, which was unique at the time, but all games still had to run on the 6502 processor.
Well, that's total crap.
The Wii, X360 and the PS3 have been around for 5+ years, and will be around for at least 1-2 more. They've all sold a crapload of units. Remember all those articles about Nintendo selling a bazillion Wiis? They made truckloads of money.
Obsolete in 5-7 years is a pretty good product life time.
The Wii, X360 and the PS3 have been around for 5+ years, and will be around for at least 1-2 more. They've all sold a crapload of units. Remember all those articles about Nintendo selling a bazillion Wiis? They made truckloads of money.
Obsolete in 5-7 years is a pretty good product life time.
I think Microsoft and Sony currently dominate "real" games. Most of what runs and plays on DS units can run and play on iPhones.
I think the one leg up Nintendo has over Apple is that no one is going to buy their under 14 year old an iPhone. But for anyone older, a iPhone would make more economical sense.
I think the one leg up Nintendo has over Apple is that no one is going to buy their under 14 year old an iPhone. But for anyone older, a iPhone would make more economical sense.
"Most of what runs and plays on DS units can run and play on iPhones."
All of what can run and play on a DS unit can run and play on an iPhone, if you're talking about pixel pushing horsepower. But a lot of it will never play correctly (in terms of gameplay feel) because of the iPhone's lack of any physical controller.
There are quite a few games (eg. Plants vs Zombies) that work great on a touchscreen, but there's an entire universe of games that really need a physical controller to feel right -- which is why many, many DS games are d-pad controller focused for main gameplay despite the touchscreen being available as an option. It'll be a horribly sad day when Nintendo (and to a lesser degree, Sony) concede the entire market to touchscreen-only devices.
As a for-example, you will never play a true Mario Brothers platformer game on an iPhone. You simply can't capture the feel of that experience on a touchscreen-only device.
All of what can run and play on a DS unit can run and play on an iPhone, if you're talking about pixel pushing horsepower. But a lot of it will never play correctly (in terms of gameplay feel) because of the iPhone's lack of any physical controller.
There are quite a few games (eg. Plants vs Zombies) that work great on a touchscreen, but there's an entire universe of games that really need a physical controller to feel right -- which is why many, many DS games are d-pad controller focused for main gameplay despite the touchscreen being available as an option. It'll be a horribly sad day when Nintendo (and to a lesser degree, Sony) concede the entire market to touchscreen-only devices.
As a for-example, you will never play a true Mario Brothers platformer game on an iPhone. You simply can't capture the feel of that experience on a touchscreen-only device.
They could sell input devices along with their games. Most mobile devices aren't "touchscreen-only" devices. Android, for example, supports bluetooth and therefore wiimotes as input with the proper IME app. Since Honeycomb, you can also use bluetooth and USB mice and other USB peripherals, such as PS3 controllers.
I refuse to play any game that uses a virtual d-pad on a touch device. It's the absolute worst of both worlds.
It would be nice if more Android manufacturers could create devices like the Sony Ericsson Xperia Play - phones with physical game controls. Sadly it seems to be a dead-end, since developers won't rewrite games for a single handset.
People don't play Call of Duty on a DS. Most of those DS games don't require precision or complicated dual analog stick controls. There's no reason why something like Pokemon can't run on an iPhone with good controls.
Well, I should hope "those" DS games don't require complicated dual analog stick controls since the DS only has one input pad (though some games do use the 4 cross buttons as something of a second dpad) and it is digital.
Pokemon could arguably work okay on a touchscreen-only device, but that's one title cherry picked out of thousands, there are tons of DS games that would suffer greatly by being stuffed into a touchscreen control scheme, and that includes lots of games that are nothing like "Call of Duty". It isn't about how complicated the control scheme is, it is about the need for actual physical switch controls. Even games with dead-simple control schemes like Bomberman or Tetris have this issue (and yes, I know there is Tetris for the iOS -- it is an abomination that proves my point nicely, IMO).
Pokemon could arguably work okay on a touchscreen-only device, but that's one title cherry picked out of thousands, there are tons of DS games that would suffer greatly by being stuffed into a touchscreen control scheme, and that includes lots of games that are nothing like "Call of Duty". It isn't about how complicated the control scheme is, it is about the need for actual physical switch controls. Even games with dead-simple control schemes like Bomberman or Tetris have this issue (and yes, I know there is Tetris for the iOS -- it is an abomination that proves my point nicely, IMO).
Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this. Admittedly it's a bit tough to play FPSs on the iPhone still.
I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly.
There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen.
There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.
I've played Tetris for iPod (with the circular wheel) and that was playable and enjoyable. Controls just need to be adapted properly.
There's no reason the D-pad and physical buttons are required for good controls. Just because current game ports have bad touchscreen control implementations doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, the bad implementations are probably due to the fact a lot of them naively try to simulate DS-style controls on a touch screen.
There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games. It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras.
"Actually the DS has a touch screen which allows it to almost replicate the dual-analog sticks. So there are FPS games for the DS that use this."
With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer.
"There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games."
Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen.
Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under.
"It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras."
When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).
With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer.
"There are tons of iOS games that utilize the iphones touchscreen perfectly for good controls, so it's absolutely possible to design good controls into games."
Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen.
Yes, you could produce a version of New Super Mario Bros that used a virtual touchscreen joystick, but it wouldn't be the same game, at all, because the physical nature of the controller has a huge impact on overall gameplay. Nintendo above all other companies recognizes this (thankfully), which is why they have continued to find success even after down periods in their hardware cycles. If they gave all that up and just focused on the iOS market, that would be the worst thing to happen to gaming since Looking Glass went under.
"It's just like when the DS came out and they started designing games to take advantage of dual screens, touch screens, microphones, and cameras."
When the DS first came out, games went crazy trying to support the touchscreen because of the novelty, yes, but well within a year of the system's launch they started to pull back on that and produce games with largely classical controls that only used the accessories for little flourishes and not for main gameplay. Why? Because there are a LOT of games that require physical switch controllers to play correctly. (The same applies to the Wii where they went nuts with motion control and eventually started using that primarily as a flourish for most games, because not all games are a natural fit for motion control).
> With that I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. IMO just because you can slap a couple of "virtual joysticks" on the screen and pull input data from them does not mean you have a system that replicates dual-analog sticks, and I say that as both a programmer and a gamer.
They do almost replicate the joysticks. I never said it's a good replacement.
> Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen.
You can make similar arguments against the PS3 or Xbox controllers for not having GPS, Touchscreen, or microphone inputs for controllers. Games take advantage of certain controls because they are made available, if they aren't available, you can adapt.
For the Wii and DS if they started abandoning the new ways of inputs and controls, it's only because the old style controls are still there. It's hard to change the way controls are designed and adapt to new inputs so obviously they'd stick to the standard controls if they are still there.
They do almost replicate the joysticks. I never said it's a good replacement.
> Like I said, for some games, yes, you can have good touchscreen controls. But by limiting the system to only touchscreen controls you're cutting out a giant amount of games that could otherwise run fine on the hardware but whose controls do not naturally map to touchscreen.
You can make similar arguments against the PS3 or Xbox controllers for not having GPS, Touchscreen, or microphone inputs for controllers. Games take advantage of certain controls because they are made available, if they aren't available, you can adapt.
For the Wii and DS if they started abandoning the new ways of inputs and controls, it's only because the old style controls are still there. It's hard to change the way controls are designed and adapt to new inputs so obviously they'd stick to the standard controls if they are still there.
No need to buy a kid an iPhone when an iPod will do.
Ipod Touch still costs more than a DS Lite, and isn't really a kid-focused device.
But you can do so much more with it. Music + Connecting with others + gaming + videos + everything a dev is coming up with.
And you don't have to pay 40$ for a game, only 1-15$. As they said in Penny Arcade: Who has more fun, you with a 40$ game or me with 40 one dollar games?
And you don't have to pay 40$ for a game, only 1-15$. As they said in Penny Arcade: Who has more fun, you with a 40$ game or me with 40 one dollar games?
The kid will most likely make the decision on this one. iPod touches are not marketed to them. They don't care about apps or watching mobile porn. They want the games they see ads for. Their parents will succumb because the DS has a smaller up front cost. Why risk the extra money for the extra features the kid didn't even beg his parents for?
In addition to that kids usually know exactly what games they want and don't care if they can get 50 games they've never heard about for $1. You don't reason with kids. You get them what they ask for if they deserve it.
In addition to that kids usually know exactly what games they want and don't care if they can get 50 games they've never heard about for $1. You don't reason with kids. You get them what they ask for if they deserve it.
True. My son wanted his own "Angry Bird machine" and he got it. :)
You sir, are rich.
There's so much cool hardware on the way to sense-o-matic virtual reality and the holodeck that I don't think Nintendo has anything to worry about. They are gaining experience even from the relative failures (still early to call it for 3DS in my opinion) that put it generations ahead of the competition.
Would you advise Apple to drop everything and make software now that the market is mature? Heck no, you would want to see what they're doing to create the next hardware market out of thin air.
Nintendo is similarly specialized and it would be a big mistake to bet the company outside its core competency. The hybrid HD/tablet experience they have for the next generation will probably win again, and sell tons of hardware.
Would you advise Apple to drop everything and make software now that the market is mature? Heck no, you would want to see what they're doing to create the next hardware market out of thin air.
Nintendo is similarly specialized and it would be a big mistake to bet the company outside its core competency. The hybrid HD/tablet experience they have for the next generation will probably win again, and sell tons of hardware.
Nintendo should hedge their bets and do both for now. As I see it there are 3 possible outcomes:
1) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales decline
2) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales remain flat
3) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales increase
#3 is very unlikely. Most people just don't want to charge and carry around multiple devices if they don't absolutely have to. For those who do chances are they might also have a SmartPhone. Sell them Mario for $39.99 and $9.99 on iOS. They'll buy it. Don't do straight ports. Make unique touch-centric iOS games.
#2 isn't good enough. Nintendo just launched a new platform. Sales should be increasing (dramatically) not staying flat. Developers probably aren't going to flock to a fledgling platform just because it has Nintendo's name on it. (GameCube, N64)
#1 is the most likely and Nintendo doesn't have a SmartPhone. They wouldn't have released the 3DS if they had one in the pipeline. They're probably several years away and no matter what they do it will likely not be able to compete with Apple, Samsung, HTC, etc so it will have a small installed base. The same problem the PSP phone has today. They also have an OS problem. They would have to use Android, probably heavily customized, and launch their own Android market app because you can't put Google's Android Market on a device targeted at kids. Then what? It's not a great portable gaming machine and it's not a great SmartPhone. Doomed to fail.
Doesn't hurt that Apple would probably throw a small fortune at Nintendo to develop exclusively for iOS. Apple and Nintendo share a lot of the same values. Seems like a perfect fit to me.
1) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales decline
2) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales remain flat
3) Dedicated gaming hardware/software sales increase
#3 is very unlikely. Most people just don't want to charge and carry around multiple devices if they don't absolutely have to. For those who do chances are they might also have a SmartPhone. Sell them Mario for $39.99 and $9.99 on iOS. They'll buy it. Don't do straight ports. Make unique touch-centric iOS games.
#2 isn't good enough. Nintendo just launched a new platform. Sales should be increasing (dramatically) not staying flat. Developers probably aren't going to flock to a fledgling platform just because it has Nintendo's name on it. (GameCube, N64)
#1 is the most likely and Nintendo doesn't have a SmartPhone. They wouldn't have released the 3DS if they had one in the pipeline. They're probably several years away and no matter what they do it will likely not be able to compete with Apple, Samsung, HTC, etc so it will have a small installed base. The same problem the PSP phone has today. They also have an OS problem. They would have to use Android, probably heavily customized, and launch their own Android market app because you can't put Google's Android Market on a device targeted at kids. Then what? It's not a great portable gaming machine and it's not a great SmartPhone. Doomed to fail.
Doesn't hurt that Apple would probably throw a small fortune at Nintendo to develop exclusively for iOS. Apple and Nintendo share a lot of the same values. Seems like a perfect fit to me.
Hm, interesting. Perhaps Nintendo could come up with something completely new. I mean, I don't see them creating games for phones - they are not under pressure to create a classical smartphone, so they can go completely crazy with their devices.
That said, if I remember correctly they were already deep in trouble before the Wii, and the Wii was mostly luck. Some engineer came up with the Wii Remote and they changed everything in the last second.
That said, if I remember correctly they were already deep in trouble before the Wii, and the Wii was mostly luck. Some engineer came up with the Wii Remote and they changed everything in the last second.
"Some engineer came up with the Wii Remote and they changed everything in the last second."
Where do you get that from? That's not what happened at all. The Wii was a result of a coordinated effort to redefine the user interface and had been in planning stages for years. They spent months refining and iterating on how they wanted their control to work, but the vision of motion control and a pointer were a fundamental part of the Revolution project.
The Wii was certainly luck to some extent, but it was also a calculated move based on a belief that there was a new way to excite ("delight" as Iwata calls it) players in motion/pointer controls and that they should follow that path, despite the competition going with HD graphics over controller innovation.
Where do you get that from? That's not what happened at all. The Wii was a result of a coordinated effort to redefine the user interface and had been in planning stages for years. They spent months refining and iterating on how they wanted their control to work, but the vision of motion control and a pointer were a fundamental part of the Revolution project.
The Wii was certainly luck to some extent, but it was also a calculated move based on a belief that there was a new way to excite ("delight" as Iwata calls it) players in motion/pointer controls and that they should follow that path, despite the competition going with HD graphics over controller innovation.
Too lazy to Google, it is just what I remember from reading the news back then. Maybe they really refined it for months, but the world had been waiting for news from Nintendo for years?
I personally believe Nintendo should make a larger portable game station or tablet, that can also play movies and cartoons
The 3 years old kids of my sister, play puzzle games and watch toons My sister uses here iPad to browse the net and watch movies
The iPad is an entertainment device (Games + Movies + Music + Internet) Nintendo need to make an equivalent competitor that is also less fragile, I would definitely buy one
The 3 years old kids of my sister, play puzzle games and watch toons My sister uses here iPad to browse the net and watch movies
The iPad is an entertainment device (Games + Movies + Music + Internet) Nintendo need to make an equivalent competitor that is also less fragile, I would definitely buy one
How would you make an iPad less fragile? It's already a pretty durable hunk of metal. The only thing I think you could do would be to wrap it in rubberized plastic like a toughbook, but then you'd end up with a 2" thick brick of rubber that nobody would want to buy.
Well, after I wrote my message above, I remembered the new nintendo console, so i looked it up online and watched its demo videos on youtube
I now think the Wii U can be what I meant if they can make the portable screen control play movie and browse the net, it will be exactly what I had in my mind
And it does look a lot less fragile than in iPad, its a controller built for abuse :)
The Wii U can really be the console that take me back to hardcore gaming
I now think the Wii U can be what I meant if they can make the portable screen control play movie and browse the net, it will be exactly what I had in my mind
And it does look a lot less fragile than in iPad, its a controller built for abuse :)
The Wii U can really be the console that take me back to hardcore gaming
Almost all of you forget what the costumers want. That is to play games on the device they carry around the whole day.
A handheld is as good as a big console. The phone in your pocket is the market.
And quality and fun matters on an iPhone or Droid too. Nintendo could help here with bringing games to the biggest market.
They won't kill themselves. It's either some cool ports for 10$ to the iPhone or selling less games to the DS because of the high prices and pirate modules. They can make new stuff for the DS and bring classics to the App Store or do special versions for it.
Touch controls are no problem. Only because some hardcore gamers have a problem with it doesn't mean to make no games with touch controls.
Zenonia shows how a Zelda game would be like.
I got nothing from Nintendo since the SNES because they suck so hard compared to the rest. They lack creating beautiful devices, capable of creating beautiful worlds.
Nintendo games always look like so much behind and that took the fun out for me. My wife has a DS and the Zelda games lack gameplay and convincing worlds. It's sad. So much potential but not used.
Nevertheless I see great potential when they would do something for the other side. It could help them to improve their own hardware.
A handheld is as good as a big console. The phone in your pocket is the market.
And quality and fun matters on an iPhone or Droid too. Nintendo could help here with bringing games to the biggest market.
They won't kill themselves. It's either some cool ports for 10$ to the iPhone or selling less games to the DS because of the high prices and pirate modules. They can make new stuff for the DS and bring classics to the App Store or do special versions for it.
Touch controls are no problem. Only because some hardcore gamers have a problem with it doesn't mean to make no games with touch controls.
Zenonia shows how a Zelda game would be like.
I got nothing from Nintendo since the SNES because they suck so hard compared to the rest. They lack creating beautiful devices, capable of creating beautiful worlds.
Nintendo games always look like so much behind and that took the fun out for me. My wife has a DS and the Zelda games lack gameplay and convincing worlds. It's sad. So much potential but not used.
Nevertheless I see great potential when they would do something for the other side. It could help them to improve their own hardware.
There is a place for handheld game consoles. Hopefully people won't abandon them because lower-quality phone games are cheaper, but in short- there's not a single game I've ever played on a handheld that would NOT be MISERABLE on a phone, touch-screen or no.
Case in point, look at the recent final fantasy ports (I, II, Tactics). The controls are terrible. Absolutely terrible. I nerd raged and wrote some code to verify that multi-touch state machines are not that hard.
>> Nintendo|Apple brought home gaming|computing to the masses with the NES|Macintosh.
>> Nintendo|Apple revolutionized mobile gaming|phones with the Game Boy|iPhone.
>> Okay I run out of steam here but Nintendo put out the Wii which halted the home console race-to-the-bottom, while Apple changed portable music with the iPod.
The above hints at how Nintendo and Apple play similar games. They're very skilled at disrupting industries, they create products that appeal to consumers' emotions (whether by nostalgia or design aesthetic), and they don't make dumb business decisions.
I'm not saying Nintendo is fine. It's clear that Nintendo faces stiff competition, but that's true of any consumer electronics company. What, Nintendo only sold 4.3 million 3DSes in its first five months? That's not much worse than the 5.27 million DSes they sold six months after launch [0]...or the 4 million iPhones 2Gs Apple sold 6 months after a price cut. [1]
Nintendo is a great company. The 3DS price drop shows they're considering their future place in consumer electronics. Marco's comments on their situation aren't novel or insightful, so this is kinda-sorta a fluff article (one of several we've seen recently from him and Gruber).
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_sales
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter_s...