Support NeoGAF

[Barack Lesnar]

*snip*

Great post & analysis! Love me some pie graphs

 

[Justagamer80]

They are until now a software developer, hardware is a different beast, it needs exclusives. Steam boxes will never lift off the ground if they don't get exclusives that make you buy the hardware. When talking about software, of course you would like your game in as many platforms as possible.

Except Valve isn't focusing on selling hardware like MS/Sony/Nintendo are. They're focused on one thing: STEAM. The hardware like the OS is there to grow Steam. Nothing more or less. And the way you grow Steam the most is by selling software which is what Sony has realized for the Playstation brand and what Nintendo should have realized long ago.

 

[Atram]

The Pokemon TCG for Tablets, same pricing model as hearthstone from Blizzard.

This would be a good first step.

 

[wrowa]

Nintendo releasing games for PS4/Xbox One is not much more than a wet dream of certain people, who would like to see Nintendo's game on their favorite platforms. Even if Nintendo stops developing new home console hardware, it's unlikely that developing software for Sony's and Microsoft's consoles would be a consequence of that.

Anyone who has followed Nintendo's business strategies for a while, is aware that Nintendo really isn't keen to follow the arms race of ever growing game studios, exploding budgets and profits margins that are - compared to the taken risks - not really worth it. After all, this is one of the reasons Nintendo waited too long to expand their studios, which is the reason why their studios weren't able to put out a meaningful amount of HD games in the past year. And now that same company is supposed to embrace an even more expensive and challenging development platform? I don't see that.

Iwata's statements also don't imply anything like that - to the contrary. The challenges he mentions -- high game prices for example -- can't be solved by entering a market that works exactly the same as the one they operated in for the last three decades. When he talks about the lifestyle changes of today, he strictly refers to the smartphone/tablet market.

And for good reason. The average smartphone games are made by small teams with relatively low budgets, but with the potential to make huge profits. That's much more to Nintendo's liking. Of course, hitting gold on iOS or Android is difficult and often dependent on luck -- but Nintendo has the kind of IPs that would guarantee them a lot of attention. They wouldn't need to worry about a lack of exposure. And, honestly, look at the kind of money Candy Crush or Puzzle x Dragons generate on smartphones. I don't think Nintendo can afford not to try to replicate such a success.

But, here's the big but, I don't think that smartphone support and handheld support exclude each other. The 3DS isn't as successful as Nintendo wished it to be and it's not selling as good as its predecessors either, but a simple fact remains: Its sales are still pretty good. There's no reason to abandon the platform.

And there's no need to, either. If you look at the kind of games that are successful on smartphones and the kind of games that are successful on the 3DS, you'll realize: It's not the same type of game.

NSMB or Mario 3D Land would definitely sell a good amount of copies on iOS, but they wouldn't be game-changing successes many people think they would be. The successful iOS games are the ones don't need to use bullshit like virtual buttons and dpads -- but a Mario platformer would be entirely dependent on it. Games that are really successful are entirely focused on "native" touch-screen controls; they are easy to use, simple to play. You really don't need simulated controller buttons to play Candy Crush. Of course, controller support arrived on iOS, but controllers will remain an oddity on smartphones for the foreseeable future.

So, what Nintendo needs is software specifically tailored to the needs of smartphones. Mario: The Endless Runner or Pokemon: The Puzzle Game come to mind. Or microgame collections like Wario Ware. Stuff that's not really in competition with the software they put out on 3DS, that might make people want to buy the handheld games too and that have the potential to make a lot of money.

Nintendo should take a close look at Puzzle x Dragons. It makes a ton of money each and every day for GungHo, it's a F2P game "done right" in the vein that would also work with Nintendo's philosophy -- and it has cute monsters. Nintendo wouldn't have any problems today if they released "Puzzle x Pokemon" two years ago. It's a chance they need to take before its too late.

 

[TIGER-COOL]

There is little significant difference between an "innovation" and an "invention" here. The platforms I mentioned were hardly obscure, and Atari was an industry leader. Seeing what did and did not work with the analog stick, the control disc, etc allowed later companies (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft) to improve on them.

Since you apparently won't take my word for it... Here's a PBS article on the difference in the terms "invention", and "innovation".

INVENTION VS. INNOVATION: THE DIFFERENCE
In its purest sense, “invention“ can be defined as the creation of a product or introduction of a process for the first time. “Innovation,” on the other hand, occurs if someone improves on or makes a significant contribution to an existing product, process or service.

Funny, I hadn't even read this article when I made my last post, but this should help support my analogy.

is the iPod’s distinction as a defining example of innovation warranted? Absolutely.

What made the iPod and the music ecosystem it engendered innovative wasn’t that it was the first portable music device. It wasn’t that it was the first MP3 player. And it wasn’t that it was the first company to make thousands of songs immediately available to millions of users. What made Apple innovative was that it combined all of these elements — design, ergonomics and ease of use — in a single device, and then tied it directly into a platform that effortlessly kept that device updated with music.

Apple invented nothing. Its innovation was creating an easy-to-use ecosystem that unified music discovery, delivery and device. And, in the process, they revolutionized the music industry.

So, should be simple enough to apply that to our discussion about videogame industry innovation.

Here's the link I'm sourcing (http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2012/03/the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation086/). If you're not satisfied, you can do some more research on the terms on your own. Like I said, it's a common misconception.

 

[daxgame]

dem shares! Ready to buy!

 

[Ty4on]

Time of release is irrelevant to the comment you responded to. Gamecube was released as a direct competitor to the PS2, and as such it was not underpowered in comparison to it. For all intents and purposes, all 3 systems were pretty much at parity with each other. There wasn't a giant gulf between them like we see with PS4/Xbone and Wii U or PS3/360 and Wii.

Dem rose tinted glasses. The gulf between the PS2 and Xbox was absolutely huge. Bigger than PS1/N64 probably with the Xbox beating it everywhere. The Dreamcast even had the PS2 beat in some areas.

The Xbox was almost half a gen ahead.

 

[udivision]

The Pokemon TCG for Tablets, same pricing model as hearthstone from Blizzard.

This would be a good first step.

Heck, we have an official Pokemon TCG Online. I wouldn't put it past the Pokemon Compnay. But the Pokemon Company is not Nintendo.

 

[mantidor]

Except Valve isn't focusing on selling hardware like MS/Sony/Nintendo are. They're focused on one thing: STEAM. The hardware like the OS is there to grow Steam. Nothing more or less. And the way you grow Steam the most is by selling software which is what Sony has realized for the Playstation brand and what Nintendo should have realized long ago.

Of course. This has nothing to do with Valve releasing some titles on the PS3/X360, which they would likely won't do anymore.

The original point was that if Sony, MS and Valve release multiplats them why won't Nintendo, which is obviously a gross generalization, those multiplats are not comparable to Mario on Steam.

 

[jcm]

Do you think they are leaving money on the table by not doing so?

I mean, I get what you're saying. Valve isn't playing along with other similar platforms. But then Nintendo wouldn't be putting games on other companies' handhelds. They would be putting them onto devices they don't make.

Sure that makes sense. I think your basic point, which I agree with, is that there need't be such a bright line between a first party and a third party. It may be sensible for Nintendo to release software on other platforms, without necessarily giving up one or both of their own. There may be other platforms that it doesn't make sense to support.

Of course. This has nothing to do with Valve releasing some titles on the PS3/X360, which they would likely won't do anymore.

If you mean Valve won;t release their titles on XB1/PS4, then I'll bet you're wrong about this.

 

[FiggyCal]

That's true, but Valve doesn't release their games on Origin, do they?

I can see why Nintendo might not want to do it, though I think they're missing out on a huge opportunity. What I don't understand is why Nintendo fans don't want it to happen. If Valve released games on Origin- Steam fans would continue to use Steam and even if they didn't they'd still be buying Valve's games. The world wouldn't implode. If Sony made Playstation Now available on Xbox One- it would turn some heads, but the Sony fans wouldn't be opposed to it I don't think.

 

[Manmademan]

Since you apparently won't take my word for it... Here's a PBS article on the difference in the terms "invention", and "innovation".



Funny, I hadn't even read this article when I made my last post, but this should help support my analogy.



So, should be simple enough to apply that to our discussion about videogame industry innovation.

Here's the link I'm sourcing (http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2012/03/the-difference-between-invention-and-innovation086/). If you're not satisfied, you can do some more research on the terms on your own. Like I said, it's a common misconception.

That's funny, I thought you were "done?"

The Ipod itself was innovative, simply because of the approach. From your own post:

What made Apple innovative was that it combined all of these elements — design, ergonomics and ease of use — in a single device, and then tied it directly into a platform that effortlessly kept that device updated with music.

Apple combined an easy to use player with a software platform that tied the two together. Sony wasn't doing this, creative labs wasn't doing this, etc. It was the ipod and itunes ecosystem as a whole that was the innovation, since no one had thought of it prior. And of course, a hefty dose of the right kind of marketing.

Does this apply to nintendo? Of course not. The console business model existed long before the NES, and I doubt you were speaking of the concept of a console when talking about nintendo being responsible for every innovation in the industry.

The business model of an easy to use platform, with interchangable carts is not nintendo's idea. Nintendo simply improved on what was already there. Was the iphone innovative? sure. Apple had to do a lot to get AT&T on board and jumpstart the business model everyone uses now. But the Iphone 2? the 3g? the 4? the 5? Not really. Apple, like nintendo, hasn't been innovative in years.

The term you're looking for is iterative with nintendo, not innovative. Nintendo did not create most of the devices the console model uses as standard now, nor is their interpretation considered definitive (with the exception of the 4 way D-pad).

 

[BlackJace]

That's funny, I thought you were "done?"

The Ipod itself was innovative, simply because of the approach. From your own post:



Apple combined an easy to use player with a software platform that tied the two together. Sony wasn't doing this, creative labs wasn't doing this, etc. It was the ipod and itunes ecosystem as a whole that was the innovation, since no one had thought of it prior. And of course, a hefty dose of the right kind of marketing.

Does this apply to nintendo? Of course not. The console business model existed long before the NES, and I doubt you were speaking of the concept of a console when talking about nintendo being responsible for every innovation in the industry.

The business model of an easy to use platform, with interchangable carts is not nintendo's idea. Nintendo simply improved on what was already there. Was the iphone innovative? sure. Apple had to do a lot to get AT&T on board and jumpstart the business model everyone uses now. But the Iphone 2? the 3g? the 4? the 5? Not really. Apple, like nintendo, hasn't been innovative in years.

The term you're looking for is iterative with nintendo, not innovative. Nintendo did not create most of the devices the console model uses as standard now, nor is their interpretation considered definitive (with the exception of the 4 way D-pad).

You accuse others of living in a fantasy land, yet you insist on saying completely unfounded things like this.

 

[Manmademan]

You accuse others of living in a fantasy land, yet you insist on saying completely unfounded things like this.

If it's unfounded, then by all means, feel free to refute it.

 

[Justagamer80]

Of course. This has nothing to do with Valve releasing some titles on the PS3/X360, which they would likely won't do anymore.

The original point was that if Sony, MS and Valve release multiplats them why won't Nintendo, which is obviously a gross generalization, those multiplats are not comparable to Mario on Steam.

Wait, you're arguing Valve won't release their first party games on PS4/XBO? Valve cares about making money which they will accomplish by selling games on the PS4/XBO. They will most likely be able to include a Steam registration like they did on the PS3 with Portal 2 and like UPlay/Origin will do with their games. Valve isn't going to go PC/Steambox exclusive for their titles...

 

[funkystudent]

17% is that bad for a business who's core money makers are under heavy attack with almost no hope of a successful counter.

I think Ubisoft lost around that when Watch Dogs got delayed.

 

[Mpl90]

It is radically different for a company that has only built it's own hardware for decades. Again, it's a gross oversimplification to say, "here's a dev kit, have fun". You're talking about thousands of employees at all levels who have no idea how to communicate with outside organizations, have always had input on hardware development to best impact them, etc. So yeah... from Nintendo's perspective, almost EVERYTHING about Xbone and PS4 are radically different.

Again, look at Sega's output after they went third party. They went from making Dreamcast classics that everyone loved to absolute pieces of shit. It was years before they got their act together (and even then, they've never fully gone back to their former glory, but that's another topic).
Nintendo's final output might not be as lousy as Sega's was back in those transition years, but it's still going to be very bumpy. I guarantee it.

So... Nintendo puts out a few rough games. They aren't nearly as good as what they've been releasing on their own systems... buggy, rushed, etc. How does that impact them going forward? Their next round of games? Their employee morale? All of that.

Nintendo going third party isn't some minor undertaking. They're a giant company that, like all giant companies, are slow to react and change. You can give indies a dev kit and they'll churn something out quick and it might even be really good... but that's because indie studios are small and flexible by nature. They can turn and adapt on a dime. At a place like Nintendo though, it's like turning around a battleship.

It sucks sometimes working at a big place like that because you've got all this bureaucracy to move through. Ask anyone who has worked for a large company and they'll probably tell you the same. You've got people who have always done something one way, now suddenly they've got to do it another way. Sometimes you'll find stubborn people who don't want to do it different, or you'll find people who don't understand the difference, etc. That impacts people all the way up and down the chain of command (I can personally attest to that experience, unfortunately). That's part of what company cultures are.

I don't think anyone would be happy with Nintendo going third party. It would likely destroy the company. I doubt they could make the transition and still be the same Nintendo we've always known and loved.

Nintendo releasing games for PS4/Xbox One is not much more than a wet dream of certain people, who would like to see Nintendo's game on their favorite platforms. Even if Nintendo stops developing new home console hardware, it's unlikely that developing software for Sony's and Microsoft's consoles would be a consequence of that.

Anyone who has followed Nintendo's business strategies for a while, is aware that Nintendo really isn't keen to follow the arms race of ever growing game studios, exploding budgets and profits margins that are - compared to the taken risks - not really worth it. After all, this is one of the reasons Nintendo waited too long to expand their studios, which is the reason why their studios weren't able to put out a meaningful amount of HD games in the past year. And now that same company is supposed to embrace an even more expensive and challenging development platform? I don't see that.

Iwata's statements also don't imply anything like that - to the contrary. The challenges he mentions -- high game prices for example -- can't be solved by entering a market that works exactly the same as the one they operated in for the last three decades. When he talks about the lifestyle changes of today, he strictly refers to the smartphone/tablet market.

And for good reason. The average smartphone games are made by small teams with relatively low budgets, but with the potential to make huge profits. That's much more to Nintendo's liking. Of course, hitting gold on iOS or Android is difficult and often dependent on luck -- but Nintendo has the kind of IPs that would guarantee them a lot of attention. They wouldn't need to worry about a lack of exposure. And, honestly, look at the kind of money Candy Crush or Puzzle x Dragons generate on smartphones. I don't think Nintendo can afford not to try to replicate such a success.

But, here's the big but, I don't think that smartphone support and handheld support exclude each other. The 3DS isn't as successful as Nintendo wished it to be and it's not selling as good as its predecessors either, but a simple fact remains: Its sales are still pretty good. There's no reason to abandon the platform.

And there's no need to, either. If you look at the kind of games that are successful on smartphones and the kind of games that are successful on the 3DS, you'll realize: It's not the same type of game.

NSMB or Mario 3D Land would definitely sell a good amount of copies on iOS, but they wouldn't be game-changing successes many people think they would be. The successful iOS games are the ones don't need to use bullshit like virtual buttons and dpads -- but a Mario platformer would be entirely dependent on it. Games that are really successful are entirely focused on "native" touch-screen controls; they are easy to use, simple to play. You really don't need simulated controller buttons to play Candy Crush. Of course, controller support arrived on iOS, but controllers will remain an oddity on smartphones for the foreseeable future.

So, what Nintendo needs is software specifically tailored to the needs of smartphones. Mario: The Endless Runner or Pokemon: The Puzzle Game come to mind. Or microgame collections like Wario Ware. Stuff that's not really in competition with the software they put out on 3DS, that might make people want to buy the handheld games too and that have the potential to make a lot of money.

Nintendo should take a close look at Puzzle x Dragons. It makes a ton of money each and every day for GungHo, it's a F2P game "done right" in the vein that would also work with Nintendo's philosophy -- and it has cute monsters. Nintendo wouldn't have any problems today if they released "Puzzle x Pokemon" two years ago. It's a chance they need to take before its too late.

Good posts. Too many people are seriously underevaluating factors like brand devaluation, deep downsizing, talents leaving, need to adapt your working methods and to working on different external platforms, lower revenues per game due to first party cuts, audiences possible mismatch... Seriously, too many people don't think about the consequences, and just say "Nintendo third party = profit!!!", and it saddens me to see such a superficial attitude for this delicate topic.

 

[Jamix012]

That's funny, I thought you were "done?"

The Ipod itself was innovative, simply because of the approach. From your own post:



Apple combined an easy to use player with a software platform that tied the two together. Sony wasn't doing this, creative labs wasn't doing this, etc. It was the ipod and itunes ecosystem as a whole that was the innovation, since no one had thought of it prior. And of course, a hefty dose of the right kind of marketing.

Does this apply to nintendo? Of course not. The console business model existed long before the NES, and I doubt you were speaking of the concept of a console when talking about nintendo being responsible for every innovation in the industry.

The business model of an easy to use platform, with interchangable carts is not nintendo's idea. Nintendo simply improved on what was already there. Was the iphone innovative? sure. Apple had to do a lot to get AT&T on board and jumpstart the business model everyone uses now. But the Iphone 2? the 3g? the 4? the 5? Not really. Apple, like nintendo, hasn't been innovative in years.

The term you're looking for is iterative with nintendo, not innovative. Nintendo did not create most of the devices the console model uses as standard now, nor is their interpretation considered definitive (with the exception of the 4 way D-pad).

I don't even know where to begin with this. Nintendo DID create the console model used today for one, licensing only became a thing in Nintendo's business model as they were the ones to see that allowing a shit tonne of unlicensed games crashed the market. That's what stopped it crashing again and is still used by all 3 console manufacturers today. Saying that they didn't create the console model used today is doing massive injustice to how Nintendo "saved" the industry back in 1985.
They created the analogue stick, rumble and were the first company to figure out how to make characters move well in a 3D environment in 3rd person. They popularised motion controls to the point that all consoles needed them, they popularised the use of touch screen in gaming before smart phones did.

They're undisputeably lagging behind in a lot of areas but the console market would be completely different without Nintendo. The touchscreen on the home console was clearly a mistake, but sometimes you get things right and other times you get them wrong. Either way, they are the company who's most likely to introduce new and exciting ways to play systems IMO.

 

[TIGER-COOL]

If it's unfounded, then by all means, feel free to refute it.

Going in circles, going in circles. That's all internet debates ever come to. The conversation was over when you said Nintendo had merely "improved" on the design of the analogue stick, and then I shared with you the definition of innovation which specifically stated "improving" as the key factor.

Of course we're talking about the entire console when we're talking about Nintendo's innovation. As the iPod combined a number of previously established services and technologies to make an innovative device, Nintendo made the first console that combined cutting edge graphics and performance, a unique controller with improved analogue functionality, 4 player integration, and their hallmark first party output. Yes, it revolutionized gaming consoles at the time. This is innovation.

This is so beyond done. You're just being obtuse now.

 

[eighty(one)]

They do help with development of the main games, however.



Pokémon is not yearly. Main Mario titles are also one per console (one 2D Mario and one 3D Mario). Yeah they are neglecting somewhat, but they aren't totally, and we get new ones like Rolling Western, as well as others. It'd just get worse if they went third party though.

Generally, I'd agree..

...however, Wii had Mario Galaxy + Mario Galaxy 2

 

[BlackJace]

If it's unfounded, then by all means, feel free to refute it.

Nintendo isn't responsible for every innovation in the book, but I don't think Tiger Cool was even arguing that. You seem to be ignoring all of the things that they brought to the table though. With the exception of the D Pad, where's any mention of the DS, or the Wii bringing in a completely new audience into the medium? For instance, touch controlled gaming in particular is undeniably a huge part of the landscape now. It's my belief that the DS had a hand in introducing the concept to a younger audience.

 

[_underfooter]

Wow have you guys seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_1yUMPStaA


I laughed pretty hard. "Iwata! More like I-don't-wata step down'

 

[zma1013]

Dem rose tinted glasses. The gulf between the PS2 and Xbox was absolutely huge. Bigger than PS1/N64 probably with the Xbox beating it everywhere. The Dreamcast even had the PS2 beat in some areas.

The Xbox was almost half a gen ahead.

Oh I'm well aware of the differences, having fully played through all 3 console versions of Splinter Cell. It was a comparison to the rift we have now with the Wii and Wii U and their competitor's. The difference there is much larger and shows more how Nintendo doesn't even come close to competing anymore.

EDIT: Also, it would be nice to know, but is the Gamecube version actually an Xbox port or is it a port of the PS2 version? That wouldn't exactly be a good example if it were a port of the PS2 version. I'm thinking it was a port of the PS2 version, just from my memory.

 

[Manmademan]

I don't even know where to begin with this. Nintendo DID create the console model used today for one, licensing only became a thing in Nintendo's business model as they were the ones to see that allowing a shit tonne of unlicensed games crashed the market. That's what stopped it crashing again and is still used by all 3 console manufacturers today. Saying that they didn't create the console model used today is doing massive injustice to how Nintendo "saved" the industry back in 1985.

you must be new here. NO ONE is using the licensing model nintendo pioneered in 1985. Nintendo leveraged some extremely anti competitive practices during that generation to maintain their market position (as well as a lockout chip that was quickly reverse engineered) and found themselves sued to oblivion in the EU and almost in front of the supreme court in the US.

Their third party relations during the creation of this licensing scheme were so odious in fact that they've never actually recovered.

They created the analogue stick

Nope.

rumble

Nope. Immersion created the rumble function Sony and Microsoft used in 1995. This is why both ended up hit with lawsuits early last generation. Nintendo's implementation for the N64 (in 1997, two years after immersion and the same year as the dualshock in JP) and GC are entirely different.

and were the first company to figure out how to make characters move well in a 3D environment in 3rd person

Good LORD no. the Playstation and Saturn were invented in 1994, two years before the N64. PC also had 3d games during this time period. Implying that "no one figured out how to make characters move well in 3D" for two solid years is laughable.

They popularised motion controls to the point that all consoles needed them

The "motion controls" in the PS3 are little more than an afterthought and don't come with the unit. The PS4 barely makes any accomodation for them at all. The Xbox and Kinect are so entirely different that they're not in the same discussion with the Wiimote.

they popularised the use of touch screen in gaming before smart phones did

Not really, no. Smartphones had touchscreens long before 2004, and it wasn't the nintendo DS that popularized smartphone gaming- that was the iphone, and the realization that there was actually a market for expensive phones. Prior to that, touchscreen phones were marketed almost exclusively to business users.

 

[TIGER-COOL]

you must be new here.

The flood of people calling you out should be a hint that mayyyyyyybe what you wrote wasn't the most accurate statement in the world.


Had to.


Anyway, we've already established more than firmly that invention does not equate innovation. Proving again and again that Nintendo did not invent these technologies and services does not mean their output is not innovative. Say it with me, "Innovation is integration, innovation is integration, innovation is integration"!

 

[BinaryPork2737]

The Pokemon TCG for Tablets, same pricing model as hearthstone from Blizzard.

This would be a good first step.

Just release on the 3DS. Would buy it day one as a sequel to the GB/GBC games.

Then again, Gamefreak has an odd disposition against doing anything that will make tons of money.

 

[Manmademan]

Nintendo isn't responsible for every innovation in the book, but I don't think Tiger Cool was even arguing that.

really? because this seems to be fairly cut and dry to me.

Nintendo have been the primary innovators in console development since the inception of the medium. Nearly every standard you take for granted in modern console gaming was set by Nintendo (save the online side of things).

It seems that's exactly what he was arguing.

You seem to be ignoring all of the things that they brought to the table though. With the exception of the D Pad, where's any mention of the DS, or the Wii bringing in a completely new audience into the medium? For instance, touch controlled gaming in particular is undeniably a huge part of the landscape now. It's my belief that the DS had a hand in introducing the concept to a younger audience.

i didn't mention the DS, because I was speaking of the console market- the console and handheld markets are entirely different- and an innovation (dual screens!) that might work well in one market might tank horribly in the other. For simplicity's sake I'm not discussing nintendo's handling of the GB/GBC/GBA/DS/3DS here, nor discussing the flood of forgotten handhelds alongside them.

I've already mentioned touchscreens, and really the popularization of touchscreen gaming goes to Apple there. the DS sold well, but handheld "gaming" exploded to a completely different degree and direction with the iphone and hasn't really stopped yet. The DS (and the wii) also use resistive screens which nothing else really does. If the DS was really driving the renaissance in touch based gaming- why isn't there anything out there remotely like the DS, instead of iphone clones everywhere?

Anyway, we've already established more than firmly that invention does not equate innovation. Proving again and again that Nintendo did not invent these technologies and services does not mean their output is not innovative. Say it with me, "Innovation is integration, innovation is integration, innovation is integration"!

Missing the point seems to be a profession for you. Integration was already in place prior to the NES. Superior versions OF that integration followed it. So where exactly would one call nintendo "innovative", if Sony's version of these innovations (dual analog, rumble, optical media) are industry standard?

The answer here is clear. Neither one is particularly innovative, but they were fairly good at making iterative improvements on what was successful in the market prior.

 

[Ganondolf]

Nope. Immersion created the rumble function Sony and Microsoft used in 1995.

the n64 was first unveiled in 94 and fully unveiled in 95. the rumble pack was well in development before immersion version. rumble pak was not based on immersions tec like sony and microsofts was so there was no law suits with Nintendo. sony copied the anolog sticks and rumble from the n64 design (the reason the original ps1 pad did not have either tec till after the n64 design was shown).

EDIT:

also all 3d third person games where really poor before Mario 64, the movement in Mario 64 was completely different and is the type of movement games still use today

 

[Manmademan]

the n64 was first unveiled in 94 and fully unveiled in 95. the rumble pack was well in development before immersion version. rumble pak was not based on immersions tec like sony and microsofts was so there was no law suits with Nintendo. sony copied the anolog sticks and rumble from the n64 design (the reason the original ps1 pad did not have either tec till after the n64 design was shown).

Which means that Sony and Microsoft didn't take cues from nintendo for rumble, they took the idea from someone else, since as you say the implementation is radically different. Without nintendo, Rumble would still have ended up in the dualshock.

The analog stick was invented back in the 1980s- Nintendo didn't think that one up out of thin air. As for "copying the n64", the dualshock is clearly a scaled down version of the dual analog flight stick, and bears little resemblance to any of the single analog joypads already in the market, whether that be atari, vectrex, nintendo, or sega.

 

[Ganondolf]

Which means that Sony and Microsoft didn't take cues from nintendo for rumble, they took the idea from someone else, since as you say the implementation is radically different. Without nintendo, Rumble would still have ended up in the dualshock.

The analog stick was invented back in the 1980s- Nintendo didn't think that one up out of thin air. As for "copying the n64", the dualshock is clearly a scaled down version of the dual analog flight stick, and bears little resemblance to any of the single analog joypads already in the market, whether that be atari, vectrex, nintendo, or sega.

please.. the ps pad is a copy of the snes pad and the dualshock copied the n64 features.

sony would have know about the rumble feature back in 94 and it does not take long to find a company that makes a small low powered motor that they could use in their pad.

EDIT: Pics to help you see the copy

 

[Manmademan]

please.. the ps pad is a copy of the snes pad and the dualshock copied the n64 features.

Considering that Sony and Nintendo were originally partnered to create the CD add on to the SNES (of which prototypes exist) and DID create the SNES sound hardware, the similarities between the PS controller and the SNES shouldn't surprise anyone.

in fact, the only reason the Playstation existed in the first place was because crazy ken didn't want to waste all the effort that went into creating the game system for Nintendo that never happened. Whoops!

as for the "copying the N64!" bit, Sony announced this controller in 1995, and released it in 1996.

It was later scaled down into the smaller dual analog controller, then rumble added in to make it the dual shock. The dualshock has two joysticks because it was originally a flight controller.

edit: I almost forgot about this thing:

Namco developed the NegCon analog controller for the PS1, and released it in 1995. It's designed to be used with their racing games though, and not a pad for general use. But it should be clear that just about all of these sticks and pads were building off of what came before (vectrex) and not simply aping what nintendo was doing.

 

[QaaQer]

It's gonna be tough to get competitive graphics out of a mobile GPU, though, which is why I don't think Nintendo are going all-in on a unified architecture yet. Something like that is a great choice for a tablet or l.....

What are your thoughts on Wisspel's 3rd pillar console, the ultra cheap ARM-based set top box slatted for late 15/early 16?

edit:

saw your answer:

IMO, the idea of a microconsole needs to be let go. There's no proven market for them. VitaTV: flop. Ouya: flop.

I have a sneaking suspicion that that is what Nintendo has been working towards the last couple of years while still keeping the door open for a new full strength console should the 3rd pillar fail.

 

[Ganondolf]

Considering that Sony and Nintendo were originally partnered to create the CD add on to the SNES (of which prototypes exist) and DID create the SNES sound hardware, the similarities between the PS controller and the SNES shouldn't surprise anyone.

its called copying. sony and nintendos partnership was for a cd drive addon, sony did not have any part on the snes pad but the ps1 pad is almost identical. then they copyed the rumble, sticks, the wii controller (with the move controller). sony also copied a lot of microsofts online service stuff from the xbox.

sony make great game consoles and games but they love copying from Nintendo. I would say they let Nintendo think up the ideals (and take the risk) they try to improve on the ideals (which they do very well).

 

[TIGER-COOL]

BlackJace

Nintendo isn't responsible for every innovation in the book, but I don't think Tiger Cool was even arguing that.

really? because this seems to be fairly cut and dry to me.

TIGER-COOL

Nintendo have been the primary innovators in console development since the inception of the medium. Nearly every standard you take for granted in modern console gaming was set by Nintendo (save the online side of things).

It seems that's exactly what he was arguing.

Notice the choice of words in my quote. "Primary" innovators. "Primary" Is not the same as "only". "Nearly" every standard. "Nearly" is not the same as "every".

Misinterpreting words seems to be a profession of yours.

Also, good job ignoring my main argument which completely debases everything you're saying. Keep up the good work.

 

[Ganondolf]

as for the "copying the N64!" bit, Sony announced this controller in 1995, and released it in 1996.



It was later scaled down into the smaller dual analog controller, then rumble added in to make it the dual shock. The dualshock has two joysticks because it was originally a flight controller.

I think its clear that the dualshock came from the original ps1 pad (with rhe rumble and anologs added) and not from the flight sim pad that was never released.

 

[Manmademan]

I think its clear that the dualshock came from the original ps1 pad (with rhe rumble and anologs added) and not from the flight sim pad that was never released.

The flight pad was released in 1996, Bro. It's not vaporware. Edit: and from wikipedia, the original "dual analog" had a "flightstick mode" that the Dualshock and Dualshock 2 never had. it's CLEARLY a scaled down version of the flight stick.

The Dual Analog controller has three modes of operation: Digital, which disables the Analog sticks, Analog (as also found on DualShock/DualShock 2 controllers) and a unique Analog Flightstick mode that is not available on the DualShock or DualShock 2.

If a PS1 game is DualShock or Dual Analog compatible, the player may press the Analog button located between the two analog sticks to activate the analog mode. This is indicated by a red LED. If the Dual Analog controller is switched to analog mode while using a game which is not analog-compatible, the game will not register any button presses or, in some cases, the PlayStation will consider the controller to be detached.

The ability to emulate Sony's own PlayStation Analog Joystick by pressing the "Analog" button a second time to reveal a green LED (this was commonly referred to as "Flightstick Mode") provided a less expensive alternative to the FlightStick Analog Joystick and retailed for an average of US$35 compared to the Flightstick's retail price of US$70.

 

[Manmademan]

Notice the choice of words in my quote. "Primary" innovators. "Primary" Is not the same as "only". "Nearly" every standard. "Nearly" is not the same as "every".

The intent of your quote is obvious, backpedaling aside. "Primary" and "nearly" is just as inaccurate, and just as wrong. Keep up the good work.

 

[Arkam]

Nintendo is fine. So many of these suggestions are so out of this world it makes me lol. Sony and the US government are in worse positions. Nintendo just currently does not have the most popular selling home console.... Oh noes!

 

[QaaQer]

Nintendo is fine. So many of these suggestions are so out of this world it makes me lol. Sony and the US government are in worse positions. Nintendo just currently does not have the most popular selling home console.... Oh noes!

Govts can always print more money to pay the bills if they run out.

 

[PaulExcellent]

The flight pad was released in 1996, Bro. It's not vaporware.

Yep. Hell, I think I own one.

 

[Ganondolf]

The flight pad was released in 1996, Bro. It's not vaporware.

I did not know this was ever released, I stand corrected. still its like a arcade stick and nothing relating to the dualshock

 

[theprodigy]

Nintendo is fine. So many of these suggestions are so out of this world it makes me lol. Sony and the US government are in worse positions. Nintendo just currently does not have the most popular selling home console.... Oh noes!

huh?

 

[Fourth Storm]

What are your thoughts on Wisspel's 3rd pillar console, the ultra cheap ARM-based set top box slatted for late 15/early 16?

edit:

saw your answer:



I have a sneaking suspicion that that is what Nintendo has been working towards the last couple of years while still keeping the door open for a new full strength console should the 3rd pillar fail.

Yeah, I think Nintendo still see the value in offering robust console experiences like 3D Mario, Zelda, etc. And their dev teams have put alot of work into learning how to utilize AMD GPUs. Mobile GPUs work quite differently, afaik, and use a tiling approach to rendering.

A third pillar could happen next year, but I see it as a tablet or small single-screen handheld offered at a low price, with decent battery life, and retaining 3DS BC.

 

[Manmademan]

I did not know this was ever released, I stand corrected. still its like a arcade stick and nothing relating to the dualshock

I added in another quote to help clarify. That pad was designed as a specialty controller- there was also an official arcade joystick that's a bit smaller.
edit: mine looked like this:

There's a dozen or two games that support it.

The problem here is while it was a good idea, and third parties were interested in exploring analog controls (namco released the NegCon in 1995 since digital wasn't "good enough" for ridge racer) the flight stick was simply too big and expensive.

The dual analog was a scaled down version of that stick, and had a compatibility mode that directly emulated the flightstick for games that supported it. That's a hell of an indicator that Sony intended the dual analog to be a cheaper, more portable alternative of the flight stick.

Ask yourself why there are two analog sticks? No controller out there had two analogs, OR two D-pads. Few PS1 games even did anything with the second stick outside of ape escape and flight sims.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Nintendo releasing games for PS4/Xbox One is not much more than a wet dream of certain people, who would like to see Nintendo's game on their favorite platforms. Even if Nintendo stops developing new home console hardware, it's unlikely that developing software for Sony's and Microsoft's consoles would be a consequence of that.

Anyone who has followed Nintendo's business strategies for a while, is aware that Nintendo really isn't keen to follow the arms race of ever growing game studios, exploding budgets and profits margins that are - compared to the taken risks - not really worth it. After all, this is one of the reasons Nintendo waited too long to expand their studios, which is the reason why their studios weren't able to put out a meaningful amount of HD games in the past year. And now that same company is supposed to embrace an even more expensive and challenging development platform? I don't see that.

Iwata's statements also don't imply anything like that - to the contrary. The challenges he mentions -- high game prices for example -- can't be solved by entering a market that works exactly the same as the one they operated in for the last three decades. When he talks about the lifestyle changes of today, he strictly refers to the smartphone/tablet market.

And for good reason. The average smartphone games are made by small teams with relatively low budgets, but with the potential to make huge profits. That's much more to Nintendo's liking. Of course, hitting gold on iOS or Android is difficult and often dependent on luck -- but Nintendo has the kind of IPs that would guarantee them a lot of attention. They wouldn't need to worry about a lack of exposure. And, honestly, look at the kind of money Candy Crush or Puzzle x Dragons generate on smartphones. I don't think Nintendo can afford not to try to replicate such a success.

But, here's the big but, I don't think that smartphone support and handheld support exclude each other. The 3DS isn't as successful as Nintendo wished it to be and it's not selling as good as its predecessors either, but a simple fact remains: Its sales are still pretty good. There's no reason to abandon the platform.

And there's no need to, either. If you look at the kind of games that are successful on smartphones and the kind of games that are successful on the 3DS, you'll realize: It's not the same type of game.

NSMB or Mario 3D Land would definitely sell a good amount of copies on iOS, but they wouldn't be game-changing successes many people think they would be. The successful iOS games are the ones don't need to use bullshit like virtual buttons and dpads -- but a Mario platformer would be entirely dependent on it. Games that are really successful are entirely focused on "native" touch-screen controls; they are easy to use, simple to play. You really don't need simulated controller buttons to play Candy Crush. Of course, controller support arrived on iOS, but controllers will remain an oddity on smartphones for the foreseeable future.

So, what Nintendo needs is software specifically tailored to the needs of smartphones. Mario: The Endless Runner or Pokemon: The Puzzle Game come to mind. Or microgame collections like Wario Ware. Stuff that's not really in competition with the software they put out on 3DS, that might make people want to buy the handheld games too and that have the potential to make a lot of money.

Nintendo should take a close look at Puzzle x Dragons. It makes a ton of money each and every day for GungHo, it's a F2P game "done right" in the vein that would also work with Nintendo's philosophy -- and it has cute monsters. Nintendo wouldn't have any problems today if they released "Puzzle x Pokemon" two years ago. It's a chance they need to take before its too late.

This is the best post in this thread.

The people who get joy out of nintendo games only on smartphones are going to be sorely disappointed, because this will be an addition to their current development efforts, not a replacement.

All the people who think they can't get by without abandoning their own console development are deluded or biased.

If you want Pokemon, Zelda, fire emblem, Mario, metroid, or animal crossing in more than name, you'll have to buy Nintendo hardware, just like it has been for the last 30 years, sorry.

 

[Scofield94941]

I really thought Nintendo was going to use the gamepad to make your tv a touchscreen , instead I always have to look down on it.

 

[Ganondolf]

The flight pad was released in 1996, Bro. It's not vaporware. Edit: and from wikipedia, the original "dual analog" had a "flightstick mode" that the Dualshock and Dualshock 2 never had. it's CLEARLY a scaled down version of the flight stick.

Wikipedia also says the dual anolog was first displayed in 96 (after the n64 pad was shown is 95) and released in 97.

funny how sony decided to show this pad a year after the n64 pad was shown. you can try and make it look like sony had the ideal first but its clear as day that the dual anlog and the dual shock are a copy of nintendo's snes pad with the n64 pads features on.

 

[flozuki]

Can anyone explain to me, where I can buy Nintendo stock? Asked myself that for years and just found websites that seem like scam. And with all these discussions this question regarding where to buy came back in my mind ^^

Any information would be appreciated

 

[Arkam]

Govts can always print more money to pay the bills if they run out.

Sarcasm? If not please do more reading on the subject. Or did Greece recently run out of printer ink. Same with Detroit I guess than too.

 

[Manmademan]

Wikipedia also says the dual anolog was first displayed in 96 (after the n64 pad was shown is 95) and released in 97.

funny how sony decided to show this pad a year after the n64 pad was shown. you can try and make it look like sony had the ideal first but its clear as day that the dual anlog and the dual shock are a copy of nintendo's snes pad with the n64 pads features on.

Wikipedia also says the flight stick was announced/displayed in 1995, and released in 1996. Both of these analog controllers would have had to have been in development long before 1995, and Namco's Negcon (also analog) was on shelves in 1995.

And you're missing the point entirely. NEITHER ONE "had the idea first." The analog technology used in the flight stick, the negcon, and the N64 are almost identical to the analog tech used in the Vectrex in the early 1980s. Everyone was building on tech that had already existed and worked for games years before. The limitations of 2D just didn't make it necessary until the 3D jump.