The Change at Nintendo

Remember back before this generation of consoles launched, when Nintendo said that they weren't going to include a DVD player in their new console because "their focus was games"? It was a neat way for Nintendo to downplay the importance of the Blu-Ray player in the PS3, but when the Wii was finally released it was packed full of features that were not focussed on games at all - a globe that shows weather and news, photo management tools and so forth. The Wii was not wholly focused on games after all - Nintendo had made a mass-market friendly internet platform, that also happened to play games.

Looking at the current Nintendo releases, this shift in focus is even more apparent. Wii Fit may just about qualify as a game, but Cooking Guide: Can't Decide What to Eat? is about as far from the world of games as could possibly be imagined. Now I'm not saying that Nintendo shouldn't be experimenting with new ways to sell software to the mass market, nor that their recent experiments aren't extremely interesting developments in a normally predictable industry, but Nintendo can scarcely claim that their focus is solely on games any more.

There's a deep irony to the way that the Sony and Microsoft CEOs try to downplay Nintendo's enormous success in the last few years by saying how great it is that Nintendo are bringing "new people into the market", because it's clear that the kind of person who is being brought into the console market by BrainAge or Cooking Guide isn't going to be shelling out on a PS3 or Xbox 360 any time soon, or indeed, ever. What this makes me wonder is: does targeting the mass market consumer inherently mean moving away from games? Looking at Nintendo at the moment, it seems very much the case.

I've suggested before that for the videogames industry, the mass market is our long tail. The centre of cashflow in videogames are the hobbyists, the players who buy and play many games over the course of each year. Even with the outrageous sales figures that a mass market game can rack up (tens of millions, versus the old familiar game styles that top out at a few million units at best), the mass market doesn't look like an attractive option for most game developers: they don't know how to develop for it, they don't have a marketing spend big enough to skip over the hobbyists, and even if they made the perfect mass market product there's every chance it would sink without a trace.

The change at Nintendo is apparent: games are only part of Nintendo's focus now. What is less clear is what this change means for the rest of us. Because if this new wider market can only be hit by Nintendo first party software, which may be substantially the case, most developers would do better to continue to compete for a tiny share of a successful hobbyist marketplace, such as the first person shooter market, or the RPG market, even if most of the titles in these over-competed markets do fail miserably. And in that respect, the change in Nintendo is really 'business as usual' - because Nintendo's problem has always been that it can make and sell its own 'first party' software in large numbers, but third party developers struggle to make a profit on a Nintendo platform.

The ability to sell software out into the deep corners of the mass market is good news for Nintendo - it has made them a lot of money, and will continue to do so. I'm rather less sure it's good news for anyone else.

Comments

[translucy]

Chris,

what do you think about the "learning games" sector, specifically for professional training, adult education, continuous learning inside companies (sometimes in combination with some form of "simulation" of a professional context) - no opportunities there?

[Daniel]

Great analysis... I totally remember Nintendo saying the stuff about the GC being a GAMING MACHINE! Cute, isn't it?!? Time might change anything...

[Sirc]

I'll tell you who it's not good news for. Us. I think if targeting the mass market consumer doesn't mean moving away from games, at least it means moving away from good games. Just look at the current state of affairs. Did you see their hilarious failure of an E3 conference? I say failure because the people making up the demographic they're obviously targeting aren't the ones likely to be watching the conference in the first place. About the only mildly good thing they showed was Animal Crossing City Folk.

That snow boarding thing with the balance board? Ugh.

Wii Sports 2? Give me a break.

Wii music? Yawn.

Wii Motionplus? I'm thinking that's a gimmick until I actually play a game that convinces me otherwise. I mean just look at the wii remote. Almost all of the games that use it would have been better off with a normal controller.

At least Miyamoto later kind of announced Pikmin 3. But even then, Nintendo has been disappointing me lately. When asked why there seemed to be no worthwhile games for the wii on the horizon, they said they were waiting for E3 to announce them. E3 comes, and what do we get? The finger. What do we have to look forward to on the Wii at the moment? Not a whole lot.

I hate seeing Nintendo profit : ( how DARE they start making games I'm not interested in? Forget everyone else, I'm the only one that matters >:O

Oh did I say games? I meant "games". I died a little inside when I saw that Wii Play was the best selling one.

I also find your analysis on the "bringing new people into the market" myth interesting and refreshing. Too many people buy into this, thinking a non-gamer getting a Wii and Wii Sports is being converted into a gamer who will then buy real games.

[Chris]

translucy: there are opportunities in serious games, but it's not my personal interest. Other developers would do well to check it out, though as there's lots of money. I've turned down several contracts for military training games that I just wasn't comfortable working on. We almost did a non-violent conflict game, and that's as close to the field as I got. But this is certainly a growth sector... It's a little tangential to the point about Nintendo's shift in focus, though. ;)

Daniel: glad someone else remembers this. I couldn't find the exact quote, but it was a pretty cheeky claim, all things considered.

Sirc: I don't quite share your ire here, but you make some good points. :) Nintendo really does seem to be abandoning the hobbyist players to chase after bigger sales numbers. As a business, I can't blame them, as a player, I do feel a little slighted, particularly since the hobbyist games Nintendo makes are of a much higher standard than much of the dross we have to put up with.

But unlike you, I love the Wiimote + Nunchuk as a control scheme, and have enjoyed most of the games I've had for the Wii. I wonder, if you're complaining about the games making more sense on a regular controller, if you've just played more games that were multiplatform i.e. the Wii control scheme was an after thought? Or perhaps the Wii control scheme just isn't for you - I think many hobbyists are disappointed with the lack of sensitivity (while mass market players can enjoy the accessibility - sometimes!)

"I hate seeing Nintendo profit : ( how DARE they start making games I'm not interested in? Forget everyone else, I'm the only one that matters >:O"

LOL :)

"I died a little inside when I saw that Wii Play was the best selling one."

To be fair, only because it came with a free Wii remote. This title sold because it was bundled, not because it was good. Although that said, my sister did enjoy it. ;)

"Too many people buy into this, thinking a non-gamer getting a Wii and Wii Sports is being converted into a gamer who will then buy real games."

Well I wouldn't call the games for the hobbyists "real" - that's an ontological claim beyond my ability to assess! I have enough trouble establishing a baseline for reality as it is without games shifting between real and unreal! :D

Best wishes!

[translucy]

Chris,

I feel that the Wii opens up a discussion about more issues than just Nintendo's strategy, hence my question ;)

And just for the record here: the Wii is my first videogame _in decades_ - call that whatever you want. I just hope they publish more titles for the balance board control scheme.

[Sirc]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed the games on my Wii as well, but only because they were good themselves, not because of the control scheme. As I said before, most games that use it would either have been better off with a normal controller or what the remote brings to the table is insubstantial; a gimmick.

I will try to explain myself by looking at a few games one by one.

Mario Galaxy. I actually did not mind the remote with this game. It was implemented reasonably well. But did it really add all that much to the game? I contend that it did not. Shaking the controller to spin? That's a gimmick if I ever saw one. Pointing the cursor to grab star bits? That was alright, but a lot of the time you were too busy to bother getting all of them, plus, if you had taken that feature out, the game wouldn't have been worse. Then there are a few other gimmicks like pulling slingshots with the cursor, blowing a bubble etc. I stress that all of these things are alright, there is no problem with them. However, I still say that it would have been the same good game with a GC controller.

Twilight Princess. This game would have worked just as well with a GC controller (and in fact, it does, as it's out for the GC). Take swinging your sword, for example. All the wii version does is this: instead of pressing B, now you shake a stick. It doesn't matter how you shake it either. Is shaking a stick more fun than pressing a button? Maybe. But the fun of these games doesn't come down to the physical act of pressing buttons, so it's a moot point. In fact, I kind of regret getting the wii version, as I'd rather press a button than snap my wrist for the thousandth time, which gets a bit tedious. Then there's the fact that GC controller is more effective and you make less mistakes with it. It's been a while since I played this game but I remember sometimes making the wrong move because the remote would interpret it as something else.

Metroid Prime 3. This is one game that would have been better with a normal controller. If you have played it, you'll know what I'm talking about. The control scheme is so bad, after playing for a while, you will get hand cramps. It's not just me, as the EGM review said the same thing. Further, your arm gets a bit tired after holding it up for hours. Sure, you might be able to get around this by placing your sensor bar in a place that allows you to rest your arm on your lap, but why bother with that when you could be playing with a normal, no hassles controller? Metroid Prime has never been a traditional FPS, so it never needed mouse-like aiming in the first place. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoyed this iteration more than the previous ones on the gamecube? I certainly didn't. And that speaks badly about the wii remote. Perhaps it's not the only reason why MP3 isn't as good as its predecessors, but it doesn't help.

Super Smash Bros Brawl. Any serious gamer will tell you to use the gamecube controller because the remote sucks compared to it. And they'd be right.

Anyway, as you might have noticed, I said the remote is pointless in "most" games that use it. That's because there is a single shining bastion of hope that keeps it from being a complete waste of space. A single game unlike all others that makes me go "this would definitely not be as good without this control scheme". That's Trauma Center (well I guess there are two of them out, but they're pretty similar). Incidentally, Trauma Center is also the best game on the Wii. Go figure. Still, I would rather praise the developers for making such a brilliant game than praise the remote itself. Maybe if there were other games that made me think the same thing, I would hold it in higher regard.

[Sirc]

translucy: The Wii isn't a videogame. It's a console :P

[NickName]

Honestly, I think the real question lies into what defines a game. What IS a game?

Because, like art, that definition can change radically based on the perspective of people in question.

I recall Miyamoto talking about Wii Fit, and about how the device could be used in hospitals as a source of rehabilitation exercises. "'Well, is that entertainment or is that rehabilitation?' What is it we call it? And, I think, for me, I don't really know the answer to your question, because I just look at it and I see I have this system with which I am able to create interactive experiences, and what we call that system, I don't really know," he says.
(http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/miyamoto-wii-fi.html)

I was with my little nephew the other day. He wouldn't sit still to eat. He wanted to race, he said. So my brother said "you wanna race? How 'bout we race to see who can eat the fastest?" I have no qualms about calling what they did a "game". Sometimes, even the most mundane of tasks can be perceived as a game. Chore Wars proves that (http://www.chorewars.com/) Heck, if you've seen the "World of Workcraft" WoW parody (http://www.wegame.com/watch/World_of_Workcraft/), despite how tongue-in-cheek that humor is, it reveals how even work can become a game to people (and you've got to admit: people already think of grinding as "work"). And for all those professional athletes out there, sure they're playing a "game", but don't kid yourself: that "game" is their job, and what they do is work in every sense of the word.

Games have and always will pervade the atmosphere of reality. Whether those games are presented as alternative forms of interactivity is irrelevant. Making something into a game is easy: it's all a matter of perspective. Just because it doesn't follow the same conventional rules of most games (or the games of yesteryear) doesn't make them "non-games". And to that end, asking for the kind of games that you find interesting, doesn't that sound, well, just a little selfish? Saying things like "What is less clear is what this change means for the rest of us" and "I'm rather less sure it's good news for anyone else." creates an "us vs. them" mentality, which I think should be avoided. It might not be anything like shooting aliens or zombies in the face, or slicing baddies with a sword. But they are games in their own right, and their audience is finally being addressed.

[Sirc]

I don't think the Us vs. Them mentality can really be avoided, seeing as their interests are at odds with ours and therefore Nintendo's decision to cater to Them negatively affects Us.

These nongamer aliens are hornin' in on our territory and stealing the lands that have rightfully belonged to Us for generations >:O they should be treated with extreme prejudice and hostility >:O

The lack of worthwhile games on the horizon for the Wii is already evident. As another example, Miyamoto was recently caught burning our thatched roof cottages by announcing that E3 would no longer be used to introduce new games for core gamers, plus saying they will start making Zelda more casual-friendly.

Zelda is already too softcore as it is, and they're trying to make it even more accessible for nongamers? Just go ahead and add the instant win button, why don'tcha.

As for Chris's comments which you deem selfish, I don't think he was asking for games he finds interesting in his original post. I think his use of "us" means "us developers/companies" and not "us gamers". That is to say, by "What is less clear is what this change means for the rest of us", I think he was referring to being unsure if other developers including himself could shift their focus away from real games in the way Nintendo has.
By the same token, "I'm rather less sure it's good news for anyone else.", means that, while Nintendo is indeed making a lot of money, he is less sure that it'll be good for Sony, Microsoft, and other companies, since it's not established that this new demographic will buy PS3s, 360s, and real games.

So no, I don't think he was asking for the kinds of games he found interesting (he's welcome to come and correct me if I'm wrong on my assessment though). That was me. Yes, I'm selfish. But I never said I was a good person.

[Chris]

Sirc:

I love your bold attitude here - you know what you want, but you also know that other people want different things. :)

A few responses...

"All the wii version does is this: instead of pressing B, now you shake a stick. It doesn't matter how you shake it either. Is shaking a stick more fun than pressing a button? Maybe. But the fun of these games doesn't come down to the physical act of pressing buttons, so it's a moot point."

It's certainly a moot point - i.e. a point for discussion. ;) Knowing a little about how you play, I can see why this complaint holds true for you. But my wife and I loved shaking the stick to use the sword - it's kinaesthetic mimicry, very simple, very childish, very fun!

Re: MP3

"Can you honestly tell me that you enjoyed this iteration more than the previous ones on the gamecube?"

The first Metroid Prime so completely cured me of any desire to play any future Metroid Prime games that I never played Metroid Prime 3, even though there is a copy in my office. Honestly, I'm not a fiero-seeker - I loved Metroid Prime right up to the point it forced me into two gruelling boss fights which I, having stuck with the game for so long, foolishly felt obligated to complete, thus leaving me with nothing but hatred for the game developers, and the desire to never again play their games.

See how our play styles differ! :)

NickName: I really enjoyed your anecdotes here - very interesting.

"Honestly, I think the real question lies into what defines a game. What IS a game? Because, like art, that definition can change radically based on the perspective of people in question."

I'm guessing you're new here - I hope you'll stick around because you'll fit right in! :) This idea of 'what defines a game' is a key thought in my writing about games, and the idea of 'what defines X' is a key thought in my philosophy.

"...doesn't make them "non-games"'

Sorry - you misunderstand my use of non-games. I don't use this as an insult, I use it as a descriptor to describe games which resemble games in many respects, but which are non-the-less quite distinct from what is normally considered a game. See Chico's blog (also entitled Nongames) if you want to read more about this. It is categorically not a bad thing in my eyes for something to be a non-game!

"Saying things like 'What is less clear is what this change means for the rest of us' and 'I'm rather less sure it's good news for anyone else.' creates an 'us vs. them' mentality, which I think should be avoided."

Sirc's analysis here is spot on - I was talking about 'us' in the sense of the development community, versus 'them' as in Nintendo. This distinction is surely relevant since not everyone can be Nintendo! ;)

Sorry for any confusion, and thanks for providing the explanation, Sirc.

If you enjoyed this topic, Wednesday's post expands upon it.

Best wishes everyone!