|
With rising game budgets because developers fell for the HD-fluke while on the other side the established audience is imploding, it’s a hard time being a game-developer. News reports of people being laid off have almost becoming a daily occurrence.
Yes, the international economic situation doesn’t help, but the industry has also a lot to blame itself for. Despite all of this bad new, there are a few shimmers of hope. One specific company keeps chugging along, expanding studio’s, going into vast unexplored markets while also making some of the most fun games this generation for all.
How does Nintendo do it? The company is responsible for 90% of all games that sold over 10 million copies this generation, has two hardware devices that are still selling faster then the legendary PS2 in the same time periods and is the only reason why the Game-industry hasn’t crashed yet since the HD-consoles have failed at even re-capturing the established audience from last generation.
Analysts, gaming enthusiasts and gaming press (will) deny it in all kind of ways…but Nintendo is the determining force of the gaming industry for the last 5-6 years. So why ignore Nintendo’s OM? Why doesn’t anyone analyze Nintendo’s practices? There are various reasons, but those are irrelevant before the grand fact that trough its success, everyone should at least take pointers from this company.
So how do you make games like Nintendo? This isn’t about copying some of their business practices or company structure and you’re done. No, Nintendo works from a specific mind-set on which the entire company has been built and structured around. This mind-set you have to teach yourself and I’ll tell in advance, some of the more art-dogmatized people are not going to like it.
Nintendo’s company structure is set-up to achieve one very important thing: a perfect blend between software and hardware development. Normally companies specialize in one or the other. Microsoft and Google are primarily software companies; Sony is primarily a hardware company.
Nintendo is a very rare breed of a software/hardware hybrid, the only other of this kind of hybrid in the world is Apple. But Nintendo was not always the sole hybrid within the gaming industry. Atari was it until a few years after the buy-out to Warner in the 70’s. SEGA was another hybrid. The first home computer manufacturers were also hybrids. This hybrid status is an important part within Nintendo’s strategy.
For example, Nintendo doesn’t care one bit what Microsoft does because Microsoft is by far not such a hybrid, therefore, in Nintendo’s eyes, Microsoft is not an actual console manufacturer.
This hybrid status, and Nintendo’s mindset, can be traced back to two people: Shigeru Miyamoto and Gunpei Yokoi. Well actually it was three people, the third being Hiroshi Yamauchi who hired both of them on his gut feeling.
Before you think Miyamoto represents the software part and Gunpei the hardware you would right. But Miyamoto is also responsible for a lot of controller designs while Gunpei made the Game & Watch games and Metroid. So for this article, we’ll focus on Shigeru Miyamoto.
Here are the basic premises in terms of mentality that Shigeru Miyamoto employs:
1) You are an entertainer, not an artist. Miyamoto’s dreams was always to see people smile, especially children. Miyamoto actually wanted to become a toymaker and he still does want to make toys (just to make clear, Miyamoto sees videogames as inferior to toys). Yep, the most influential game designer is in fact a toymaker… and you can tell from his games which are far more fantastical playgrounds.
Some say Miyamoto is videogaming’s Steven Spielberg, but that says more about the industry’s desire to be compared with Hollywood then something else. Miyamoto is far more akin to Walt Disney whose motto was not to make cartoons for kids but cartoons for the kid inside us all. Also Miyamoto wants to make games for all, games he can play with his kids and wife. And there’s logic in this…videogames are off course…well…games.
So you want to make games like Nintendo? Think not in terms of the game you always wanted to make, with all the artistic dogma and narrative tripe connected to it, but think in terms of the game you always wanted to play together with friends. These games will probably endure far longer as real art does.
2) Use your own life as inspiration. Aren’t puppies cute? Everyone likes puppies! Let’s have one of our elite EAD teams make a game about the experience of having a puppy! Hmm, I’m getting a bit older, I should work out a bit more…can I turn it into a game? Oh Tennis and bowling is fun…but bit of hassle to do in real life… can I make it easier in a game without losing the actual complexity of the sport? You know where this is going at.
The basic idea is to recognize something you like, then found out why people like that in general and then trying to put that inside a videogame. The second step is very crucial but often forgotten; you cannot force your view of liking something which connects again to the first item: you are an entertainer, not an artist.
3) Technology is a tool, not the goal. As seen in many keynotes by Nintendo people, Nintendo has a knack of letting a idea simmer, sometimes for an entire decade waiting until technology is cheap enough and it can functionally be used to enhance the game-experience. The Mii’s is an example. Nintendo’s motion control has had trial versions on the GBA, Animal Crossing was a experiment started on the N64 untill it exploded on the DS.
Miyamoto once said about improving tech that it may lead to a game character being able to hold a bottle perfectly as in real world…but what is the point of that within a game. Technology serves the game and should enhance the game-experience for the player. This generation has already proven that HD does not do that, motion controls can and 2D still does. Don’t jump on expensive technology if it doesn’t add to the basic game-experience.
4) But also be impatient at times. Miyamoto is also known to “upend the teatable” on a few games. This mostly happens when Miyamoto finds out that the game is losing track of its basic premise or not progressing fast enough. Twilight Princess had this where the debut director was removed. Sure the Story and Characters were fleshed out nicely, but there was hardly a game in place so Miyamoto upended the tea table, took direct control, delayed the game for a year and tried to get the most out of it.
The same seem to have happened with Skyward Sword. The same almost happened with Mario Galaxy 2 because Miyamoto found there was getting too much story into the game (yeah... no kidding). Also this facet reflects again to the first premise: you are an entertainer, not an artist. You make games, a kind of toy. If the toy/game doesn’t properly do what it needs to do, you’re making a bad game.
Nintendo makes such great games because Nintendo keeps them being games, things that entertain through reflecting an interesting facet of life into a game. Nintendo also does this not by forcing a narrow arty vision of that facet, but looks for the base common level to make a game from.
Technology serves as a tool, not the goal itself. Adopting high-tech can lead to high costs without certainty that the game will still be as good. On the other hand this does not mean you have to throw away ideas because tech is too expensive. Allow ideas to simmer or deconstruct them to fit tech that has penetrated the mass-market or wait for a certain tech to become feasible for mass-market penetration. But the most important part…you are an entertainer, not an artist.
|
And the argument of "owh Sony and Microsoft would filled the gap" doens't stand. If they could, they would be doing it two-three years ago.
End Result, without Nintendo the gaming industry will have crashed.
They openly spit in the face of the majority of the possible audience and surrounded themselves in a culture of nastiness. Why would anyone possibly think those "casual gamers" would ever migrate over, under any circumstances?
And for the record, I don't own or play a Wii or DS.
As for Miyamoto, he's a true visionary, something rarely seen in the industry today. Not because we lack talented or highly creative people but the culture of game development and business democratizes the process too much and a lot of decisions about game production and design are being driven by individuals outside those disciplines. The byproduct (for the most part) are derivative and indistinguishable games that lack any kind of unique vision.
Am I advocating a strict wall between difference faces of the creative and business side? No. But it should be clear who holds the keys to crafting the vision of the game (either a single visionary leader or the creative talent on the game).
In Nintendo Magic, Satoru Iwata understands the value of Miyamoto and his creative team. He sees himself as the person who is responsible for removing the roadblocks that the creative and production teams face.
When a magician is free to do what he or she is good at...guess what, magic happens!
It sounds like the important part is that Nintendo's in control of their own fate. They don't rely on 3rd parties so they're agile and move in any direction that they need to. They make trends.
They've got a great back catalog of games and can continue to iterate them without killing them. Who would've guessed that Nintendo would wait 15 years for another proper 2d console Mario game? Most game companies can't even keep a franchise alive for 10 years. It's obvious that Activision and EA can't do this (excluding Madden, haha) -- but even well established franchises from Sega, Konami, Capcom and the like have struggled to remain relevant. I don't think Nintendo gets enough credit for their ability to make games that are similar to what you've already seen but new at the same time.
I think the most important part is that they release games when they're done, and go back to the drawing board if they aren't. But when every title they put out sells like 5+ million copies, they have that kinda wiggle room.
this explains the market share they enjoy, and the absolute silliness of the game industry in the US which can only see if theyre "beating Hollywood profits" or "changing the worlds politics and killing older media"
99% of the gamez industry in the US, is in the wrong business:)
except for the new gamez industry, which has found the key to networked systems, blind clicking addictions.. but thats just what Vegas figured out 60 years ago with the mechanized slot machine.
And the thought that if Nintendo disappeared, all of those sales would disappear with them is ridiculous. At least some of them, quite possibly most of them, would just get transferred to other systems. 3rd party developers aren't just going to stop making games because one of the platform owners quits.
It is not simply a matter of entirely new gamers (those who never owned a console before), but a matter of returning gamers (those who did not own a gaming console last generation) as well. That is what the expanded audience is. And in that regard, the expanded on the Wii is more like 50%, if not more. So your foundation isn't correct.
When 50% of the consumers didn't even own a console last generation, then you really have to ask, "Where did all those PS2 gamers go?"
"Chances are, more people are gaming than ever before, however it's more widely spread out over a greater number of venues (with portable gaming, cell phone games, and free-to-play Internet games all become much more popular in recent years) and not as focused on home consoles as it once was."
First, we cannot simply say "more people are gaming than ever before." As the population increases, there will always be more customers (especially children - a fundamental customer of the gaming industry). The real question is if gaming is becoming more popular. You have to account for population growth and multiple console ownership.
Second, what you are citing, such as free-to-play Internet games, only points toward disruption.
"And the thought that if Nintendo disappeared, all of those sales would disappear with them is ridiculous."
You think so? Take a look at this video. You can skip to 6:00 if you want to get right to the point of core market decline:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5foJ-cwj4Mk
Didn't you ever think to ask yourself, "Why was the Wii made in the first place?"
"At least some of them, quite possibly most of them, would just get transferred to other systems."
Some of the core audience (those who owned a console last generation) might have switched to another console had Nintendo not existed this generation, but there is simply no way that the expanded audience would have. Existing controllers and gameplay were too complex, confusing and altogether daunting for them. That was why they bought a Wii in the first place. So why on Earth would they have migrated to the PS3 or 360 when that's the case?
"3rd party developers aren't just going to stop making games because one of the platform owners quits."
3rd parties making games has nothing to do with whether or not Wii owners would have purchased a PS3 or 360 absent Nintendo's existence this console generation. It takes a special type of software to appeal to the expanded audience that not even Nintendo gets right all the time (Wii Music, Animal Crossing (Wii)). 3rd parties have not been making this type of software on the PS3 or 360.
Hell, just read the blog post:
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/why-no-discussion-about- overshootin
g/
Instead I'd say that one additional reason for Nintendo's success that doesn't really get talked about very often is price. The Wii launched at a much lower price than its competitors, the DS is actually one of the more inexpensive consumer electronic devices on the market, and games for both systems are cheaper than for other consoles. I think one of the major reasons you see Nintendo's lead over the competition in the console space shrinking now is because the cost to buy an HD console has fallen pretty significantly. I really do think that MS, Sony, and 3rd party developers need to get the costs of games down in the next generation though, because that's still one area where Nintendo has a strong advantage.
Also, Nintendo's lead is not shrinking...if you bother looking at it the long term. The gap is actually widening year-to-year. You remember November 2009? When the Wii took the record for best sold month ever? And afterwards was supply constrained (as in actually supply constrained, not the fake Sony-type). Nintendo suddenly saw all their stock gone...the game responsible? NSMBWii. The end result? In that month Nintendo widened the gap on a year to year basis. This happens every year though, Nintendo manages to break away further from the other two during the holiday season and holds the fort during the rest of the year.
Also, Nintendo's lead is not shrinking...if you bother looking at it the long term. The gap is actually widening year-to-year. You remember November 2009? When the Wii took the record for best sold month ever? And afterwards was supply constrained (as in actually supply constrained, not the fake Sony-type). Nintendo suddenly saw all their stock gone...the game responsible? NSMBWii. The end result? In that month Nintendo widened the gap on a year to year basis. This happens every year though, Nintendo manages to break away further from the other two during the holiday season and holds the fort during the rest of the year.
edit: and here's a link to a nice graph that proves the long-term widening of the gap http://gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/Wii-Sales-Data.jpg
Sega came closest to matching this with Sonic but he isn't that diversifiable of a character, all he does is jumps and spins, I can't relate to him as well as I can to the very human looking Super mario Bros. Everything they do seems like a natural fit. Everything they try to make Sonic do seems like awkward copy-catting. And there's no consistent background story for him. In his early games he was zooming around a forest while saving animals from a mad scientist who encapsulated them in robots...in more recent years he was featured in a futuristic race game in a futuristic city, completely detached from his own roots.
Sony and Microsoft don't have this at all. How many people are looking forward to "Master Chief Halo Kart" or "Master Chief Tennis". I'm not. Master Chief is the closest thing Xbox has to a mascot and he isn't diversifiable at all. Who does Sony have for a mascot? No really,...who? Is that weird mishapen Bandicoot thing their official mascot, I believe he had a Kart game too but I just don't find anything about him appealing enough to play his usual adventure games, let alone his version of a Mario kart knock-off.
If you want to compete with nintendo, you have to develop characters that are likable, interesting and diversifiable. They need friends who can also be described that way. Then you take them and their friends and make as many spin-off products as you can imagine....cha-ching $$$
What's that? You say Link and Samus Aran (Whose last name was poorly pronounced in MP3) aren't cute, diversifiable characters. They were cute and diversifiable enough to get into Smash Bros,....spin-offs...cha-ching $$$
Yes, other people make good points about how Nintendo is able to be so successful but how are my points so easily overlooked so often? Remember, the characters are the base-line of your products, if nobody likes them they won't buy the games.
To observe just one reflection of this, try to think of all the developers you can that have tried 2D gameplay on home consoles in a serious way this generation. Just to name a few ninty has made SSB Brawl, NSMB Wii and Donkey Kong Country Returns, all top-notch, very high quality games and all shamelessly featuring 2d gameplay. PC developers don't run into this problem (imagine if Blizzard or Firaxis had abandoned 2D instead of making SC2 and Civ 5).
Physics engines and shiny textures aren't enough to make a great game. The space for a very narrow band of genres is too crowded on the HD consoles, and nearly everything else is under-explored. A scan of Wikipedia for the top 20-selling games on Xbox 360 shows six first-person shooter games, three third-person action games, three action-sandbox games, two 3D action-RPGs. And that's just in the top 20. That's not enough to attract a very broad audience.