-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Look Back at Nintendo's Board of Directors (Research Topic)
- Thread starter Aquamarine
- Start date
Aquamarine
Member
I didn't vote for Iwata, and I don't think he's the best fit for Nintendo leadership, but that doesn't mean I don't respect him or what he's done for the company over the years.
When it comes to Board politics, I'm "claiming" that Iwata is making some intelligent tactics to help secure his position, and it will be interesting to see what Mr. Arakawa does in the future.
There really was no malice intended against Mr. Iwata at all...if he did manage to stack the board with a bunch of yes-men, I'm actually impressed at his tenacity.
Microfiches? That's some real dedication!
So I take it that the results of this holiday season are going to be very important, I wonder if things will happen next year in the aftermath. The steady stream of first party titles to revitalize the WiiU started in the Summer and seems to persist until next Spring, I can't wait to see the results and whether Iwata is right about the WiiU's problems stemming from a lack of first party titles. Maybe it will have been a matter of making the "right" titles, wonderful as some may be.
So Mr. Kimishima has first hand experience living in the West and has seen what the US is about, correct? Hopefully he brings some of that insight to his position in Japan. I wouldn't mind a return of the glorious Western flavored games I enjoyed on the N64, but then again, I must remember that this Nintendo is not the same as the one from my childhood, and perhaps that would bankrupt the company
So I take it that the results of this holiday season are going to be very important, I wonder if things will happen next year in the aftermath. The steady stream of first party titles to revitalize the WiiU started in the Summer and seems to persist until next Spring, I can't wait to see the results and whether Iwata is right about the WiiU's problems stemming from a lack of first party titles. Maybe it will have been a matter of making the "right" titles, wonderful as some may be.
So Mr. Kimishima has first hand experience living in the West and has seen what the US is about, correct? Hopefully he brings some of that insight to his position in Japan. I wouldn't mind a return of the glorious Western flavored games I enjoyed on the N64, but then again, I must remember that this Nintendo is not the same as the one from my childhood, and perhaps that would bankrupt the company
I think it's more a matter of him doing some things right at NoA but the things he was doing wrong destroying their North American position. So they rewarded him for the things he was legitimately good at AND got rid of a problem. That speaks to good management, personally.
Because it really feels to me like Kimishima was running defense between Reggie's NoA and NCL unnecessarily and was a largely contributing source of NoA's lack of autonomy, by basically muzzling any dissenting opinion from NoA to make them the yes-men NO ONE wanted.
Because one of the first changes I have seen since Kimishima was removed has been a really good one: pushing Dan Adelman all the way into the spotlight and working overtime to bolster the eShop and convince gamers and developers that they have made it an inviting place. Adelman has been with Nintendo since 2005, but he's suddenly a very talkative spokeman as of this year, doing semi-regular interviews, despite him saying things that most people would think Nintendo would never allow him to (like agreeing that region-locking sucks).
If we start seeing more of decisions like that, Iwata at the NoA helm might be more beneficial than people think, but it's still too early to call it.
I don't know what Kimishima's tenure at NoA encompassed, but I wonder how much power he had to get things done. At least with Iwata there, a person who we know can get things going (duh, the boss of Nintendo itself) is there to listen to NoA. But then again, I have no idea what Iwata's being in charge of NoA even means, is he physically there to listen to Reggie and see how things work in the US, is it just to oversee that decisions made in Japan are executed properly in the US or would it actually affect the decisions that are made in Japan. (Or maybe NoA could even make its own decisions and have Iwata to approve them faster. I dunno.)
Crash55118
Member
Not trying to make a snide comment, but what was Kimishima legitimately good at?
It seems like at least looking in from the outside that there were 2 scenarios:
1. Kimishima didn't listen to NOA because he didn't want to be perceived by Iwata as weak, or not having a handle on the division - or even worse wanted to simply not go against the status quo set by Japan.
2. Kimishima didn't think anyone at NOA had any valid opinions and simply didn't allow them to react accordingly to the changing American market or other business scenarios that may not have been kosher in Japan.
I think, especially if the second case holds any truth, that as any kind of Manager he fails spectacularly, and moving up will probably do much more harm then good.
Either way it seems like removing him from that position was for the best. As I'm sure Iwata doesn't talk to Reggie daily, I would assume that he is able to make more decisions the when Kimishima was looming over the division.
Well, his new role has him as a Business Administration Director. So he's basically good at numbers and task management. So I would assume that's where his talent is, not being at the helm of anything sales, product development and marketing related. Which are the 3 things NoA hasn't gotten right in a while and the only parts of the business we have exposure to.
Forgive me if I don't find anything wrong in the decision, it seems crystal clear to me.
Aquamarine
Member
When we look at Mr. Kimishima's history, we can see where his priorities lie:
1) Worked for 27 years at a bank in management positions
2) Worked as Pokemon Co.'s CFO
It's clear that finance and business administration are his strong suits. Presumably, Kimishima was great at running the day-to-day operations of Nintendo of America.
By taking more of a back-seat / COO role in the company, it avoided any potential clash with Iwata, and it allowed the subsidiary to maximize efficiency in logistics / localization / sales. In terms of running things Iwata-style, Kimishima being a passive CEO out of the spotlight allowed Iwata absolute control.
See this photo?
From left to right:
1) Joel Hochberg, president of Rare Ltd.
2) Chris Stamper, co-founder of Rare Ltd. and project lead on many classic Rare games
3) Frank Ballouz, NOA executive
4) Howard Lincoln, senior vice president (eventually chairman) of Nintendo of America
5) Minoru Arakawa, founder and president of Nintendo of America
This is a photo taken at the legal signing of a contract made between Nintendo of America and Rare Ltd. in 1986 where Rare Ltd. would produce games for Nintendo arcade systems.
Where's Hiroshi Yamauchi? He was back in Kyoto, uninvolved in this deal. That's right---Nintendo of America signed a game development contract with Rare Ltd. without the oversight of the Kyoto office.
Can you imagine the modern Nintendo of America going to Warner Bros. to commission an exclusive Batman game for the Wii U? Or what about even for a simple GTA V port?
It's unthinkable to imagine today's Nintendo of America making game-development-related business deals without Iwata / NCL involved---Iwata becoming NOA's President / Chairman solidifies that. Iwata has buried himself within every facet of Nintendo that getting rid of him would be harder than you might expect.
NintendoGal
Member
Arakawa come back and save NOA? He needs to save the company he's working at first to go back as far as I'm concerned.
Great job on the digging, but I do have a bit of trouble seeing all that speculation mixed in with the facts. Still, great job.
By the way all the board members you make it seem quit because the company isn't doing so well or because Iwata wants them out or something: they're all old. Yoshihiro Mori is 68, Shinji Hatano is 71, Masaharu Morimoto is at least 69, Eiichi Suzuki at least 62 and it's safe to say the other ones are old too.
By the way all the board members you make it seem quit because the company isn't doing so well or because Iwata wants them out or something: they're all old. Yoshihiro Mori is 68, Shinji Hatano is 71, Masaharu Morimoto is at least 69, Eiichi Suzuki at least 62 and it's safe to say the other ones are old too.
Crash55118
Member
Thanks for more of the back story, and anecdote about Rare. I highly doubt that Reggie will be power brokering any big deals in the near future, but who knows? I wonder how a few more big western signings or acquisitions may have changed Nintendo's current standing in the home market. Something like Minecraft on Wii would have changed the end of that console's life cycle for the better. Again all pure speculation, but it is something I tend to think about when looking at the company and how it sits right now.
I think that's more symbolic of a desire for NOA to have creative freedom and to pursue their own commissioning of games for a Western audience. But I know Nintendo now wants even tighter creative control, which I take to mean the major software ideas will be created in Japan with the hope they resonate in the US (or in some cases, almost never make it to the US, like with the Operation Rainfall games). I wonder though, can Mario and Zelda be enough "lip service" to keep the Nintendo fans of old while Nintendo continues to go for the expanded audience (Brain Age, Wii Sports...). I know there aren't enough "Nintendo fans" to keep them profitable and that in the long run, if it is possible to get the expanded audience, the expanded audience is more profitable (and less demanding than the traditional Western young male gamer, they don't need AAA graphics to enjoy Nintendogs). But of course, in the end, business decisions made behind the scenes lead to the games and the consoles that I purchase, that is the end result. So any "business fantasies" are just a projection of my desire to have kick-ass, amazing games available for purchase, and Western games can be that, as my childhood N64 library attests. (Will children rememer Nintendogs as a timeless part of their childhood the way I remember the humorous romps through the adventure in Banjo-Kazooie?) I don't care what happens so long as the games that are spit out end up being fantastic
(Xenoblade was fantastic, by the way, shame on Nintendo for being so hesitant with it, why don't they make "game" games for the West analogous to the effort they put into that game if they want to hold back on Japanese "game" games such as Xenoblade. Give a suitable replacement if they're not going to release it. Hmph)But yeah, I understand that Nintendo has not made any moves to do such a thing, to give more creative power to the Western branches like they had in the "old days." And won't make those moves either, because I suppose nobody in NoA would have thought something like Nintendogs would be a viable, successful idea and Nintendo's creative efforts that are likely to become out of left field, smash hits are better created in Japan.
I think people get way too caught up on what they believe is Nintendo.
It was Yamauchi who demanded hardware be cheap and affordable for families. This is not something Iwata came up with. Iwata if anything which you could argue is a problem is because he is a direct continuation of Yamauchi and his policies.
Nintendo is never going to be able to do what MS or Sony can do as far as throwing money away. They could certainly be more aggressive in their approach to technology but it is going to require a lot more than just a change of Iwata. The Entire company is built around the idea they need something to stand out.
Sadly that is true they do need something that makes them standout because they don't have the 3rd party support to stand toe to toe.
It was Yamauchi who demanded hardware be cheap and affordable for families. This is not something Iwata came up with. Iwata if anything which you could argue is a problem is because he is a direct continuation of Yamauchi and his policies.
Nintendo is never going to be able to do what MS or Sony can do as far as throwing money away. They could certainly be more aggressive in their approach to technology but it is going to require a lot more than just a change of Iwata. The Entire company is built around the idea they need something to stand out.
Sadly that is true they do need something that makes them standout because they don't have the 3rd party support to stand toe to toe.
I think that perhaps Kimishima could easily have been part of the problem. If he isn't reporting dissenting opinion back home, which would be his primary function as a CEO of a foreign subsidiary (and what people suspect he wasn't doing), how is Iwata to think that there's something wrong with the status quo and how is NoA to know that what they are saying isn't being reported back to make policy changes within the American market?
NCL may have been making all the policy decisions, but I have a strong feeling that, thanks to Kimishima, it was making those policies blindly unaware.
This theory is brought to the foreground when we see that every time NoA has overturned a previous decision, it was when gamers maneuvered their intentions away from NoA and took them directly to communication channels under NCL's direct purview.
And if NCL decides policy, it does so in a terribly uneven fashion, such as with Operation Rainfall titles getting a fair shake in Europe. What makes NoE different from NoA? Shibata. Who is quite clearly much more willing to communicate the wishes of the market he presides over.
Everything points to Kimishima being a communication dead zone between America and Japan. And every time gamers have circumvented that dead end, results have magically appeared. We attribute these successes to gamers voicing loud dissent, but I feel it has more to do with WHO we voiced that dissent to.
I feel like Iwata's only true failing is not identifying the weak link in that chain of command faster. And that is a failing, no question, but it's also not one that's unique to Iwata or Nintendo.
This notion of Iwata carrying on a Draconian tradition because of our outside perspective is tough to accept when everything suddenly gets better when gamers actually engage with NCL directly and thus engage directly with Iwata. It doesn't add up to what everyone thinks it does when standard deductive reasoning is applied.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
Great article. Thanks for posting this.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
That's an interesting perspective, though it's a big leadership failure on Iwata's part to have missed the problem for so long if it's the case. I suppose it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years with Iwata as NOA CEO assuming he's around that long.
And I recall mentions that Kimishima is getting kind of old, and his move was more to get him back in Japan so he could retire soon. Not so much someone being prepped to be Iwata's successor.
Chû Totoro
Member
One of the best and most interesting OP I've read for a long time. Thanks a lot Aquamarine.
I took the time to read everything and try to understand the most things possible but clearly I'm too far from knowing what happens in boards of directors to understand what we can expect here.
I took the time to read everything and try to understand the most things possible but clearly I'm too far from knowing what happens in boards of directors to understand what we can expect here.
ShinHayase
Member
When we look at Mr. Kimishima's history, we can see where his priorities lie:
1) Worked for 27 years at a bank in management positions
2) Worked as Pokemon Co.'s CFO
It's clear that finance and business administration are his strong suits. Presumably, Kimishima was great at running the day-to-day operations of Nintendo of America.
By taking more of a back-seat / COO role in the company, it avoided any potential clash with Iwata, and it allowed the subsidiary to maximize efficiency in logistics / localization / sales. In terms of running things Iwata-style, Kimishima being a passive CEO out of the spotlight allowed Iwata absolute control.
See this photo?
From left to right:
1) Joel Hochberg, president of Rare Ltd.
2) Chris Stamper, co-founder of Rare Ltd. and project lead on many classic Rare games
3) Frank Ballouz, NOA executive
4) Howard Lincoln, senior vice president (eventually chairman) of Nintendo of America
5) Minoru Arakawa, founder and president of Nintendo of America
This is a photo taken at the legal signing of a contract made between Nintendo of America and Rare Ltd. in 1986 where Rare Ltd. would produce games for Nintendo arcade systems.
Where's Hiroshi Yamauchi? He was back in Kyoto, uninvolved in this deal. That's right---Nintendo of America signed a game development contract with Rare Ltd. without the oversight of the Kyoto office.
Can you imagine the modern Nintendo of America going to Warner Bros. to commission an exclusive Batman game for the Wii U? Or what about even for a simple GTA V port?
It's unthinkable to imagine today's Nintendo of America making game-development-related business deals without Iwata / NCL involved---Iwata becoming NOA's President / Chairman solidifies that. Iwata has buried himself within every facet of Nintendo that getting rid of him would be harder than you might expect.
Informative topic. Thanks for looking things up and posting them.
Your speculation sounds like something from a British tabloid though...
When members of the board left, do you know what their age was for example? Is there a possibility they just retired instead of being forced out in some plot of Iwata.
I feel like you are looking for sensation and drama.
About the bolded quote: If you really think that deal came into existence without the approval of Yamauchi, you might want to research some more.
MisterHero
Super Member
I disagree with most assertions in this thread but the bolded bring certain points to light.
Nintendo makes affordable hardware and games that perform to those specifications. It is not their fault the industry has polarized itself between games that cost tens/hundreds of millions of dollars and cheap independent games.
It's not their fault that people are expecting too much from the industry. Nintendo has been pushing the medium between capable and affordable all along. A select handful of games are making the money that is expected from the standard AAA/A model. Nintendo has their own stable of billion dollar franchises, and they get crapped on for being "too safe".
Yeah, they made some dumb decisions with the initial prices of WiiU and 3DS. That started before Iwata took control though, and these "potential 3rd-party partners" can be just as stubborn. Does Nintendo need to beg or buy every game that comes to their hardware?
I'm sure Iwata stocked Nintendo full of yesmen to create unfavorable industry conditions whilst continuing to deliver quality products. Times are rough, but perhaps patience is the best path.
If all of this crying is over Nintendo's stock price, SNES/N64-style management would NOT benefit Nintendo's bottom line either. I'm not sure what some of you are looking for.
Aquamarine
Member
The thing is, I'm not speculating that Iwata "forced anyone out" in any scenario. Mass exoduses of board members could very much be a mutual agreement. Just because Iwata may want to reorganize the board through a generational change doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing for those leaving. I'm sure a handsome retirement package for each Board member was one of the contingencies here.
Personally, I'm not "looking for sensation or drama," I'm just bringing up points for conversation. I was very close to just making the topic without any extra stuff, but I realize that I'd rather have more people respond to the topic, so I appended some random musings. Please don't read too much into the "British tabloid speculation" if you don't want to respect it.
About the quote, please read again what I said. I said they made a deal "without the oversight of the Kyoto office" / "without Yamauchi involved." This is how I expect the deal went down:
1) Minoru Arakawa want to boost the presence of Nintendo arcade systems in the USA
2) NOA seeks out Rare Ltd. to develop a mutual agreement
3) Arakawa tells Yamauchi "we are doing XYZ because we know it would be a good thing for Nintendo."
4) Yamauchi says "okay," and lets NOA handle everything without personally overseeing every facet of the deal like Iwata would. In other words, he "wouldn't be involved in the deal."
Please note that this logic makes sense because the legal signing was more about creating a harmonious relationship between two companies than a massive contract that would require a significant drain in resources from Nintendo's coffers. It's very much the type of situation where NOA could operate autonomously.
I doubt that deal was made without any oversight from Yamauchi. There is nothing in Nintendo's history that would make me be believe that Iwata has more of an iron fist way of running things than Yamauchi did. Yamauchi groomed Iwata for the job and he seems to be running things in a similar way, but with a kind and more public face. I suspect Nintendo is still running under Yamauchi's ideas.
This, NOA needs to be it's own thing...
DragonSworne
Banned
Promoting Takeda and Miyamoto, the men behind the problems with Wii U hardware and software respectivitely, causes me to think that Nintendo is not going to shift their ideals.
The last thing I want Nintendo to do is release more NSMB style games one another undersided, underpowered hardware attached to a gimmick, but these decisions strongly suggest that is what is going to happen.
The last thing I want Nintendo to do is release more NSMB style games one another undersided, underpowered hardware attached to a gimmick, but these decisions strongly suggest that is what is going to happen.
Moral Panic
Member
Great research. Not really sure how to interpret it so I'll leave it to more knowledgeble people but the above part struck me really well. Great insights.
Kotaku et al - this is some real journalism for y'all. It's easy to say "What should we be covering that we aren't", but you are supposed to be the ones investigating and discovering things no one thought to look for. At least that's my take on it.
Nightstick11
Banned
I would support an Arakawa coup. He has an unbroken lineage to the Yamauchi line (by marriage).
Aquamarine
Member
Someone asked if I could provide some more information on one of Nintendo's most mysterious executives, Atsushi Asada.
Mr. Asada is most famous for being at the helm of Nintendo when Mr. Yamauchi decided to retire. Asada was the head of a 6 person "Executive Committee" that ran the Company for a few years while Yamauchi carefully oversaw how everything ran without him.
Without any further ado, this is the information I have on him:
Atsushi Asada
March 1933 - Born in Osaka
April 1955 - Joined Sharp (then Hayakawa Electric Company Co., Ltd.)
1960s - Head development on Electronic Calculators by designing logic circuits
June 1977 - Appointed to Sharp's Board of Directors, Deputy General Manager of Industrial Equipment Division
1980s - Worked on early PC development
Picture - Atsushi Asada in 1983:
April 1988 - Appointed as Sharp's Corporate Senior Executive Vice President
1996-1997 - President of Japan Business Machines and Information System Industries Association
December 1999 - Resigned from Sharp
December 1999 - Joined Nintendo Co., Ltd. as a Senior Advisor
June 2000 - Appointed Executive Vice President of Nintendo Co., Ltd.
September 2001 - Purchased Wii technology from Tom Quinn after Microsoft and Sony laughed at it...it's thanks to Mr. Asada that Nintendo was able to develop the Wii and revive its fortunes
2001-2002 - Made many public announcements / appearances at trade shows about the GameCube
Video - Atsushi Asada announcing the price of the GameCube of Japan (Clip 3 of 7)
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/2001/08/23/108230037/?s=technology
Picture - Atsushi Asada at Nintendo:
May 2002 - Appointed Chairman of the Board of Nintendo Co., Ltd....Company is run by Executive Committee of Satoru Iwata, Atsushi Asada, Shigeru Miyamoto, Shinji Hatano, Genyo Takeda, and Yoshihiro Mori with Hiroshi Yamauchi overseeing and Atsushi Asada having the final word
2004 - Suggested that Nintendo develop games for radically new audiences like seniors, led to the development of games like Brain Age
November 2004 - Launched the Nintendo DS
June 2005 - Resigned (along with Hiroshi Yamauchi) from Nintendo...serves as an Executive Advisor who Iwata could approach if he wants guidance....Iwata takes full control of the company
February 2007 - Gave a lecture at Osaka Securities Exchange
May 2008 - Gave a lecture at a seminar about the history of digital consumer electronics
March 2009 - Advisor to a new startup company "Eye and On," which provides corporate education and training through a variety of hands-on and multimedia methods
2013 - Still alive as far as I'm aware (I haven't found any record of an obituary or his death)
Mr. Asada is most famous for being at the helm of Nintendo when Mr. Yamauchi decided to retire. Asada was the head of a 6 person "Executive Committee" that ran the Company for a few years while Yamauchi carefully oversaw how everything ran without him.
Without any further ado, this is the information I have on him:
Atsushi Asada
March 1933 - Born in Osaka
April 1955 - Joined Sharp (then Hayakawa Electric Company Co., Ltd.)
1960s - Head development on Electronic Calculators by designing logic circuits
June 1977 - Appointed to Sharp's Board of Directors, Deputy General Manager of Industrial Equipment Division
1980s - Worked on early PC development
Picture - Atsushi Asada in 1983:
April 1988 - Appointed as Sharp's Corporate Senior Executive Vice President
1996-1997 - President of Japan Business Machines and Information System Industries Association
December 1999 - Resigned from Sharp
December 1999 - Joined Nintendo Co., Ltd. as a Senior Advisor
June 2000 - Appointed Executive Vice President of Nintendo Co., Ltd.
September 2001 - Purchased Wii technology from Tom Quinn after Microsoft and Sony laughed at it...it's thanks to Mr. Asada that Nintendo was able to develop the Wii and revive its fortunes
2001-2002 - Made many public announcements / appearances at trade shows about the GameCube
Video - Atsushi Asada announcing the price of the GameCube of Japan (Clip 3 of 7)
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/2001/08/23/108230037/?s=technology
Picture - Atsushi Asada at Nintendo:
May 2002 - Appointed Chairman of the Board of Nintendo Co., Ltd....Company is run by Executive Committee of Satoru Iwata, Atsushi Asada, Shigeru Miyamoto, Shinji Hatano, Genyo Takeda, and Yoshihiro Mori with Hiroshi Yamauchi overseeing and Atsushi Asada having the final word
2004 - Suggested that Nintendo develop games for radically new audiences like seniors, led to the development of games like Brain Age
November 2004 - Launched the Nintendo DS
June 2005 - Resigned (along with Hiroshi Yamauchi) from Nintendo...serves as an Executive Advisor who Iwata could approach if he wants guidance....Iwata takes full control of the company
February 2007 - Gave a lecture at Osaka Securities Exchange
May 2008 - Gave a lecture at a seminar about the history of digital consumer electronics
March 2009 - Advisor to a new startup company "Eye and On," which provides corporate education and training through a variety of hands-on and multimedia methods
2013 - Still alive as far as I'm aware (I haven't found any record of an obituary or his death)
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Fascinating. Definitely feels like a very unsung figure for Nintendo, perhaps because he got very closely associated to those negative Gamecube years and looked at as just an interim figure during the switchover.
But then, just like that, you can tie him to the very genesis of the Wii with the tech acquisition, a strong influence on reaching out to new markets, and a voice of seniority within the company post-Yamauchi stepping down. So the chaps 80 now and hopefully still trucking. Cool to know, thanks Aqua!
But then, just like that, you can tie him to the very genesis of the Wii with the tech acquisition, a strong influence on reaching out to new markets, and a voice of seniority within the company post-Yamauchi stepping down. So the chaps 80 now and hopefully still trucking. Cool to know, thanks Aqua!
This isn't islam: blood lineage, for the most part, should be irrelevant.
Great work on the thread.
So who was responsible for this:
"Atsushi Asada becomes Executive Vice President out of nowhere."
Did Yamauchi recruit him? And if so, was Asada really the person resposible for the Wii? That would make Yamauchi a genius at recruiting people really. (20 years earlier he recruited Miyamoto)
So who was responsible for this:
"Atsushi Asada becomes Executive Vice President out of nowhere."
Did Yamauchi recruit him? And if so, was Asada really the person resposible for the Wii? That would make Yamauchi a genius at recruiting people really. (20 years earlier he recruited Miyamoto)
Aquamarine
Member
Yes, Yamauchi was the one who hired him. It's because of Asada's efforts that Nintendo was able to develop the Wii. He's one of the behind-the-scenes guys who made a real lasting impact on the company.
Cool. So Yamauchi for president! Still sad that he is gone.
First off, Aqua great analysis as always.
Secondly, ignoring the hypothesis that Iwata appointed members that he felt would be loyal or added to the company's directions, which is obvious as with many other company board appointees, maybe this generation change has more to do with the fact that the Wii U was already deemed a huge blunder at that point?
We can assume that the Wii U was Iwata's direction for the company along with the 3DS, but those systems are evolution's of products created by Yamauchi and Iwata together. We honestly have no idea the extent that Iwata wanted to continue leading the company down this form of operations. Yes he is CEO and Chairman but still the board has some form of power. What if Iwata agreed to release these products at the will of the board? Failure of these products would lead some of the key board members that voted for this direction of the company to be removed. Either way, this signals to me that Iwata is a weak CEO, and probably just complied with the board in making decisions about the company's direction than rather being a leader and setting the direction himself. His performance the last few years has been horrible to me, and the Wii U's floundering even before it was released tells me that the company has no clear direction or development goal (from an individual).
If you read these sections of Iwata's answer at the meeting carefully it is very insightful (but also I could be reading too much into it as well):
Secondly, ignoring the hypothesis that Iwata appointed members that he felt would be loyal or added to the company's directions, which is obvious as with many other company board appointees, maybe this generation change has more to do with the fact that the Wii U was already deemed a huge blunder at that point?
We can assume that the Wii U was Iwata's direction for the company along with the 3DS, but those systems are evolution's of products created by Yamauchi and Iwata together. We honestly have no idea the extent that Iwata wanted to continue leading the company down this form of operations. Yes he is CEO and Chairman but still the board has some form of power. What if Iwata agreed to release these products at the will of the board? Failure of these products would lead some of the key board members that voted for this direction of the company to be removed. Either way, this signals to me that Iwata is a weak CEO, and probably just complied with the board in making decisions about the company's direction than rather being a leader and setting the direction himself. His performance the last few years has been horrible to me, and the Wii U's floundering even before it was released tells me that the company has no clear direction or development goal (from an individual).
If you read these sections of Iwata's answer at the meeting carefully it is very insightful (but also I could be reading too much into it as well):
But how did this excuse for a generational change not affect Nintendo before now? I'm pretty sure the board has been fairly "old" for the last few decades. I think this is directed not at the company's age but rather the boards and more particular certain members. So my question is why? Iwata's big reply really never answers the question.
So a discussion among those not removed. But why, again?
Ok, now this is really insightful and sort of answers why. Their was disagreement within the board. The 3DS was initially a failure, the Wii U had just launched and Q4 was an astronomical failure, and so changes had to be made and blame had to be placed somewhere. It's not random that exactly 4 members of the 9 member board was removed. With the new board, assuming in agreement now, it will be able for Nintendo to make faster decisions in the "fast-changing business environment."
This is where I believe Iwata hints at what exactly was the boards disagreement. One part wanted to be innovative and novel, and the other probably wanted to stay conservative. We'll never know exactly what played out on the board, but this is what I interpret from his reply.
what?
bullshit. the ds & 3ds are systems of nintendo in 'retreat?' are you fucking kidding me?
if selling over millions upon millions upon millions of systems and software at a much higher rate than any current or past competition in their history is considered 'retreating', maybe everyone should follow their strategy & 'retreat' too, then?
nintendo's handhelds, the DEFACTO dedicated portable gaming systems on the market, have consistently followed their own technological curve. gb-gbc-gba-ds-3ds.
it's sony that jumped the shark and released something twice as powerful, possible under the impression that's all they needed to do to raise the market from the 'handheld ghetto'.
SONY is the anomaly in this market, not nintendo.
at NO point in the handheld market has Nintendo ever been in 'retreat' mode. securing monster hunter, for example was an 'aggressive' move. releasing monster hunter, mario kart, and mario 3d land consecutively in a holiday timeframe is an aggressive move. keeping DQ exclusive to nintendo systems is an aggressive move.
the reason why nintendo is still on top in handhelds is because they have always outmanoeuvred all of their competition. finding new markets and expanding current user bases is the very definitiont of expansion in business. only on an insular 'hardcore' gamer message board would that ever be considered 'selling out' or 'retreating'. lol.
and only on an internet gaming message board would such a claim that paints a scenario that is utterly the complete OPPOSITE of the reality on the situation, ever be potentially considered seriously.
holyfanboydudebroconsolewars, batman.
i love sony's portables. i even own a pspGO. however, if you really want to talk about 'retreating', just take a look at sony's general approach to their vita.
THAT's retreating.
it's a great system, but if your game plan is to reposition the unit as a secondary ps4 controller & go so far as to bundle the two that way moving forward, you are deliberately undermining the original intention & purpose of the system & changing it into a secondary, afterthought product.
THAT is retreating.
wow. i think i've just read a new level of spin. '3ds' is nintendo in 'retreat'. lol.
what does that make sony? or any other company that's tried to release handheld console?
If that's the case, why was the DS initially described as a "third pillar"?
Do you prefer the word "evade"?
The GBA was described as a portable N64/PSX hybrid. Sony released a portable PS2 (almost), a straight-line device in the vein of GB/GBC/GBA, and intended to launch it early to gain an advantage against the unseen GBA2.
Nintendo was afraid of that fight (PSP vs GBA2), so they made excuses and did something different. Dual-screen gaming wasn't the way the winds were blowing. It had nothing to do with handheld stagnation and the desire to open up new markets. It had everything to do with the PSP. And it was a great move on Nintendo's part! It made Sony look clueless. They showed up to a fight that never came. But I think that Nintendo has been overusing that move.
Nintendo regained the home console market lead thanks to the Wii, so I think that "get creative" with the Wii U was the wrong tactic. An ordinary next-gen console more in common with something like the Dreamcast would have been the better option.
Nintendo was afraid of Sony invading the portable market with the same succes as the PS2, but I'm sure the DS was planned all along. They called it third pillar so they could release another handheld IF it turned out Sony would be winning over the market with their high tech strategy.
Luckily for them it didn't, so it wasn't' necessary to release a more traditional higher tech (3DS level?) portable device as the "true" successor of the GBA, but I'm sure they were prepared for this option.
By who? That's a silly statement.
The GBA was described as a "32 bit" system (yeah we were still in the bit-ness marketing age although at the end of it) since it had a 32 bit CPU but in term of what it can output it was sort of a SNES plus.
PSP quickened the development and release of DS, but the concept at the base of DS (and then Wii) , that is a more broad appeal system and games to recapture the gamers that was losing interest in the hobby or those who never tried it, was predicated publicly by Nintendo top figures since 2002.
Saying otherwise is dishonest.
It was the market and how Nintendo view it that shaped the DS first and then the Wii.
cantona222
Member
Great research OP.
Miyamoto is big now. He is going to be modest if he involves himself in the devolepment of any game
Miyamoto is big now. He is going to be modest if he involves himself in the devolepment of any game
Since this was bumped there was a director change announced in the financial results. Kaoru Takemura is retiring from Nintendo at the end of June and being replaced by Naoki Mizutani (if the shareholders approve). Kind of an interesting hire as he's currently Nintendo's auditor.
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140507e.pdf
So only Iwata/Takeda/Miyamoto/Kimishima will be left as directors on the board that have been there over a year
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2014/140507e.pdf
So only Iwata/Takeda/Miyamoto/Kimishima will be left as directors on the board that have been there over a year
Eric_Gilmore
Neo Member
Does anybody have access to an organization chart for Nintendo today? I'd really appreciate it. The rest of this has helped me a bunch, but I can't find an organization chart for today with Tatsumi Kimishima as CEO.