• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Iwata Interview - We cannot afford to be too late (with Rev)

SantaC

Member
Question: All three consolemakers, yourself included, have unveiled their plans for the next console generation. How do you feel about Nintendo's prospects with Revolution at this point?

Iwata: In the first place, Sony and Microsoft are taking about the same approach for the future by making machines with powerful and sophisticated technology. Nintendo is taking a little bit different approach, and I think this is an interesting contrast.

Of course, we are applying advances in technology. But when you use those advances just to boost the processing power, the trade-off is that you increase power consumption, make the machine more expensive and make developing games more expensive. When I look at the balance of that trade-off -- what you gain and what you lose -- I don't think it's good. Nintendo is applying the benefits of advanced technology, but we're using it to make our machines more power-efficient, quieter and faster to start. And we're making a brand-new user interface. I think that way of thinking is the biggest difference.

Q: Which strategy will prevail?

Iwata: It is going to be the customers who decide. What Nintendo will do is simply try to do our best, believing that our strategy is right.

Q: Bill Gates said recently that he thinks Nintendo will be more of a niche player in the future, with Sony and Microsoft battling for the number one spot. What do you think of that characterization?


Iwata: Talking about the definition of the niche, or niche market, I really have the completely opposite opinion. The people the other companies are targeting are very limited to those who are high-tech oriented, and core game players. They cannot expand beyond that population. We are trying to capture the widest possible audience all around the world. (He cited the example of Nintendogs, a new virtual pet game for the Nintendo DS handheld machine that has taken off in Japan.) In other words, we are trying to capture the people who are even beyond the gaming population. So for that kind of company, we don't think the term "niche" is appropriate.

Q: What will games be like on Revolution?

Iwata: We really cannot forget about the existence of the avid game fans -- the fans of Nintendo games. I know that those Nintendo fans now are looking forward to playing the advanced versions of "Mario" and "Zelda" and "Metroid" and others, and of course we are going to respond to those requests from avid game fans.

At the same time, many people are looking forward to multiplayer games, and we are ready to provide more exciting opportunities by introducing them to (the company's new wireless online gaming service) Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection so that, with the Revolution, people in remote areas can play with each other as if they were playing with people in front of them.

Also, we really feel that we need to create something that is very unique and different from today's gaming -- something that can stimulate interest from those who are not playing today's games. ... What Nintendo is trying to do, therefore, is to create a new interface and new theme of gaming that can really address the needs of the current non-gamers. (That new interface has been the subject of a lot of speculation, although the company has said it's keeping the details secret for now.)

Q: When you talk about the new interface, do you mean something on the screen or in the hand?

Iwata: Unfortunately, I really cannot say anything right now, but at least I can tell you that you will use your hands. (Laughs.)

Q: Microsoft will be the first to market, releasing the Xbox 360 later this year. Revolution comes sometime next year. How does that affect the ultimate outcome in terms of market share?

Iwata: If the first entrant always wins the market, the Dreamcast must have won the race against the PS2, for example. (Sony's Playstation 2 came to market after Sega's Dreamcast and was extremely successful, while Dreamcast fizzled.) There are many precedents like that in the past. The first to market is not necessarily the winner in the race.

But we cannot afford to be too late. That's a very important point. Right now we are keeping many secrets, but by the end of this year, I believe we really need to express to the worldwide audience what the mysterious proposals we have are all about. Otherwise we will be in an extremely different position.

Q: You revealed a surprise this week -- the Game Boy Micro. (Iwata pulls out one of the 4-by-2-inch game players, along with a tiny cartridge that plays a music video on the color screen and audio through attached headphones.) What was the inspiration for this product?

Iwata: We tried different ways to see how small we could get it, to see what kind of design would be good. We experimented with horizontal and vertical screens and experimented with various screen sizes. As a result, we came up with some prototypes, but we wondered if we could get it even smaller. ... We thought we should make it the ultimate. So we made it with a metallic body, which is unusual for Nintendo, and we made it as small as possible.

Q: The general perception is that Nintendo appeals to a younger audience. Will you try to embrace that, expand upon it, or move away from it in the next console generation?

Iwata: First of all, I've never once been embarrassed that children have supported Nintendo. I'm proud of it. That's because children judge products based on instinct. Everyone wants to appeal to people's instincts, but it's not easy. That doesn't mean we're making products just for children. We believe that there's interactive entertainment that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s can enjoy, so we're doing various things.


Discuss.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/225097_e3iwata20.html
 
Iwata said:
Iwata: Talking about the definition of the niche, or niche market, I really have the completely opposite opinion. The people the other companies are targeting are very limited to those who are high-tech oriented, and core game players. They cannot expand beyond that population. We are trying to capture the widest possible audience all around the world. (He cited the example of Nintendogs, a new virtual pet game for the Nintendo DS handheld machine that has taken off in Japan.) In other words, we are trying to capture the people who are even beyond the gaming population. So for that kind of company, we don't think the term "niche" is appropriate.

This paragraph is emblematic of everything that is wrong and dumb with Nintendo.
 
Raoul Duke said:
This paragraph is emblematic of everything that is wrong and dumb with Nintendo.

Why would he agree that they are niche? That wouldn't look good from a pr standpoint.
 
SantaCruZer said:
Why would he agree that they are niche. That wouldn't look good from a pr standpoint.
I'm not talking about that. Of course he's going to say they're not niche. But assuming that a mass audience DOESN'T want powerful new technology... there are no words.
 
Raoul Duke said:
I'm not talking about that. Of course he's going to say they're not niche. But assuming that a mass audience DOESN'T want powerful new technology... there are no words.

Well I do agree with that. But let's judge that when the specs are out though.
 
Raoul Duke said:
This paragraph is emblematic of everything that is wrong and dumb with Nintendo.

So the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people who do not play video games are considered niche?

:rolleyes
 
Raoul Duke said:
This paragraph is emblematic of everything that is wrong and dumb with Nintendo.

I fucking agree. Nintendo is out of touch. I mean seriously, without their franchises, they're preety much nothing.
 
Iwata: We tried different ways to see how small we could get it, to see what kind of design would be good. We experimented with horizontal and vertical screens and experimented with various screen sizes. As a result, we came up with some prototypes, but we wondered if we could get it even smaller. ... We thought we should make it the ultimate. So we made it with a metallic body, which is unusual for Nintendo, and we made it as small as possible.

But why where they trying this?

Does anyone know anything about the price of the Mirco?
 
Nintendo is applying the benefits of advanced technology, but we're using it to make our machines more power-efficient, quieter and faster to start. And we're making a brand-new user interface. I think that way of thinking is the biggest difference.

I was just thinking to myself the other day, I don't want my console to have turbo graphics, I want it to start fast, run quiet, and be power-efficient.
 
Raoul Duke said:
I'm not talking about that. Of course he's going to say they're not niche. But assuming that a mass audience DOESN'T want powerful new technology... there are no words.

I think it can be interpreted as him saying that's not all they want. A context for the technology is also needed, a use. It's the reason why the iPod, despite being technically inferior to a host of other portable audio players, is the best-selling. The mainstream often doesn't care about what's under the hood, they care about if they can play Grand Theft Titty Fighter 4 Alpha online.
 
+Aliken+ said:
But why where they trying this?

Does anyone know anything about the price of the Mirco?

I don't know the price, but for your first question I suspect that the Micro is another oppurtunity to drive sales for GBA software. It also looks like they want to hook the crowd that is forming around cellphone gaming.
 
If Iwata absolutely can't shake the idea that videogames really could use a gyroscope or whatever the hell it is, couldn't he at least acknowledge that a powerful whiz-bang machine is useful in addition to that? Why can't it be "innovation" and crazy tech specs?

Reggie spoke about Nintendo being an "and" company, but unless they acknowledge the role of presentation and technology in games there's no way that's going to happen.
 
He's not really saying that they aren't going after the high-tec crowd though, he's just saying that Sony and Microsoft are too focussed on that. Which to a degree is true. This E3 has been one of the most uninteresting E3's to date, which considering we saw 2 full hardware unveilings does sort of reinforce his point that hardware isn't enough.

The most interesting part of all 3 conferences for me was the short rubber-duck/eyetoy tech-demo. If only there'd been more stuff like that it would have been a lot more interesting. So if Nintendo has stuff like that up their sleeves then I'm all for it. It could turn out to be another clickable-shoulder buttons fiasco, but I'm not going to write them off till we know what it is. Cos I think we really do need some new ideas to expand the current genres.
 
human5892 said:
If Iwata absolutely can't shake the idea that videogames really could use a gyroscope or whatever the hell it is, couldn't he at least acknowledge that a powerful whiz-bang machine is useful in addition to that? Why can't it be "innovation" and crazy tech specs?

Reggie spoke about Nintendo being an "and" company, but unless they acknowledge the role of presentation and technology in games there's no way that's going to happen.

I back this up, why can't we have both?
 
The way they keep pimping low power consumption (irrelevant for a machine plugged into a wall), the more I think this chipset is planned to be in a handheld one day.
 
human5892 said:
If Iwata absolutely can't shake the idea that videogames really could use a gyroscope or whatever the hell it is, couldn't he at least acknowledge that a powerful whiz-bang machine is useful in addition to that? Why can't it be "innovation" and crazy tech specs?

Perhaps because they want to sell you machine at 200 dollars? Unless Sony is planning on taking heavy losses, their "crazy specs" need to be payed for.
 
ge-man said:
Perhaps because they want to sell you machine at 200 dollars? Unless Sony is planning on taking heavy losses, their "crazy specs" need to be payed for.
Well, without the benefit of knowing what Nintendo's controller tech is: I'd say they could make a machine that's at the very least comparable to the 360, sell it for $300 (which is by most accounts what both of their competitors' machines will be selling for), and not be sustaining company-ending losses or anything of that nature.
 
the trade-off is that you increase power consumption, make the machine more expensive and make developing games more expensive.
If this is the case, PS3 and Xbox 360 are doomed to failure, as games will be far too expensive to develop for them, and nobody will even be able to afford the systems anyway.
 
human5892 said:
If this is the case, PS3 and Xbox 360 are doomed to failure, as games will be far too expensive to develop for them, and nobody will even be able to afford the systems anyway.

No problem' for EA and the likes.
 
Mashing said:
So the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people who do not play video games are considered niche?

:rolleyes
The number of people who get a daily newspaper is vastly smaller than the number of people who don't read the paper at all, but no one considers the newspaper-reading market to be a niche market.
First of all, I've never once been embarrassed that children have supported Nintendo. I'm proud of it. That's because children judge products based on instinct. Everyone wants to appeal to people's instincts, but it's not easy. That doesn't mean we're making products just for children. We believe that there's interactive entertainment that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s can enjoy, so we're doing various things.
Children also watch every bit of garbage on Nickelodeon, eat paste and avoid baths. And I'm betting most people here don't want to play a Matlock game for more than an hour (although I'm sure Team-N would defend a Matlock game as Jesus-on-a-stick if Nintendo made it).
 
I really don't see anywhere in the article that say's the Revolution wont be powerful, it just says that it is not all they are focusing on. I see next gen, being like this one. Games made on a console will look better then the ports, mostly. All the consoles will have there own strengths and weakness. It will take the great deveolpers to max out all the systems..
 
human5892 said:
Well, without the benefit of knowing what Nintendo's controller tech is: I'd say they could make a machine that's at the very least comparable to the 360, sell it for $300 (which is by most accounts what both of their competitors' machines will be selling for), and not be sustaining company-ending losses or anything of that nature.

Why don't you people WAIT FOR THE DAMN THING to have actual specs before all this doomed shit?

He nevers says that it won't be a super high tech machine. Its fucking hilarious that you people were jizzing all over the PS3 and Xbox 360 with their uber processors and shit and then when they showed ACTUAL game footage everyone said it looked like shit and Xbox 1.5.

May I remind everyone that this is the same forum that before we knew anything said that it was going to have N64 graphics because they were spending too much money on the controller, then the graphics improved up to just a Gamecube with funky controller, and now its all the way up to 2 to 3 times the Gamecube. By the time they actually release the console it will be up to the power that you people want but you'll have tons of drama threads about it every fucking day.

Didn't anybody actually think that if Nintendo came out and said that their machine was going to be more powerful then the PS3 that Sony would not go back and try to outdo them. By going first it has screwed over MS because Sony just outdid them so why would you REVEAL a year before your system is coming out the power and stuff that it will have other then to provide fapping material for fanboys. Its a stupid ass strategy to tell everyone what your machine is going to do especially since Sony has time to revamp their system if Nintendo is more powerful.

Honestly I think Nintendo will be more powerful then MS but they will be behind Sony just because its not worth it for Nintendo to outdo Sony when all 3 consoles next gen are going to be very close in graphics. Spending the extra money to outdo Sony by 1% isn't worth it except for fanybody bragging rights. But if Nintendo came out and said today that they would be more powerful then MS but not Sony you people would have more of these stupid ass suicide threads where you proclaim gloom and doom on everything. I mean you all wanted Nintendo to show shit for a console that's coming out in 2006 at 2005 E3 but nobody went nuts when MS showed NOTHING of the Xbox 360 at the 2004 E3 with their console coming out in 2005.
 
NWO said:
Why don't you people WAIT FOR THE DAMN THING to have actual specs before all this doomed shit?
I never used the word "doomed".

He nevers says that it won't be a super high tech machine.
Not directly, no, but it's pretty obvious that he's downplaying graphics technology. Nintendo PR reps have also pegged the Revolution as being only two or three times more powerful than GC.

Its fucking hilarious that you people were jizzing all over the PS3 and Xbox 360 with their uber processors and shit and then when they showed ACTUAL game footage everyone said it looked like shit and Xbox 1.5.
There are plenty of Xbox 360 games that look very good...far beyond the initial unveiling of Perfect Dark and the like.

May I remind everyone that this is the same forum that before we knew anything said that it was going to have N64 graphics because they were spending too much money on the controller, then the graphics improved up to just a Gamecube with funky controller, and now its all the way up to 2 to 3 times the Gamecube. By the time they actually release the console it will be up to the power that you people want but you'll have tons of drama threads about it every fucking day.
I don't recall anyone at any time ever speculating that the Revolution would have N64 graphics. Even if they did, it doesn't mean Nintendo was actually making such a machine, and then improved it to its current level based on messageboards, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Didn't anybody actually think that if Nintendo came out and said that their machine was going to be more powerful then the PS3 that Sony would not go back and try to outdo them. By going first it has screwed over MS because Sony just outdid them so why would you REVEAL a year before your system is coming out the power and stuff that it will have other then to provide fapping material for fanboys. Its a stupid ass strategy to tell everyone what your machine is going to do especially since Sony has time to revamp their system if Nintendo is more powerful.
Being more powerful than Sony and speaking as if your console won't be able to compete technically with either of its two competitors are two different things.

But if Nintendo came out and said today that they would be more powerful then MS but not Sony you people would have more of these stupid ass suicide threads where you proclaim gloom and doom on everything.
Actually, if Nintendo had said that, I'm pretty sure this thread would look a lot different.
 
I havent been to happy with nintendo myself but lets look at the facts...

Which systems had the best games this e3: Nintendo systems
Which System is the weakest this gen: PLaystation 2
Which system is the cheapest this gen: Gamecube
Which systems is selling the most in japan: DS
Where are the PSP games?

I really think whats wrong with Nintendo is their PR and their marketing. When you look at the facts their hardware tends to kick ass. And maybe their intentions are correct.
 
human5892 said:
Not directly, no, but it's pretty obvious that he's downplaying graphics technology. Nintendo PR reps have also pegged the Revolution as being only two or three times more powerful than GC.
Will everybody bitch if Rev pumps out 2-3 times the graphics of RE4, Metroid Prime, Rouge Leader, Zelda:TP, etc??

I think people are over reacting to something they dont really know anything about yet. Specs are never final until production starts.... Same goes for MS and Sony.
 
empanada said:
Will everybody bitch if Rev pumps out 2-3 times the graphics of RE4, Metroid Prime, Rouge Leader, Zelda:TP, etc??
They might in the context of the other two systems. Would you have bitched if the GameCube was only twice as powerful as the N64 and released alongside the PS2 and Xbox? It might have looked okay compared to where you came from, but not very impressive compared to where everyone else was going.

I think people are over reacting to something they dont really know anything about yet. Specs are never final until production starts.... Same goes for MS and Sony.
Well, sure, and if Nintendo beefs up their specs at some point in the future I'll gladly retract my statements. I'm just going on what we know/what's been inferred to us as of now.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Which systems had the best games this e3: Nintendo systems
.
It has?
besides zelda and one or two games i cant think of any.

Which System is the weakest this gen: PLaystation 2
You're stuck in the past, things change, the other firms are far more progressive
 
Didn't anybody actually think that if Nintendo came out and said that their machine was going to be more powerful then the PS3 that Sony would not go back and try to outdo them. By going first it has screwed over MS because Sony just outdid them so why would you REVEAL a year before your system is coming out the power and stuff that it will have other then to provide fapping material for fanboys. Its a stupid ass strategy to tell everyone what your machine is going to do especially since Sony has time to revamp their system if Nintendo is more powerful.

This is a great point. Microsoft is now screwed because they are in no way the most powerfu console on the market when that was their original claim to fame.
 
human5892 said:
Well, sure, and if Nintendo beefs up their specs at some point in the future I'll gladly retract my statements. I'm just going on what we know/what's been inferred to us as of now.
Fair enough. One thing is for sure, Nintendo fucking sucks at generating hype (Fanboy hype not included :lol )
 
empanada said:
Fair enough. One thing is for sure, Nintendo fucking sucks at generating hype (Fanboy hype not included :lol )
I'll say.

It's funny, because it seems like they used to be a lot better at it. I remember a lot of hype surrounding the N64. The GameCube, OTOH, seemed like it launched very quietly, especially compared to the Xbox, which I remember having a lot of media exposure at the time.
 
nightez said:
It has?
besides zelda and one or two games i cant think of any.


You're stuck in the past, things change, the other firms are far more progressive


I'm stuck in the past? Most people point to Nintendo's history when they think they will have the weakest system. Iwata's rhetroic is almost exactly the same as nintendo's stance prior to gamecubes launch. I dont think they will have the 3d party support but I really don't think they will have the weakest hardware. The perception of course is another story, a lot people to this think the gamecube is the weakest system by far this gen.
 
How many times more powerful do anyone think the GC is compared to the N64?

Do you think Sony will slightly rework there design to include atleast 10MB of eDRAM?

Isn't obvious Sony showed specs and concept videos of games in development, because of the Xbox360?

Nintendo is working with same companies next gen, which I believe give them an advantage in cost compared to Sony and MS. All they have to do is build on GC tech, that doesn't mean technically their console will be inferior.
 
Guys Sony said the Ps2 is 1000x more powerful than the PS1 and it's more powerful than a supercomputer it MUST be true!

Oh, and the Ps2 can do 100+ million polys per second compared to the GC's 18 million lol GC sucks.

Hey and teh PS3 can render jenna jameson giving a blowjob with 100% accuracy in real time omgwtfbbq.
 
xsarien said:
I think it can be interpreted as him saying that's not all they want. A context for the technology is also needed, a use. It's the reason why the iPod, despite being technically inferior to a host of other portable audio players, is the best-selling. The mainstream often doesn't care about what's under the hood, they care about if they can play Grand Theft Titty Fighter 4 Alpha online.

Seconded.

There's no doubt that gaming is a niche industry--it's just an obsessively followed one. There isn't anything close to universal interest across the demographics in gaming. It might make as much money as the box office, but it certainly doesn't have the unilateral draw that media like movies and TV do. yet.

When my girlfriend sees a controller that she can moronically wave around in the air to control a character, squeezing the handles to accellerate a car, etc, she's going to want me to get a Revolution. And when I described it to her, she got all excited; the only game she'll play now is Wario Ware because it just uses the A button.

Which I find funny, given Miyamoto's "one button" speech five years ago. Maybe all the crazy-ass natural input stuff is an extension of that.
 
xexex said:
Revolution's marketshare will be similar to that of Sega's Master System :(

That's an interesting quote, because the Master System was more powerful than the Famicom, it also came out before the Famicom.

In fact you could say the Famicom was only powerful enough, what really made it so popular were Nintendo's new games, they've inherited little from the Atari and none of what they did was very significant for their success. What was really important were the games that had their origins on the system.
 
It should be interesting to point out that there's never been a generation where the most powerful console was the one that won. the Playstation wasn't all that more powerful than the N64 (though it did have some clear advantages), and the Playstation 2 was the weakest of the three current systems. The SNES was weaker than the Neo Geo and 3D0 and all those other intermediary 32-bit systems.

So uh, Raoul Duke's statement about consumers wanting the latest and greatest is retarded. The only reason the PS3 will be a success is because of backwards compatibility and consumer mentality.
 
Raoul Duke said:
I'm not talking about that. Of course he's going to say they're not niche. But assuming that a mass audience DOESN'T want powerful new technology... there are no words.

Bullshit. They know what they're doing better than you. He's talking about the kind of non-gamer who likes things like Nintendogs and Eyetoy. These people don't care about the flashiest tech. It's mostly hardcore geeks who care so much about graphic and can tell the difference. Hence the fact the graphically superior Dreamcast and N64 didn't beat the PS, hence the fact the graphically superior Xbox and GameCube didn't beat the PS2.
 
Top Bottom