Support NeoGAF

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

Presumably they mean their main products, though with the 3DS heading out the window, that might be a more across the board non-downloadable game target when hitting NX graphical standards.

This is pretty similar to the target you saw Western third parties going for around 2010-2012. These days they're more like 3-5+ million since they all spend a gazillion dollars on titles, but your average major third party game is in a different product category than around at least half of the software the first parties tend to put out.

Q 15
Nintendo's core business is in the game industry, and the biggest problem there is the rising cost in terms of time and money needed to develop one game. How are you addressing this problem?

A 15
Kimishima:

The cost of developing game software has certainly grown over the last ten years. This is a big challenge, as there is no simple formula to calculate the size of how popular a game is going to be with consumers. That said, I think that developing with this in mind will be increasingly important.

Genyo Takeda (Senior Managing Director, Technology Fellow):

The thinking for a long time was that computer performance for a game should be dedicated entirely to the consumer’s enjoyment, but now times have changed and the common sense is that computer performance should also be used to improve productivity in making the game software itself. But what is most important is how we achieve balance. I am going to let Mr. Miyamoto speak, as he has spent a lot of time and energy on raising the productivity of software development while doing this balancing act.

Miyamoto:

In striking that balance, while it's important that we do not overextend by putting an excessive amount of content in our games, the only solution is how to make software that sells well. There will be big hits somewhere in our business, and they support the games that fail and allow us to take on other challenges. So our basic premise is to create software that will sell in the range of at least two million units. We simply couldn't recoup our costs if we only released games in Japan that had sales of around 300,000 units, so the global market is our standard.

Takahashi:

I also think the key word here is balance. This has a lot of aspects, such as knowing when we need to dedicate a lot of time and people to something and when we do not. Or ways to leverage game engines that are used for general purposes, and how to create our own game engines that lots of others can also make easy use of. For NX, we are thinking about many different development techniques based on these considerations.

Source: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/stock/meeting/160629qa/05.html

Oregano · Jul 5, 2016

I actually find Takahashi's quote more important because it sounds like Nintendo is open to licensing an engine and maybe even sharing internal technology with other developers.

That'd be quite a big change.

Trago · Jul 5, 2016

It would help if their major releases were well advertised. They actually got it right with Splatoon, there was even a commercial for a content patch.

Do they go over their approach to marketing budgets? Because they'll have to get more aggressive if they want those numbers.

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

Oregano said:
I actually find Takahashi's quote more important because it sounds like Nintendo is open to licensing an engine and maybe even sharing internal technology with other developers.

That'd be quite a big change.

I read that more along the lines of "If the Mario team makes an engine, ideally it should be usable by several other projects like Kirby, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong," but I could be reading that incorrectly. Like Captain Toad is clearly build on the same tech base used for Super Mario 3D World, but I'm not sure any of Nintendo's other games are.

Similarly the engine they're using to power Zelda might be an appropriate fit for a variety of other open world action adventure games by Nintendo.

I could see it also being a halfway house where the people they're making games with (where there are both Nintedo and third party staff on the title) are using a tech base Nintendo created. Some Kirby games are made externally at HAL Laboratory for example, but they might be offered to use Nintendo's technology to do that instead of having to make their own.

Aaron D. · Jul 5, 2016

The New & Improved Nintendo: Now with more Doritos & Mountain Dew!!

Regiruler · Jul 5, 2016

and how to create our own game engines that lots of others can also make easy use of.

Say what now?

StereoVsn · Jul 5, 2016

Clearly with these targets #FE is getting a sequel! ;(

I wonder if they are going to shift to mainly larger games now or go with SE and say Ubi approach and do smaller projects (like Setsuna, Blood Dragon, etc) alongside the larger ones.

Edit: Come to think of it, Xenoblade series isn't meeting these goals either.

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
I read that more along the lines of "If the Mario team makes an engine, ideally it should be usable by several other projects like Kirby, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong," but I could be reading that incorrectly. Like Captain Toad is clearly build on the same tech base used for Super Mario 3D World, but I'm not sure any of Nintendo's other games are.

Similarly the engine they're using to power Zelda might be an appropriate fit for a variety of other open world action adventure games by Nintendo.

I'd say the Kirby engine they have used since Return to Dreamland has been good for them. But they need to have an internal engine that they can use for each of their IP's.

Malakai · Jul 5, 2016

Oregano said:
I actually find Takahashi's quote more important because it sounds like Nintendo is open to licensing an engine and maybe even sharing internal technology with other developers.

That'd be quite a big change.

They give out Unity engine with their development kits for the Wii U...

Vinc · Jul 5, 2016

The digital only future really needs to come, that will help.

Vinsanity. · Jul 5, 2016

while it's important that we do not overextend by putting an excessive amount of content in our games, the only solution is how to make software that sells well

Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Vinc said:
The digital only future really needs to come, that will help.

Not really. It's going to be hard as hell to sell $60 games that are only available via download. Especially to the demographic Nintendo wants to cater towards.

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

StereoVsn said:
Clearly with these targets #FE is getting a sequel! ;(

I wonder if they are going to shift to mainly larger games now or go with SE and say Ubi approach and do smaller projects (like Setsuna, Blood Dragon, etc) alongside the larger ones.

Edit: Come to think of it, Xenoblade series isn't meeting these goals either.

I don't think this is meant to be a literal across the board statement that prevents them from publishing Pushmo or whatever, or that they will literally never loss lead on an game in an attempt to build an audience, but more of a statement that when making a $60 boxed product, they're going to be attempting to hit 2+ million copies.

It's not impossible that ends up hitting something like Xenoblade if it's significantly off the mark. It obviously has impacted Metroid a lot over the years. However, I suspect they're not going to kill their franchises off based solely on their Wii U performance unless that also serves as the norm for NX sales.

blu · Jul 5, 2016

..and how to create our own game engines that lots of others can also make easy use of.

That's been traditionally achieved via good documentation and elaborate asset production pipelines.

Vinc · Jul 5, 2016

KingBroly said:
Not really. It's going to be hard as hell to sell $60 games that are only available via download. Especially to the demographic Nintendo wants to cater towards.

I mean it needs to become easier, and I'm sure it will.

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Vinc said:
I mean it needs to become easier, and I'm sure it will.

It's more 'convincing people that a $60 download is a good idea' than anything. That is always going to be a tough proposition.

Yukinari · Jul 5, 2016

Vinsanity. said:
Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

I certainly felt that philosophy when i bought Pikmin 3 and Mario Kart 8. Theyre great games but they were a little light on content unless you downloaded more.

Kai Dracon · Jul 5, 2016

Two million is reasonable compared to the AAA publishing scene, where many games have to sell much more to break even and prevent a developer from being taken to EA's ditch and shot in the head.

Given how Nintendo operates, I wonder how much wiggle room there is within that mandate. It sort of feels like Nintendo would approach software sales figures in the same way they do amiibo prices - count on the strong sales of certain pieces to compensate for less profit on others. So that the less directly profitable pieces can still be made in order to serve the interests of as many customers as possible. I would not want to see Nintendo abandon games that require decent budget, like Pikmin, just because "only" 1.2 million people enjoy the game.

georly · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
I read that more along the lines of "If the Mario team makes an engine, ideally it should be usable by several other projects like Kirby, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong," but I could be reading that incorrectly. Like Captain Toad is clearly build on the same tech base used for Super Mario 3D World, but I'm not sure any of Nintendo's other games are.

Similarly the engine they're using to power Zelda might be an appropriate fit for a variety of other open world action adventure games by Nintendo.

I could see it also being a halfway house where the people they're making games with (where there are both Nintedo and third party staff on the title) are using a tech base Nintendo created. Some Kirby games are made externally at HAL Laboratory for example, but they might be offered to use Nintendo's technology to do that instead of having to make their own.

It would be the world's greatest tragedy if that zelda engine goes unused anywhere else. At the very least a majora style sequel. I'd love to see an open world platformer use those physics for puzzle solving, as well. Maybe more fitting for DK than mario.

Ridley327 · Jul 5, 2016

Vinsanity. said:
Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

I imagine this is more targeted at trying to avoid games with hellacious dev times as a result of building way too much and not knowing how to fit it all in, like a FFXV. They've mostly avoided that with their games on the Wii U, but their relative lack of familiarity with the uptick in production staff required for HD development can give off a similar impression.

Menitta · Jul 5, 2016

I hope this doesn't turn into what Capcom did for a while where if a game doesn't meat that number of sales, that series is dead. Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon will be fine every time but not Metroid. Not F-Zero.

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

georly said:
It would be the world's greatest tragedy if that zelda engine goes unused anywhere else. At the very least a majora style sequel. I'd love to see an open world platformer use those physics for puzzle solving, as well. Maybe more fitting for DK than mario.

Well, it will presumably keep being used in Zelda titles. I think that this is still an iterative tech base on top of what they used for the last few titles, but I could be incorrect.

Lactose_Intolerant · Jul 5, 2016

Menitta said:
I hope this doesn't turn into what Capcom did for a while where if a game doesn't meat that number of sales, that series is dead.

Good business practice?

Corronchilejano · Jul 5, 2016

Vinsanity. said:
Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

More like"don't cram 200 hours worth of content on a game people won't play more than 80."

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

Menitta said:
I hope this doesn't turn into what Capcom did for a while where if a game doesn't meat that number of sales, that series is dead. Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon will be fine every time but not Metroid. Not F-Zero.

Metroid and F-Zero are already basically dead, but in the abstract of the concept, that's not impossible. At some point profitability has to be considered.

Menitta · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
Metroid and F-Zero are already basically dead.

Yup.

Vinc · Jul 5, 2016

KingBroly said:
It's more 'convincing people that a $60 download is a good idea' than anything. That is always going to be a tough proposition.

I... really don't see why that would be. It's going to be a gradual change, but it's already happening.

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

Vinsanity. said:
Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

I think they mean they don't want to make Ubisoft style software where you're spending $80-$100 million on a ton of costly open world content.

The economics of that don't really work out shipping only on Nintendo systems.

Ridley327 · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
Metroid and F-Zero are already basically dead, but in the abstract of the concept, that's not impossible.

I'm not sure one needs to qualify the status of F-Zero. I mean, sure, it took them 12 years to finally put out a sequel to Luigi's Mansion, but it wasn't like Luigi was being skipped over in other Mario games.

Kouriozan · Jul 5, 2016

Menitta said:
I hope this doesn't turn into what Capcom did for a while where if a game doesn't meat that number of sales, that series is dead. Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon will be fine every time but not Metroid. Not F-Zero.

And Star Fox.
I don't think a lot will change, I doubt Nintendo will stop making(funding) Fatal Frame games for example (or other mid to low budget games)

Nirolak · Jul 5, 2016

Ridley327 said:
I'm not sure one needs to qualify the status of F-Zero. I mean, sure, it took them 12 years to finally put out a sequel to Luigi's Mansion, but it wasn't like Luigi was being skipped over in other Mario games.

I wrote "basically" due to Metroid technically having a new game coming out soon, though uh, not in the form people really requested.

Vena · Jul 5, 2016

Menitta said:
I hope this doesn't turn into what Capcom did for a while where if a game doesn't meat that number of sales, that series is dead. Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon will be fine every time but not Metroid. Not F-Zero.

Capcom isn't a first party publisher. They gain nothing from a loss leading diversity in software. Nintendo does.

MomoQca · Jul 5, 2016

StereoVsn said:
Edit: Come to think of it, Xenoblade series isn't meeting these goals either.

If I didn't misinterpret the Miyamoto's comment, I don't think that should be a concern. He said that Nintendo plan to pay for less successful games by using the money gained from their more popular games (those who sold 2+ million units).

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
Metroid and F-Zero are already basically dead, but in the abstract of the concept, that's not impossible. At some point profitability has to be considered.

Well duh.

Completely misreading the market and doing whatever the hell the people in charge of the series want unchecked is never a good idea.

Ridley327 · Jul 5, 2016

KingBroly said:
Well duh.

Completely misreading the market and doing whatever the hell the people in charge of the series want unchecked is never a good idea.

Metroid's problem is that it never seems to be what the market really wants at all. Even if you made something that fans want, which they have, it has a pretty short ceiling that it can't really break through. It's unfortunately not one of those series where the solution is as easy as "spend less!"

nubbe · Jul 5, 2016

Not every game need to sell millions
It's not as if Activision has multimillion targets for Transformers and Turtles or other licensed cash grab titles

Menitta · Jul 5, 2016

Vena said:
Capcom isn't a first party publisher. They gain nothing from a loss leading diversity in software. Nintendo does.

My point is I don't want Nintendo to stop doing vanity projects. As I said, Zelda and Mario, they'll be 2 million no matter what. I don't want Nintendo to do the safest possible route because that's usually the most guided thing in the world. More NSMB games is what I don't want. I understand the need for profitability. This is just a personal view.

Spring Drive · Jul 5, 2016

Let CDProjekt RED make a Mario game, problem solved

Vital Tundra · Jul 5, 2016

Nirolak said:
I read that more along the lines of "If the Mario team makes an engine, ideally it should be usable by several other projects like Kirby, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong," but I could be reading that incorrectly. Like Captain Toad is clearly build on the same tech base used for Super Mario 3D World, but I'm not sure any of Nintendo's other games are.

Similarly the engine they're using to power Zelda might be an appropriate fit for a variety of other open world action adventure games by Nintendo.

I could see it also being a halfway house where the people they're making games with (where there are both Nintedo and third party staff on the title) are using a tech base Nintendo created. Some Kirby games are made externally at HAL Laboratory for example, but they might be offered to use Nintendo's technology to do that instead of having to make their own.

They said as much. Zeldas tech with its physics and open world will be used to help produce other games in the future.

Escalario · Jul 5, 2016

Spring Drive said:
Let CDProjekt RED make a Mario game, problem solved

LMAO. Is "Let CDPR make..." the new "Let Platinum make..."? Sooner or later they will make a dud that will kill all the goodwill they had on GAF just like what happened to Platinum recently.

Seiniyta · Jul 5, 2016

Spring Drive said:
Let CDProjekt RED make a Metroid game, problem solved

Fixed a minor typo

I think not all of their games need to sell gangbusters to be valuable to Nintendo. Especially if sharing the game engines across the various studios become more of a thing for them. Even if a game doesn't sell amazingly, the tech they built for that game could be utlized in other projects that could prove to be very valuable to the games that DO sell.

humansarehorses · Jul 5, 2016

Spring Drive said:
Let CDProjekt RED make a Mario game, problem solved

Nah, they'd put in too much content.

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Ridley327 said:
Metroid's problem is that it never seems to be what the market really wants at all. Even if you made something that fans want, which they have, it has a pretty short ceiling that it can't really break through. It's unfortunately not one of those series where the solution is as easy as "spend less!"

No, Metroid's problem is that it's clearly outside of the market Nintendo wants to cater towards and can't be shifted stylistically towards the demographic Nintendo wants everything to make to be in. That's why they have no faith in it.

If Dark Souls can become a huge series at a time when games were cinematic, linear baby-difficulty games, Metroid can 100% be a series that surpasses sales expectations as well, ESPECIALLY when THEY DO NOT FUCK IT UP.

Malakai · Jul 5, 2016

StereoVsn said:
Edit: Come to think of it, Xenoblade series isn't meeting these goals either.

The problem with Xenoblade, at least in the United States, you have Reggie sabotaging it with little to no marketing for the series.

Madao · Jul 5, 2016

fuck

this pretty much makes it a fact F-Zero will never come back.

i'm in the bad end reality.

Übermatik · Jul 5, 2016

Some very strong and reassuring statements here.

First, Nintendo acknowledge the importance of a global (and thus varied) market, showing efforts to break the Japanese 'bubble' they've been trapped in before.

Second, they're keen on opening up the platform to a wider scope of developers via the support of 'general' game engines. To hear they're also considering sharing/releasing their own tool kits to developers is extremely promising for dev and indie relations.

Ansatz · Jul 5, 2016

Vinsanity. said:
Does this sound as bad as I think it does? Concentrate only on making software that sells well, not software that has a lot of content?

The likes of Splatoon, Hyrule Warriors and Super Mario Maker don't actually have much actual content even though you can easily spend hundreds of hours playing each title and now that they have the base of the games established they can easily just expand upon the foundations in the invitable sequels.

These are three big new IPs introduced this gen on Wii U beloved by fans and performed very well while adhering to the principle of making games that are low on content.

It'll be the same case with the new Zelda, the physics engine they spent so much time getting right has a ton of possibilities for emergent gameplay which means you won't get tired clearing a bokoblin camp over and over. This allows them to copy/paste overworld elements while still maintaining the fun factor instead of filling the massive world with hand crafted content which would take an extreme amount of resources.

Vena · Jul 5, 2016

Oregano said:
I actually find Takahashi's quote more important because it sounds like Nintendo is open to licensing an engine and maybe even sharing internal technology with other developers.

That'd be quite a big change.

Nah that reads as internal reuse of engines abs other such tools. Rather than having all sorts of tools for each group. They've been doing it a lot recently after the unification. Splatoon is on a modified 3D World base.

Or Toad.

Zelda feels like it's using an evolution of XCX and XCX2 will likely use an evolution of that. It helps keep Costs down and make your work flow efficient.

KingBroly · Jul 5, 2016

Malakai said:
The problem with Xenoblade, at least in the United States, you have Reggie sabotaging it with little to no marketing for the series.

You need to look at Japanese sales of Xenoblade first if you want to talk about sales problems.

MacTag · Jul 5, 2016

KingBroly said:
No, Metroid's problem is that it's clearly outside of the market Nintendo wants to cater towards and can't be shifted stylistically towards the demographic Nintendo wants everything to make to be in. That's why they have no faith in it.

If Dark Souls can become a huge series at a time when games were cinematic, linear baby-difficulty games, Metroid can 100% be a series that surpasses sales expectations as well, ESPECIALLY when THEY DO NOT FUCK IT UP.

I'm not sure that's really the case given their continued investment in things like Xenoblade, Monster Hunter, Fatal Frame, etc. I think Metroid's main problem is simply the core developers moved on to other more lucrative things like DKCR or Tomodachi.

Support NeoGAF

Nintendo talks rising dev costs, targeting 2+ million units for their games

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Mrgrgr

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.

Member

Banned

Member

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony

Member

Member

Member

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Mrgrgr

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads