Nintendo Praises Independents, Devalues "Garage Developers"

[Gralian]

Ignoring the obvious points about shovelware on the wii and rehashing old franchises, i think Fils-Aime may have a point. Look at it like this:

Gold is valuable because it's hard to come by. Now, imagine if gold was as easy to come by as copper. It was used in everything and you could get it anywhere. The value of gold will dramatically depreciate and it'll become just as worthless as copper.

If someone is able to make something for high sales (the value) with something extremely simplistic and cheap (the copper) then it makes sense to do so instead of spending big $$$ establishing well-known franchises and creating bombastic high profile titles. (the gold) Another way to look at it is undercutting the competition. Not because the product is better than something that has huge financial backing, but because the money in to money out ratio is so significant due to the fact there's barely any money in in the first place, and at the end of the day, it's a limited resource - you'll keep depreciating something in value until it's all that's being made. This almost feels similar to when Zynga said something along the lines of traditional gaming going the way of the dodo and social gaming taking over, because those kinds of games are stupidly cheap and easy to make and maintain, and yet you still see impressive sales figures. Even more so when you consider how little monetary investment really needs to go into it. It's not like the 6 million dollar project GTA4 was, or however much that cost to make.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Apple factor making Nintendo folks shit bricks.

Blue Ocean Strategy my ass.

 

[Lilani]

He problem is he's assuming that low-budget and low-quality go hand in hand. He's not even open to the idea of something like Minecraft, where the main focus is the gameplay and player engagement rather than graphics, franchises, or convoluted narration. It is truly disheartening to see someone so high in the games industry taking such a large dump on the kinds of artists and developers that brought games and computers to life in the first place--back when the only place to make code was your garage, and the only place to learn more was other hobbiests.

 

[James Raynor]

Gold is valuable because it's hard to come by. Now, imagine if gold was as easy to come by as copper. It was used in everything and you could get it anywhere. The value of gold will dramatically depreciate and it'll become just as worthless as copper.

Copper is actually quite valuable due to it's conductive properties.

 

[Gralian]

He problem is he's assuming that low-budget and low-quality go hand in hand. He's not even open to the idea of something like Minecraft, where the main focus is the gameplay and player engagement rather than graphics, franchises, or convoluted narration. It is truly disheartening to see someone so high in the games industry taking such a large dump on the kinds of artists and developers that brought games and computers to life in the first place--back when the only place to make code was your garage, and the only place to learn more was other hobbiests.

It might be cute to see the odd one or two developers like Mojang and Team Meat make something unanimously good on a gameplay level, but what happens when that's all we get? This is the idea behind Nintendo's statement; you water something down enough and eventually there'll be nothing left to water down, because financially, it would make no sense to spend ridiculous amounts of money creating something that can be made for a tenth of the cost, or less, and still see the same or similar amount of sales figures. I know we'll still have our big titles and i'm taking it to the extreme, but whenever public statements are made you always have to look as far ahead to the future as you can, and Nintendo are saying that the entropy effect garage developers have on the industry is what's detrimental - say goodbye to big investments when investors know they can see a big return for a tiny cost, and then some.

I disagree about this news from Nintendo.

But I can't accept people saying Nintendo uses only his mascots. While it's true, Sony uses them too. MGS4 Gran Turismo 5. Want more?
And Nintendo Mario's Zelda's and Metroid's are all masterpieces, so what's the problem?
Yes, I want a new mascot, I think I heard there will be one soon. But it isn't easy.

This is another important point. People can whine about overuse of mascots, but you know what? The entertainment industry just wouldn't work without mascots or well-recognised and loved IPs. What about Mickey Mouse and all the Walt Disney characters? They're as much a mascot as Mario and friends, and yet everyone loves them. How about Harry Potter? Aragorn and company? Luke Skywalker? Dare i say, Edward Cullen and what's-her-face from Twilight?

People love mascots. They're recognisable and they sell. It helps establish a franchise and takes away this ocean of forgettable characters. As much as i loved Vanquish, Sam Gideon barely made an impression on me, for example. Nintendo should be applauded for creating such recognisable and much loved mascots that continue to be popular even today, and i think other players in the industry would do well to learn from them. Hell, even the "Angry Birds" birds on the iPad and iPhone have even begun to become mascots unto themselves, almost like a herald for smartphone app gaming. And look how successful that little product was.

 

[Gralian]

Gold is valuable because it's hard to come by. Now, imagine if gold was as easy to come by as copper. It was used in everything and you could get it anywhere. The value of gold will dramatically depreciate and it'll become just as worthless as copper.

Copper is actually quite valuable due to it's conductive properties.

Yes, scientifically it may be valuable, but i'm talking monetarily - how much money, time and manpower it takes to obtain. Gold is valuable purely because it's much harder to come by.

Edit: I'm aware of the scientific value of gold in the use of electronics and such, but i do mean *more* valuable, in that it's used for trivial things like jewellery.

 

[Karratti]

This kind of opinion just seems so short-sighted. I know that it's been nearly 30 years since these companies got started, but Donkey Kong, Popeye, Mr. Game and Watch, and the like... Those were all games that these guys put together as start-ups themselves.

Now, just a few decades later, Nintendo has now decided that games should be left to "the professionals," because obviously, they know best. After all, whenever I think of the best games in the industry, I think of Nintendo... Oh, wait.

These "elitist" ideas are what's really hurting the industry. Great ideas and innovative concepts can come from anywhere, regardless of the pedigree or what the "studio" looks like. It may be a AAA developer, or it may be just a guy working on it when he gets the chance. The quality of the game is what matters, not whether the guy is sipping from a silver spoon.

Unfortunately, these kinds of comments are simply the tip of an iceberg, and it's surprising to realize that many top developers feel that they "know what is best" for the industry.

 

[coolkirb]

I think all of the systems are just as quilty of the shovelwhere, whether it be a ton of kiddy games like nintendo or a ton of sub-par shooters like Xbox and PS3. And if your going to accuse nintendo of rehashing their titles then you can also accuse the others of doing it as it seems the yearly halo and COD also come without fail.

 

[Mouse One]

I'm confuzzled. Does he honestly think that the consumer can't distinguish between a garage game selling for a buck online and some AAA release? If Nintendo truly views the former as competition, it says more about them than "garage" developers.

 

[Xanadu84]

Yeah, hard to take Nintendo seriously when they insult shovelware. The underlying idea that hobby game developers hurt the industry is a little more reasonable, but still wrong. You generally know when a game is done by a hobbyist, and can make your decision accordingly. If you are looking that deep for games, then you are probably well enough informed to know what you're looking for. If its terrible, you shouldn't be anymore surprised then a gold panner realizing that he is mostly getting dirt. Sometimes, you find some gold though. The trials and tribulations of being too small time to even call yourself indie will produce a lot of trash that won't hurt anyone, and a few rare and precious gems. That's a good thing. That's a working free market injecting fresh ideas into the industry. Remember, most successes rise so high because they are standing on a mountain of failures.

 

[James Raynor]

Yes, scientifically it may be valuable, but i'm talking monetarily - how much money, time and manpower it takes to obtain. Gold is valuable purely because it's much harder to come by.

Edit: I'm aware of the scientific value of gold in the use of electronics and such, but i do mean *more* valuable, in that it's used for trivial things like jewellery.

Items with practical applications will always be worth something, so it's a bad example. Entertainment will always be a commodity and unlike gold is not made valueless when there is mass quantities of it.

 

[Spookimitsu]

I'd much rather play Try Not to Fart than Chicken Shoot.

always if you need a deep honest sophomoric laugh, TNtF is your fix. Damn i was in tears.

But yeah honestly with the various collections of minigames that plague Wii retail software shelves, this is a slap in the face for aspiring developers.

 

[FogHornG36]

Nintendo is just as badly hurting the industry by allowing so much shovelware to come to the Wii as well as slinging rehashed titles.

OH but how else are they going to fill the wii bargain bin siting outside the car wash?

 

[Gralian]

Yes, scientifically it may be valuable, but i'm talking monetarily - how much money, time and manpower it takes to obtain. Gold is valuable purely because it's much harder to come by.

Edit: I'm aware of the scientific value of gold in the use of electronics and such, but i do mean *more* valuable, in that it's used for trivial things like jewellery.

Items with practical applications will always be worth something, so it's a bad example. Entertainment will always be a commodity and unlike gold is not made valueless when there is mass quantities of it.

Alright then, if you're going to nitpick, what about gems or precious rocks? I'm not a geologist, but i'm sure most of them don't have any practical applications beyond decorative purposes, and yet some rocks or gems or what have are more 'precious' than others, simply because they're harder to come by.

I'm not saying entertainment will be valueless. But that the quality of the entertainment being produced will decline as the value of high budget and high production consumer entertainment diminishes. Why do we see so many American sitcoms that are fairly cheap to make as opposed to high budget fantasy or sci-fi epics on the TV? It's for that very reason; the rating difference won't vary greatly enough to justify spending that extra investment on creating something high-value as opposed to something easier to make or produce.

The point is not that "this has more objective value than this", but the value placed on whether something high budget should be made or not. It's a 'value judgement' being made on the part of the investor, as he only cares about seeing big returns.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

If they're referring to all those crappy flash games like the all the variations of "Escape the Room" than I agree completely.

 

[Delusibeta]

Garage developers: Kyle Gabler, Ron Carmel.

Indie developer: 2d Boy (who consists of Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel and no-one else).

 

[Lilani]

It might be cute to see the odd one or two developers like Mojang and Team Meat make something unanimously good on a gameplay level, but what happens when that's all we get? This is the idea behind Nintendo's statement; you water something down enough and eventually there'll be nothing left to water down, because financially, it would make no sense to spend ridiculous amounts of money creating something that can be made for a tenth of the cost, or less, and still see the same or similar amount of sales figures. I know we'll still have our big titles and i'm taking it to the extreme, but whenever public statements are made you always have to look as far ahead to the future as you can, and Nintendo are saying that the entropy effect garage developers have on the industry is what's detrimental - say goodbye to big investments when investors know they can see a big return for a tiny cost, and then some.

You're making these hobbiests and independents out to be some new revolution. They've always been here. Ever since Bill Gates' generation, they've been here and they've never left. And they've always found ways of distributing their creations. Look at Newgrounds, for example. Hobbiests don't rely on investors. They make their games because they want to. And so what if they come up with something great and want to make a bit of a profit? So what if they get a following, and eventually blossom into a new independent game firm with new ideas popping out of their seams?

On the same token, ever since they started up there have always been the "big" gamemakers. And, just as with the hobbiests and independents, they will always be here. At this point, the industry outright demands a certain number of developers who can make big games to be sold to big markets on a large scale. The industry needs the big developers to keep going. Just as film couldn't do without the big studios to keep the general public in touch, video games can't do without the big developers.

It's a symbiotic system. Independents need big developers to use their giant piles of cash to make investments in big experiments and to make sure video games can reach as broad of an audience as possible (and to keep caught up with technology), and big developers need independents to keep the creative juices flowing and to keep them from getting set in their ways. What I see happening here is Nintendo has cut themselves off from those independents, and they've become so set in their ways that independents and hobbiests are a foreign concept to them. The market is broadening, and they just can't stand it.

And just what right does Nintendo have to tell these people they shouldn't create? Last I checked, the main criticisms of Nintendo as of late have been regarding their lack of new ideas and their attachment to what is safe, familiar, and guaranteed to make money. As a big developer with large amounts of cash, they have opportunities that independents work day and night for. Opportunities for free-range experimentation--the ability to try something totally new, and not be completely screwed if it happens to not work.

I'm not saying the entire industry should be like this, and nor will it ever be. Just as with films and books, there will always be the blockbusters that follow all the formulas and push no envelopes. And the industry needs some of that. But what it also needs is innovation, and currently the games industry is the most open to such innovation. There is still so much to explore with this medium, and to downright discourage that for the sake of preserving those stick-in-the-mud formulas and ideals is just an atrocity. It is an insult to the medium and to gamers as a whole.

To say that those people do not deserve to create is saying that gamers do not deserve what they have to offer. That all gamers deserve the same oatmeal slop time and again--slop prescribed only by the biggest and wealthiest game developers.

That is why I dislike what Fils-Aime said. He is saying that those people shouldn't create. Video games aren't about money or "market value" to them. They make games because they want to make games. That sort of dedication should never be discouraged by anyone. The games industry will always have big and little developers, and one should never belittle the other.

 

[Defense]

Fils-Aime worries that the flood of low-priced, low-quality software on various services today will disparage the value of games in general.

Just wondering, isn't this the kind of shit that caused the video game crash?

 

[Priest of Lies]

If a person can actually make a decent game, then I don't see why they couldn't make a game with some third party company. If they cant, there is always the iphone app store that needs to be filled with the pointless games that no one will play.

 

[Kirosilence]

Someone needs to get Iwata, and Fils-Aime, a copy of Minecraft.

But seriously, this seems to be a pretty standard Nintendo stance on indie development. Need I remind everyone of Bob?

http://www.destructoid.com/bob-ends-100-day-protest-after-a-month-trashes-his-room-lies-on-floor-crying-117586.phtml