Nintendo isn’t snubbing 'garage devs', it just can’t work with them, says Andrew Smith
Satoru Iwata said at GDC2011 that Nintendo fears the erosion of the value of software by the rise of the thousands of games, both social and mobile, that have appeared over the last few years.
Regardless of the fact that Iwata-san was actually trying to make a positive point to a crowd of games developers who would (should!) likely be similarly worried, and ignoring for a moment that this view is a touch conservative, he is right to say what he did.
Nobody else has stood up to say what a lot of traditional games developers and publishers are thinking - “The fact is, what we produce has value, and we should protect that value.”
Perhaps it takes someone running a company that has so consistently judged the markets right, and has remained one of the most profitable and innovative companies out there all the while, to say with confidence that the games we make deserve to be valued.
True, these are the words of a company whose very lifeblood is ‘traditional’ living-room gaming. They want to make sure their expertise is never outdated or driven to a niche (and frankly it never will – a good game is a good game, and they make some of the best) but the sentiment is true whichever market you’re aiming at.
Advertisement
Nobody truly wants to give away all their content for free (or even next to nothing). I’m not talking about games that let you buy more levels, hats for your characters or a level-skip button with feathers and a face (I’m looking at you, Rovio) because these are all wonderful, exciting and challenging ways to make a valid living off of some really cool new games. What I plan to do, in fact.
Rather, I’m talking about the multitude – no, the flood of shovel-ware, unsupported one-off games and just plain rubbish entertainment that is unleashed every week onto the App Store, Flash portals and the Android marketplace (amongst others).
In fact, it’s the games made by people who’d only ever go to GDC to meet their heroes. People who don’t understand that marketing is a key part of making a successful game, or those who simply view it as a hobby (all of which is perfectly acceptable behaviour!). It is the games released by these kinds of developers, onto the same un-moderated ‘marketplaces’ (App Store, browser, whatever – the lines are blurring all the time) that put the pressure on more ‘professional’ and perhaps established developers to come up with something competitive.
But how do you compete with a similar game which is released for less, or simply cloned ten times within a month? It’s tough, and one answer is licenses. Well done to EA for leveraging their brands, and Pop Cap too, and anyone else lucky enough to build one in the current climate. It’s not impossible, but I’d love to see stats on the spread of revenue based on original IP versus brands on, say, the iPhone – as well as the spread of revenue around the chart positions.
But that doesn’t solve the problem. The rush to make games cheaper and more available has created a weird eco-system whereby success is often as much about timing and luck as it is quality of game. The positive side is that so many talented people can show the world what they have to offer for very little expense, and this is a great thing – except that the challenge of actually being able to show the world is so much tougher.
All that’s happened is that instead of having to impress a conservative publisher or platform holder with your ideas and ability, it’s the general public you have to win over. You know, the people who have so much other stuff vying for their spare time that their attention is harder to grab than a greased pig. The move one step closer to the consumer is a great thing in one sense, but it hasn’t killed off the gatekeeper.
So moving on a touch, a few days later Reggie Fils-Aime piped up supporting Satoru Iwata’s views, adding: “We are not looking to do business today with the garage developer.” To me this clarifies things perfectly, but to some it seemed to underline how ignorant, backwards and old-fashioned Nintendo is. There was a righteous spewing of ire from some corners of the independent community, and sometimes from sources who frankly should know better.
The chances are Nintendo aren’t talking about you if you read Develop regularly, or if you have an industry-level registration on GI.biz. And contrary to some commentator’s beliefs, this position does not rule out doing business with the Rovios and Mojangs of the world.
In fact, let’s put a few things straight here – Rovio had made many mobile games previous to their success with Angry Birds. Mojang are (now) a fully-fledged company run by a guy who’d paid his dues working for all kinds of developers of browser-based games. Neither of these companies are ‘garage developers’, but more importantly I don’t think they would want to do business with Nintendo.
Leaving aside fairly subjective topics like what constitutes a garage developer, the fact that the Big N do not want to do business with ‘garage indies’ does not mean they do not value their contribution. It is not the same as saying that they don’t respect the games that these developers make, nor is it belittling the contribution they make to the industry as a whole, let alone the commercial market.
All it is saying is that it would be a waste of everyone’s time for them to strike up any kind of business dialogue because their views, techniques, business model and attitudes are so different that nothing worthwhile would ever come of it. This is just business sense coming to the fore, and I for one welcome what is a refreshingly frank and open commentary on the way they like to do business. In fact it has nothing to do with indies at all.
This is Nintendo saying they’re not interested, not that indies aren’t interesting.
--
Andrew Smith is a BAFTA-winning game designer for Spilt Milk Studios. He has featured in Develop’s 30 Under 30, profiling the best young talent in the industry today. His Twitter account is here.
"Perhaps it takes someone running a company that has so consistently judged the markets right, and has remained one of the most profitable and innovative companies out there all the while, to say with confidence that the games we make deserve to be valued."
The same company, that when everyone went to optical media, they went to overly expensive, developer limiting, licence-cost heavy cartridges? Didn't quite judge that one right I guess eh?
Friends codes for online gaming, another bad call.
"to say with confidence that the games we make deserve to be valued"
No! The games we make, deserve to be *OF* value, a statemtent Nintendo seem to ignore. Things of value, are valued, not simply things we make.
"All it is saying is that it would be a waste of everyone’s time for them to strike up any kind of business dialogue because their views, techniques, business model and attitudes are so different that nothing worthwhile would ever come of it."
That's nothing more than your interpretation, of what you *think* Nintendo meant. But let's look at those items you listed as being "so different".
1) Their views - Garage Indies want to make games, that people enjoy playing, for a price that reflects the end result. Nintendo wants to rake in profits, regardless of the content or quality of the end product.
2) Their techniques - What techniques? Coding techniques, art techniques, design techniques, business techniques? If it is either of the first three, then it's frankly rubbish. You are making a naive, and flawed presumption, that Grage Indies have not come from an industry level background. Indie = independant, not games industry noob.
3) Business model - See 1. Nintendo thinks people believe that high price = high quality. What in fact people are seeing, is Nintendo + high price = shovelware quality rubbish. Indie + low price = High quality game. That's why Nintendo are so worried, their overpriced shovelware has been exposed, and now they're running for cover.
4) Attitudes - Indies make games for the gamer, Nintendo makes games for the profit... Yeah, I can see how that doesn't sit well with Nintendo.
I think you'll find the outcry was because of Nintendo's blinkered arrogance. They came across as some superior company, only worthy of high cost,, high quality, marketable goods... when in reality, they are perceived as the complete opposite. You'll probably find the Indies don't actually care, It's not as though "Nintendo" is a shining light on your CV like it used to be.
As Darth Vader might say... the naivety is strong in this one... you'll learn.
Well, first up it's an opinion piece - but it's great to spark debate. That's why I write them after all.
Secondly - the final line... how very condescending of you :) Maybe I know you, but regardless I think that kind of comment is a touch unwarranted on a professional website.
Anyway, moving on to your comments.
- Making bad calls does not mean they haven't been one of the most consistently innovative, forward thinking (and financially successful) company. I think introducing things like... oh I dunno... motion control seems pretty big these days. As do analogue sticks. Oh and affordable 3D. All of this really does sideline any tech-y and geeky pre-occupations with storage formats.
All the things I listed there have had a positive effect for their consumer base and the company. Nintendo constantly talk about how every decision they make is with regard to their customers. The cartridge decision was in response to slow loading times from CD, and friends codes - while a misstep originally - are a nice balance between convenience and familiarity in their improved incarnation on the 3DS. I'd be willing to bet thatat the very least, most parents feel a touch safer (rightly or wrongly) using a credit card number style system, and it's not that much of a faff anymore.
"No! The games we make, deserve to be *OF* value..."
You seem to think Nintendo said that. They didn't, it was my interpretation of what they said. That aside, it's semantics dude. But they are my semantics, not Nintendo's, so I apologise. I'll write more clearly next time.
Moving on, I like how you seem to be against my opinion because it is just an opinion and not 'fact', but then go on to list a bunch of your own assumptions. Fair play though, you're welcome to - just don't be a hypocrite.
1) Saying Nintendo have no regard for the quality of the content they output is a) hilariously wide of the mark in regards to what Iwata was saying, and b) a wonderfully blinkered view on their output. The majority of the software they make is very good by any standard, the least you could do is acknowledge that. I can't believe anyone serious about the games business would ever broadly critisice Nintendo's games... and yet here you are doing just that.
2) Just techniques? I said "views, techniques, business model and attitudes" - a combination of the all the differences between a multi-million dollar international company and a (probably wonderfully talented and experience) garage developer. Surely they do not need to be spelled out for you? The idea that these two kinds of entities operate their businesses in vastly different ways seems to escape you, but I assure you it is the truth.
3) Ok, that comment reveals you as pretty blinkered (again) but I'll still try to explain my standpoint. Nintendo = shovelware does it? Yeah, you're right. Mario Galaxy 2 isn't one of the best games made last year (to name but one!). Just because some of their output is 'shovel-like', does not mean that you can write off the whole lot. The same way I don't write off all 'garage devs' because I played a shitty trial game on xblig the other day. Get some perspective before making comments like that. They just weaken your position.
4)I broadly agree with you here. Nintendo make games to make money, so they can make more games and make more money etc. Indies generally (but not exclusively) make games because they want to, and not for profit (though independent companies like Valve and Rebellion probably make some decisions based on commercial realities). That's pretty much my whole point though - the two disparate world views inform how they do business, thus who they want to do business with in pursuit of those goals, and indeed who they *should* do business with.
Nobody is slagging anybody off here. Well, you're slagging off Nintendo (and weirdly, me) but hey, you're allowed to.
I agree the outcry was because people thought Nintendo were blinkered and arrogant. I do not for one second believe that to be the truth of the situation.
Andrew,
Interesting piece. Don't you think though that all this does put a bit of a question mark over who (devs) WiiWare & DsiWare is for?
Martin
You're right to point that out.
I think the core of the 'outcry' is that a lot of 1-man bands (so to speak) feel like they're being left out/insulted by Nintendo's stance.
But 2D-boy is a 2-man band, and they had some success on the service with World of Goo, not to mention the hundreds of other games out on those channels, and not just from well-known studios... I think that Nintendo are just a bit clumsy in pointing ou the difference between indies/independants and 'garage devs'.
I can't think of anyone more perfectly 'indie' than 2D Boy, Gaijin Games and Nnnooo!, all of whom have made games for WiiWate (and maybe DSiWare?) wihtout much trouble at all.
Perhaps the core difference is one of attitude towards the marketplace. An indie/independant would be happy for their game to pass through scrutiny and to pay a premium for the right to access/publish to a market. 'Garage devs' may well not.
There is a lot of dross being released especially on the app store. I think over time market forces will work to clear that out.
But let's be honest I suspect what is really bothering Nintendo is that there is also a lot of quality and originality in bite sized chunks, not just aimed at 20 year old males, lacking originality and at price points that don't support bloated dev teams. As a game consumer, 20 year IT veteran (in a well paid sector - sorry, true though) and wannabe game designer/developer I have rarely been so excited. Ninentdo have done a lot to open up casual gaming and many of my points don't stick to Nintendo but its irrelevant, there is now a new reality out there now and the interesting, impressive stuff is coming from the indies.
Andrew, I think you touch on a very important distinction that (I think) is at the core of this 'outcry'. Indy developers do not equate to garage developers (though the latter is a set of the former, but that's just the logic nerd in me talking). I think you right point out that the key differnce is attitudinal. One can be a professional games developer (and thus one that Nintendo would we pleased to work with), with one person actually in a garage, IF that person approaches to design, distribution and maintenance of his/her games property in a professional (i.e. non-hobbist) manner (and has the skills to do so).
The real risk (and one that was talked about by numerous non-Nintendo speakers at GDC) is that the noise created by the one-off, non-supported games (which can be very good games) will negatively affect the profitable side of the business (on which the whole shebang rests).
First off thanks for the kind words, and secondly, to both elkrobo and Roland - I thinkyou're both right.
Not only is the reality of the market changing, none of the 'big 3' are truly keeping up with those changes (though sony's experioment with android/PSP2 should be interesting). We're in for a very interesting few years, and the next round of home consoles better have some big changes to them if they want to stay dominant.
Nintendo themselves are in the toy business (they say this a lot) and I for one believe them. I actually think this means they'll be the 'slowest' to react, but at the same time they'll always have some key differentiator between themselves and the competition.
I'd be more worried if I was Sony or Microsoft, competing at the high end of the market that is now about to be eroded by iPad2 (HDMI out... yikes!).
Why would a garage developer want to risk developing for DSiWare / 3DSWare anyway?
Apple created an open platform, there you go. Why would anyone want to develop for Nintendo's platform?
Do you want their market? Do you want to develop for a system with a decent pad? Is it the fact that it's Nintendo?
Anyone complaining really needs to ask themselves what they actually want out of the platform, what they're seeing in the platform and how well the platform suits them.
It's almost like a guy complaining that the lady he fancies has no class, demanding she changes so become what he wants. If he wants class, find class. Likewise, identify what you need from your platform, if Nintendo suits, apply.
#happyending
