It figures. I take a short break from writing and immediately I miss out on showing off my clairvoyance. I have been bugging my colleagues with speculations on Nintendo’s new strategy. It seems like my predictions were confirmed in the last few days.
Insert a “SUPER EFFECTIVE” joke here
Nintendo’s new console is a good example of sharp observations about emerging device paradigms. It’s also an aggressive move to re-claim some of the territory that has been taken by Apple’s iPad. Finally, it’s perfectly timed to benefit from the prolonged console cycle.
At first glance, the idea if putting a large, expensive touchscreen into a controller is somewhat confusing. It makes the controller a quite substantial device. How would that device be any different from a Nintendo DS? For me, the penny dropped when a rumor appeared about the content being streamed onto the controllers wirelessly. Nintendo realized something quite important. Many portable devices aren’t actually taken outside of the house. My girlfriend has a notebook. She rarely takes it with her. Most of the time, it stays at home. But that doesn’t mean she doesn’t use the portability. She frequently uses the Notebook to watch TV series in bed, for example. I have plenty of portable gaming systems myself. But most of the time, I use them at home as well. It is a different, more intimate experience. It’s also more convenient as you aren’t confined to the living room anymore. The Wii U is a device that satisfies exactly that type of use. It’s a portable device but it works only within the confines of the user’s home.
This design feature is also it’s strongest weapon against the iPad. During GDC 2011, Iwata already stated his reservations about Apple’s approach to gaming. Apple’s influence on games has been steadily growing over the past years. That’s problematic because Apple themselves aren’t a gaming company and never treated games as a serious subject. Their infringement on this territory is somewhat serendipitous. Putting the future of gaming into the hands of Apple could have disastrous consequences, as they doesn’t recognize the values of gaming as something that needs to be preserved and cultivated.
So for example, you can give an iPad into the hands of a child. Many people report that children love the iPad. But that’s not what the iPad has been designed for. Primarily, it’s an expensive entertainment device for adults . It’s heavy, has sharp edges and breaks easily when dropped. That’s where Wii U is designed to step in. Nintendo devices are well-known for being nearly indestructible. The Wii U remote seems like it follows that tradition. I’m also confident that it will be much lighter and cheaper than an iPad. It pulls off all these things because it embraces the idea of being used only at home. Many parents will easily pick the Wii U over the iPad when deciding what to buy for their children.
But then, Nintendo also managed to address the core gaming audience. Apple’s devices are meant to fulfill Apple’s agenda of a button-less world. This agenda partially clashes against the conservative video-game core audience. But Apple doesn’t care that having no buttons or analogue stick means most of the established genres won’t work on their devices at all. After all, gaming is not their focus. Nintendo recognized this weakness and exploited it quite well. Putting very traditional controls over on their controller will enable them not only to tap into their own library, it will also open them up to third party, cross-platform titles.
Finally, this is where the timing comes in. The Wii U comes out on a market that is already full with high-quality games ready to be ported on it. We can expect a great deal of re-releases coming out for the system. We can also expect even the early titles to be of exceptionally high quality. Developers will have to ask themselves – do we really want to jump to the next tier of technology and invest even MORE resources in creating higher resolution content for the eventual next-gen systems from Sony and Microsoft? Or do we just continue at the levels we have most experience at and go for the Wii U as a release platform.
It’s a well know phenomenon that the best games come out at the end of a lifetime of a console – when developers have mastered the technology. The Wii U is a way to extend the livecycle of the current generation and harvest the cream of the crop.
I’m enjoying this new development a lot. Nintendo has proven again that they have a good understanding of the market and that they are able to translate this understanding into the design of their products. They seem to be a company with perhaps the most clear and well thought-out strategy among the console manufacturers. I’m really looking forward to see how this plays out. There are still a lot of unknowns. Will Nintendo finally manage to create an on-line experience that can match the other consoles or even Apple? How will the other console manufacturers react? Will Apple start paying more attention to games? We live in exciting times.
Good article! I agree, Nintendo looks like they’ve made a lot of smart decisions with this new console, and it does seem like this New Controller™ will go a long way to providing an alternative for “real” tablet games that the iPad (currently) can’t. As you know, I love my Apple devices, but the lack of physical buttons is most definitely a problem for many kinds of genres (though I also think there’s still room for a lot of innovation with touch) so this does seem like it could be the best of both worlds.
I only have two points of minor contention (you knew I wasn’t going to *fully* agree with you, right?
First, I’m not so sure that the choice when buying a tablet will come to an iPad OR a Wii U, even for parents buying for kids. The iPad, by design, is much more general-purpose, like a traditional PC, and that has a lot of value even for children (my son will certainly be getting an iPad or iPad-like tablet long before he gets a PC of his own). By contrast, the Wii U is a gaming-optimized computer, and fulfills very different and more specialized functions despite using a similar looking controller. I think there’s room for both (though Nintendo was certainly smart to carve out a strong niche for itself like this).
Second, while gaming is indeed not Apple’s focus, iOS nonetheless serves a very important role that no other platform can offer: a level playing field for developers of all sizes that gives them a chance to make real money. Angry Birds, Tiny Wings, Sword and Sworcery, Cut The Rope, and countless others would never have seen the type of financial success they have on other platforms. This is an important point and one best not overlooked, in my opinion
Personally, as a fan of both Nintendo and Apple, I would love to see iOS continue to be the home to casual gaming and lots of small but clever games from developers of all kinds, and for Nintendo (and Sony and MS) to pick up the slack and focus on deeper, grander, more involved gaming experiences that are best suited for dedicated consoles (or, as looks to be increasingly likely, offer motion-based gameplay that you can’t get from shaking the device with the screen you’re playing on). I don’t know if there’s enough profit in catering to the dedicated gamer for all three companies to be successful this way, but if there is, I think that’s the way where everyone, (gamers, game companies, Apple) could win.
Hello Gabe. You raised perfectly reasonable points. I completely agree.
There will hardly ever be a situation where consumers have to pit the Wii U against the iPad. People buy the iPad for different reasons. In fact, that’s what so good about Nintendo’s strategy – it claims it’s territory as a family-friend dedicated gaming device with a touch-based interface but it doesn’t try to make the iPad obsolete. It just takes one small aspect of it, focuses on it and expands it.
And of course, being an independent developer I do see the value of open, low-barrier platforms such as the App Store. I too have my reservations about Nintendo’s “No garage developers allowed”-policy. I’m curious if Nintendo will open up in this regard. I heard they are working with external companies on overhauling their entire on-line service. I think especially this new device could greatly benefit from a more Wii U Ware store that is more accessible to smaller developers.
disclaimer: to me there is no difference between wiiu and vita, so i will use wii u in my sentences below, but its totally the same to me for the vita.
a few questions that are in my mind:
why should a teenager want a nintendo wiiu gaming-only device, when he can get a smartphone/tablet device that allows him to communicate/stay in touch, schedule, learn, surf?
why should a player want a nintendo wiiu when he can get MORE games for LESS money on ipad / android devices?
why should a parent buy its teenage kid a 350$ nintendo view and a smartphone, when i can buy a good 350$ smartphone-tablet (so lets say a portable 7″) ?
(a smartphone/tablet caters to many needs
why should i develop for a device that has a tiny customer base in comparison to the apple / android devices? even the biggest console sale numbers seem to be easily catched in fewer years by iOS or android devices?
why should i buy a wii u (or a ps3 + ps vita) to connect tv+tablet gameplay, when a modern smartphone/tablets can be attached to tvs already?
the only valid point for me, would be that the gaming-only devices are WAY cheaper in comparison to the smartphone/tablet devices.
but that is lost, as my smartphone did already cost less than the 3ds.
ranting ahead:
i may be a negative person, but i do not see much future for nintendo nor playstation. i only expect microsoft to be able to bring all their 3 platforms together (pc, tablet/smartphone, big screen tv). its already possible right now, and they sound pretty serious about their plans to have windows 8 on pc and smartphone/tablets, so i would expect the next “xbox” to be just a smartphone/tablet-pc thingy with pre-designed usb-gamepads.
subjectively, all i need is something like the asus eee pad transformer: i get an android tablet + hdmi out to my tv + pc-keyboard … and now all that is needed is a good “standard” bluetooth gamepad supported by the game-developer community…
so this comes together as 600 euros, but it just started selling. lets wait until next year when wii u arrives, and i doubt that it will be able to bring more for less money…
Why are you focused on a Teenager? Why can’t he have both?
Because people don’t measure entertainment by amount. Any amount of entertainment is meaningless if it’s not the thing you are interested in.
Why are you focused on a Teenager? Why can’t he have both?
The customer base for PC’s is even bigger than iOS and Android. The consoles still managed to pull ahead. Sometimes, it’s feels better to have a dedicated device. That’s why you don’t have a toilet in your living room.
You didn’t really explain what you want to do with the connected tablet. Watching videos on the TV? Many TVs have that functionality already built-in, you don’t even need a tablet for that. Playing games? Almost no tablet games are designed around that. All TV connectivity I saw so far was also done by cable. We did some tests at CGL with the iPad. It’s an inconvenient and cumbersome solution.
Weird conclusion. Microsoft doesn’t produce any TVs. The Windows 7 Mobile sales are abysmal. The Zune failed. Xbox Live for Windows failed. Microsoft just doesn’t do cross-platform nor media very well.
But yes, Microsoft is due to come up with something new.
Of course it will! It will bring Zelda and Mario (MORE) for certainly LESS than 600 euro.
There’s more I could comment on here, but for now I just wanted to point out that platform success is NOT determined by sheer numbers. It’s about demographics, i.e. the number of platform users who will pay an average of X amount of dollars for Y amount of copies of software on the platform (where X and Y are whatever numbers they need to be for the platform, and by extension developers who make software for it, to be profitable). To use some of my favorite examples, this is why the Mac software market thrived for years with a tiny percentage of the market compared to Windows (games aside, obviously); why iOS continues to make comparative tons of money for its devs despite being outsold by Android; why Nintendo made enough money even on the “failures” that were the N64 and GameCube to stay in business, and so on. It’s not enough to just have people, you also need people that will pay.
> Why are you focused on a Teenager? Why can’t he have both?
because its the most money limited audience, and still one of the larger audiences for nintendo. older people typically have more money, but already have a smartphone OR will get one because its not only a gaming device to them.
people won’t have both, when the one they will get anyway already satisfies all their needs.
> toilet in my living room
yuck. such a great comparison, really helpfull here.
> customer base of pc is bigger
yes, so is the fragmentation. people wine about android having to much fragmentation, when its actually less than the pc. (fragmentation here does include hardware and software)
> It’s not enough to just have people, you also need people that will pay.
yeah, good point. please tell that to all the casual nds & wii developers/smaller publishers from america and europe that have invested large amounts of money into their wii games and only few got enough back.
its just that smartphones/tablets do not have much of a hardcore market, which makes it work exactly like the “casual” markets on consoles.
so please do not compare my (bad) casual android sales to what i could earn on wii. its exactly the same amount of nearly nothing with additional much higher upfront cost.
> mario and zelda
yes, good point. its probably just me that lost interest in mario and zelda franchines a few years back.
Entertainment is not driven by needs. It’s driven by desire.
Not really sure what kind of argument you are making here. The Wii is not really the kind of failure Gabe was talking about – it is the most successful stationary console of this generation. It seems to me like you are just bashing the Wii now.
So we have just proven that a developer can fail on different platforms for all sorts of different reasons.
I guess that’s a result.
i’m not bashing the wii, its definitely successfull thing for nintendo.
but definitely not for smaller or indie developers. there are more successfull cases for that type on xbox360 and ps3. and of course way more on smartphones/tablets.
actually this is not /your result/, as you missed exactly my point:
when big game companies struggle fighting for the top positions on a console “market” that has many consumers willing to pay much money, but ONLY small amounts of money end up in the developers hands, then that is a problem for big companies – and they will definitely in the long run move more and more to markets where they can earn more money.
and especially small companies that do not even have the money for upfront investments needed on consoles, will also start or move to the platform that is easy to start on and in the end more money per investment. i.e. more % of the amount the customer pays going to the developer.
apple and android take a third of the small money a customer needs to play, while a full price title of a console costs the customer much much more, but way less than a third ends up in the developers hands.
so if you are a super developer, that already is on top of the market (e.g. ubisoft) it doesn’t matter much to you where you are going.
if you are anybody else, you will definitely sooner or later end up on something as accessible as the pc market, but with less effords and more money, i.e. iOS or android.
atleast this is what i observe in the last 2 to 3 years.
and sony and nintendo now developing products, trying to look like smartphone/tablets with focus on the game, just seems to prove my point 100%.
ah …
and someone like you krystian, being able to develop a great game like trauma, with a superb concept, great visuals, great audio, all with a large investment of time (and thus money) is going for flash (unexpensive, pc online).
now imagine what would be – if you would start to develop the game today.
would you reigster with sony/microsoft/nintendo and buy an expensive ps3 or wii development kit (10k euros +)?
would you buy all microsoft tools + xna creators club + consumer xbox360 to develop on (2k euros+)?
or would you probably go again for something as cheap as flash, something like iOS or android development (100 euros+).
i would really be interested to hear your point on trauma, as i believe it was a good decision to go for flash (when you started developing it), and would like to hear what you think “today”.
Of course I won’t develop for the consoles. But games like TRAUMA won’t be the end of Sony and Nintendo either. It’s two different things.
Yes, the Wii was bad for indie developers. All major consoles are pretty bad places to go when you are a small indie developers. Xbox360 and PS3 are a bit better. But you will still need a studio. Console development was never any different.
Small companies aren’t moving from consoles. They were never there in the first place. Some unsuccessful mid-size developers may move on to other platforms. I like this trend. It leads to more variety. But that doesn’t have anything to do with sales numbers of traditional consoles. Nor does it mean that the new consoles will fail and be replaced by Android Tablets and iPads. The distribution of developers will just balance out.
If anything, the Wii U is actually more accessible for mid-size studios. Current-gen spec hardware and the different controls means you don’t need to invest in cutting-edge technology to develop for it. You can have Angry Birds on it just as well as Wii Fit or a 1st Person Shooter. That’s pretty smart.
As far as I remember, your point was that you don’t see much future for Nintendo. I find this ridiculous. It doesn’t match the fact that sales numbers for 360 and PS3 are still rising. It doesn’t match the big picture either – Nintendo DS sales dwarf the iPad sales by a FACTOR of 10. The iPad sold around as many units as the Gamecube – the console many would consider Nintendo’s huge failure. The pad market is an interesting development and certainly a cool harbor for the small developers. But it’s just not the apocalyptic threat you make it out to be. If anything, we are looking at a future with a much wider number of platforms, developer sizes and business models.
i see the numbers a bit different than you do, as far as i trust the wikipedia articles numbers, i like to compare wii, ds, ps2 and ipad.
my original point was based on the fact, that in the past gaming devices sold best in their initial 5 years, when they had a low price point. with each high quality system that had a high price point (like psp or even ps3) the initial sales started very slow, and only reached reasonable amounts when the prices dropped.
now, the next generation will once again start expensive. of course sony claims to be able to produce the ps vita very cheap (and if true or not, intends to sell it for cheap), yet i do not believe that claim and believe more that the game prices will be driven by sonys need to regain lost money.
so i am saying, that when the android tablets lower the price point of hardware and together with future ipads will drop in price, we can start comparing them to the next next gen consoles (xbox720, ps4) and in some way also to the next years steps to extend the current generations (ps vita, wii u).
so, i compare the typical “first 5 years” sales charts for the core console lifecycle, which is as follows:
ps2 100mio in first 5 years,
nds 125mio in first 5 years,
wii 85 mio in 4.5 years.
now compare that to the ipad sales
(i know its not a good comparison when its lifetime has only now reached the first year, as its sales have been strong, while console sales typically start of slow)
ipad 15 mio in first year.
at a price point of nearly twice as much as the consoles, i believe this is more than comparably strong sales.
nevertheless gabe already pointed out: its not shear numbers.
no, it isnt. yet the nintendo products that sold the most, always where bought as family “toys” with target audience(s) not willing (or able?) to pay much.
so, when nintendos own product now tries to be a hybdrid of smartphone/tablet and console, i assume that it can not win (in the long run) when being expensive.
it can once again win being cheaper, but as far as it looks they will not be able to do that, as they do have all components of a modern tablet + many more
(expensive high density screen + cpu/gpu on tablet + high frequency radio transmission + expensive cpu + expensive gpu).
to me it would be truly amazing to see if they can produce the wiiu with better hardware than modern smartphones/tablets yet less price.
—
just to make it clear once again:
i’m not claiming, numbers are everything.
i believe i do understand the difference between hardwarecore sophisticated play sessions, indoor in front of a tv, with an expensive game with large amounts of content.
yet i do think that one number can be easily seen fromt he early days to the current days: money. if the price point of any past electronic game device was lower than that of the competition, then it won with sales (and revenue for developers), in the long run.
so, if the _next_ upcoming console generation (or extensions to them) will start at a zero customer base, and have NOT a lower price point than the smartphone/tablet market on that day … why should developers go for it?
why should consoles “win” in the long run?
-not because of features, i think i disproved that already in my first post (tv + gamepad is possibel on smartphone/tablet today).
-not because of games, i think both concepts already have huge portfolios (iOS, android, aswell as wiiu and ps vita being compatible to their older games).
-only because they can do the things aswell as the other devices but for a lower price point.
and that is what i totally stopped believing when i saw the wiiu…
sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS_sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#System_sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad
You are comparing Apples to oranges. It’s not a dedicated console so people are buying it for other things than for it’s games. It won’t get cheaper as much as consoles do since new, updated models are coming out every year.
But even disregarding this – it’s selling well but as your own numbers show simply nowhere near at the level of a successful console. And that’s the bulk of the entire pad market.
There are good reasons for why the Wii U could be much cheaper. If fact, if I wanted to produce a significantly cheaper tablet – that’s the way to go. Get rid of the outdoor portability. The CPU, GPU and the Memory don’t need to be portable. The battery can be smaller. But it’s silly to discuss prices at this point. None have been announced.
OF COURSE because of the games. Console are MADE for playing games. People are buying them for just one and ONLY one reason – because of all the the awesome GAMES they can play on them. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Call of Duty, Fifa, Madden, Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid , Battlefield, Grand Theft Auto – all of these will come out on the new consoles and that’s why gamers will buy them. Compared to consoles, the games in tablets will always look inferior – the tablets simply weren’t made for games. Plus, their business model doesn’t scale for AAA productions.
Again with your binary thinking. There will be no winners. Console will continue existing and providing awesome games for gamers. Pads will come in and provide smaller, more casual games. That’s it.
I’m getting tired of this discussion. This is turning into a pointless console war.