 |
|
|
| |
Nintendo's Fils-Aime: Low-Priced Mobile Games Among 'Biggest Risks' To Industry
by Kyle Orland [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
February 4, 2011
|
| |
With retail titles for the upcoming Nintendo 3DS expected in the $35 to $45 range, Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime actually thinks it's cheap, $1 and $2 mobile games that are "one of the biggest risks today in our gaming industry."
Speaking to Geoff Keighley in the latest episode of GameTrailers TV, Fils-Aime contrasted "full-fledged" 3DS games like Steel Diver with a flood of cheap games on mobile devices like the iPhone that are "disposable from a consumer standpoint."
"Angry Birds is a great piece of experience," he said, "but that is one compared to thousands of other pieces of content that for one or two dollars I think create a mentality for the consumer that a piece of gaming content should only be $2."
Taking one last dig at the mobile competition, Fils-Aime added that he "think[s] some of those games are actually overpriced at $1 or $2, but that's a different story."
While Nintendo 3DS, like the DSi before it, will eventually include an online shop for downloading free and cheap titles, the company seems to be continuing its focus on full-priced retail titles for the bulk of the new portable's software.
Fils-Aime previously addressed competition from free and cheap digital downloads and social games last month in an interview with CNBC, where he said Nintendo's "great franchises really motivate consumers to buy the software."
With many developers expressing concerns about the cost of developing 3D games for Nintendo's new portable, company president Satoru Iwata said last May that those costs depend largely on how developers implement the feature.
"If you try to make something that's not in a 3D world into 3D, you'll probably have some cost," Iwata said. "There's still no foundation, and it's an area that requires trial and error. It is that trial and error alone that could see an increase in development cost."
|
| |
|
|
@Dragos, yes talking about those.
My dig was that the 3DS is essentially a sup'ed up DSI asking for a premium price of $250 in down economic times. Reggie wonders what the problem is. Problem is there are kick ass .99 and $2.99 games being made that kids and struggling parents can afford.
While not everything is "Angry Birds", mobile developers are looking into In-App Purchase to extend the longevity and to continually engage players beyond the initial purchase. He's either ignoring or is unaware of this side of the mobile game business.
Also (absolutely my personal opinion) prices for games should be way lower on Nintendo handhelds. 249 USD for 3DS seems expensive to me for a handheld when I can buy for the same money or less a full feature HD "living room" console... though.
And this is bad, why?
Oh, and since we have Reggie's attention, could somebody ask him if Nintendo is ever going to bother making another Nintendo Wii game? I'd probably trade mine in for a Sega Dreamcast, but Just Dance 2 is still a lot of fun, and I need the exercise.
If the market floods with $2 games that are crummy (as per your description, Carl) then wouldn't one of the following happen?
1) The consumer detects that the quality isn't there and eventually stops purchasing $2 games. Then $2 low-quality games stop being made because no developer can make money off of it due to low demand.
2) The consumer is actually OK with crummy $2 games and keeps buying them, meaning some developers somewhere make enough money to keep producing said games. Some devs don't make enough and leave the arena. So the strong survive and the consumer remains at least moderately happy. Isn't that how open markets are supposed to work?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, though. Are you saying that scenario #2 is inherently bad because $2 games are still being made, albeit at lower volumes?
Despite Profesor Baghierieh's best efforts, I barely made it through Econ 101 so please forgive me if I'm failing to grasp the situation properly.
This forces out bigger budget games because sales aren't there. More 2 buck games get made to compensate but this also starts slowly stealing parts of the pie (at some point, everyone has a limit on impulse and 2 dollar buys). And at some point, if there really is a bunch of poor experiences buying games/playing games/getting value out of 2 dollar games, people will stop buying 2 dollar games causing more desperation.
Platforms (or games) that struggle with poor titles tend never to recover very well. While we might not ever see apps go away as a platform, I think it's in our best interests to put out a decent product rather than try to cash in on what is likely the tail end of the golden age of Apps.
It's like any other market fad, like over processed auto-tuned teeny bopper pop stars, or tickle-me-elmos, or CGI movies, or cheap, terribly animated kids cartoons.
It's not so much that the market is okay with them as it is a self fulfilling prophecy. That's where the money goes, so that's what's advertised, that's what's hyped and talked about, and that's what's sold.
And depressing of all, let's not forget how much of an idiot the average kid is about buying awful movie licensed video games...
It's a complete misunderstanding of the market. People who buy console or PC games, are still going to buy those games, and they will likely buy $2 App throw away games too. I know I own angry birds, it's cheap and fill voids of boredom waiting in lines and such.
The app games also bring in money from people who would never buy an actual console or PC game...like my wife, she loves bejeweled and its on her phone...she would never buy any other kind of "real" game.
So ya the cheapo app games are the new "it" niche in the gaming world, but it will never be a real threat to the overall gaming market...it's the bean counters following the $$. It's a fad, it'll always be there but it doesn't have any kind of real future.
With Nintendo's retail market, at least they can have staple games that are plainly visible and not buried under mounds of bad games. And if it so happens that people DO want those 1-10 dollar games, they will have that covered with the eShop. I think they at least have a wider range of options to choose from.
Still, it easier in the retail market to make good content stand out and be noticed by consumers, while the "mounds" of bad games often go into a bin and are marked down to $5-10 anyways.
Hell show me a mobile game with very little depth that sold as much as Wii Play.
I'm 100% positive that the 360, PSP, PS3, and DS have tons of games with more depth too.
Anyway Carl pretty much nailed Reggie's point.
On a side note, Infinity Blade pretty much beats out everything you listed minus Galaxy and Wii Play. GoldenEye failed and BoomBlox was a critical success, but didn't sell as well as it should of (disappointed me actually that it didn't). If Wii Play is you're definition of depth, than so be it.
And we're not talking about the 360, PS3, or really the Wii to an extent. Notice the theme is mobile games?
I listed GoldenEye and BoomBlox as games that have more depth. Neither failed by the way. BoomBlox sold well enough for EA to make BoomBlox 2 and Activision stated that GoldenEye was selling to their expectations.
I figured that Andrew wanted to know. I mentioned the sales of Wii Play more as a joke. The theme is more what was Reggie's point about mobile games.
You can make quality games for one to two bucks. As indies, I know we are. I can understand Nintendo not, but saying that and than looking at their 3rd party support (which you can compare to " with a flood of cheap games on mobile devices like the iPhone that are 'disposable from a consumer standpoint.' "
Now replace iPhone with DS or Wii.
My, this IS a tasty burger.
For sure Nintendo and it's traditional partner the evil retail/marketing empire see it as a risk if other platforms use a more efficient distribution model that finally successfully cuts out the retailers.
Apart from limited hardware and user interface capabilities, games with similiar production value could become available on smartphones for much lower prices.
In short, the (retail) mobile games market isn't "at risk" it's just being challenged by distribution channels with less friction.
The model that existed between publishers and developers has branched off into its own thing that gives developers with low budgets and resources to still be successful without having to spend thousands of dollars on devkits, licensing and marketing. I also believe that the past few years have almost forced developers to branch off and do their own thing through all the studio closures and layoffs. From what I understood about the indie scene, it was primarily hobbyists whereas now, there's a saturation of experienced developers who couldn't find jobs but decided to take matters into their own hands and used whatever resources they had to start something for themselves. I think we're starting to see the results of this.
I translate his point to be that if a company gets away with selling their product for well under price of the development it may make consumers think that 2 dollars and no more than that should be the pricing point for many different kinds of games, and that may damage the market overall. If movies and music sold on iTunes can come in at a 10 to 15 dollar price point, surely quality title games can cost just as much or even a little more on the app store. It is the monopoly argument. To much undercutting the price of your product can be harmful to the overall market structure of the products your selling.
But every time I buy a console game for $60-$100 (Australian), I need to weigh it up. Will I enjoy it? Will I get $80 of value out of it? Do I want this game, or should I save the cash for this other one coming out in a few weeks instead? And more often than not these days, I decide not to buy.
The App Store provides instant gratification with almost no price barrier. Sure, there are lots of limitations, particularly with controls (I hate 'virtual' joysticks...), but guess what? There's still lots of fun to be had, and people are somehow making a pretty good living at $1 a pop.
If by "our" he means "we at Nintendo", then ya, it's a big risk to you Reggie!
If you can't clearly articulate why your $35-45 games are better than $1-2 games, then ya, you've got a problem.
A $2 price point signifies a change in the industry, to be sure, but I'd think that Nintendo of all companies would see this as an exciting opportunity to reach that mass market they've been seeking. Their target market seems to be kids, and they could afford $5-10 games with their allowances alone. (Back in the day my allowance was $2/week so do the math to figure out how long it took me to buy Gauntlet for NES priced at $40.)
Digital stores, online MP and free-to-play are exciting. Nintendo has traditionally been great at innovating with hardware but severely lagging behind in these other areas. Time to evolve.