Reggie courts core devs, questions motivation to Move

[R.O.B.]

In an interview with IndustryGamers, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime asserted that Nintendo does care about third parties and does need them, despite the fact that Nintendo's business is sustained pretty well by first-party games. "The fact of the matter is we know we create great content for younger consumers," he said, "we know we've got great content for more casual players, and we want fantastic content for that more active player who loves Metroid or Zelda, but maybe also wants something like a BioShock 2 to play as well." Reggie then admitted, "We're not good at it and it's not a key focus area," thus Nintendo's interest in third-party developers.



The boss man also reiterated, almost word for word, his previous position that Nintendo would begin work on the next Nintendo system when a developer was unable to do something on the current Wii hardware, and he repeated that an HD feature alone wouldn't be enough to justify a new console.



When asked about the PlayStation Move, Fils-Aime questioned the Sony device's appeal. If the Wii already scratches the itch for motion-based gaming, then why would consumers be moved to pick up a PS3? "What's going to motivate them to spend minimally $300 for a new [PS3] system, plus minimally $100 for the Move motion bundle? So [as a consumer], now I'm into this for $400 and I still have to spend money on software. What's going to motivate me to do that?"

Reggie courts core devs, questions motivation to Move originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Source: Joystiq

[theUndead_feature]

Reggie > Playstation Move

[Rhymetyme91]

How about if it has a blu-ray player too? So if I'm a consumer who only has a 360 and is looking for another console, I could get a Wii with a few great titles and LOADS of filler, or I could ante up and get a PS3, which features motion Wii games, AWESOME PS3 games, and a blu-ray player. The point is coming when having a gimmick doesn't do the job.

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Reggie's also ignoring the market that already has a PS3. Easier for them to spend $100 on the motion bundle (Move + Cam) than to buy a new Wii and some software.

I'll probably get a Move at Christmas if it looks like there'll be decent support for it.

[The shoemaker]

Originally Posted by Rhymetyme91

How about if it has a blu-ray player too? So if I'm a consumer who only has a 360 and is looking for another console, I could get a Wii with a few great titles and LOADS of filler, or I could ante up and get a PS3, which features motion Wii games, AWESOME PS3 games, and a blu-ray player. The point is coming when having a gimmick doesn't do the job.

I'm certain he's refering to the people who already own a Wii, but not a PS3, which is probably the majority of the people who want motion controls.

[Turai]

I'll replace one of my Sixxaxis with a Dual Shock and Im happy, "Move" doesnt intresst me at all right now, I even avoid using the motion controls in wii games if its possible

[pdRydia]

The Move seems pretty cool. I'll probably never use it, what with not having a PS3, but Nintendo could use a little competition.

And hey, maybe Sony will do better quality control. They have to be paying attention to people's *****ing about minigame collections.

[Betagam7]

Heavy Rain is a system seller for me...but there's no way I can justify another console at the moment. I'm just as full as I can get. Interesting that Reggie is courting third parties for his console and mentioning Bioshock 2 as something they should aim to replicate on Wii...how exactly?

[dk_xcalibur]

Originally Posted by Betagam7

Interesting that Reggie is courting third parties for his console and mentioning Bioshock 2 as something they should aim to replicate on Wii...how exactly?

People said the Wii would never see Modern Warfare and there it is. Yeah, it's not as good as the 360/PS3/PC versions but to the Wii owners, it's pretty good. My friend who only owns a Wii can't stop playing it and he talks about it daily. Honestly I can't see why Bioshock couldn't be ported down to the Wii. Will it happen? Who knows?

Back on topic: I think Shoe was right. I believe Reggie was referring to people who own Wiis and not a PS3. Some of those people will buy it to catch up on technology (HD, BR Player), but the majority are not going to be able to justify spending $400+ on the PS3. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who ran out and bought a Wii are not interested in the PS3's extra features for the $400 price tag.

Also, I think it's hilarious that Natal is not being talked about in these conversations. To be honest, I'm not really excited for either new control system. Maybe that will change once more stuff is revealed and we get closer to the Holiday season.

[hippiecrite]

Originally Posted by dk_xcalibur

People said the Wii would never see Modern Warfare and there it is. Yeah, it's not as good as the 360/PS3/PC versions but to the Wii owners, it's pretty good. My friend who only owns a Wii can't stop playing it and he talks about it daily. Honestly I can't see why Bioshock couldn't be ported down to the Wii. Will it happen? Who knows?

Probably because people like your friend in in the minority. Most gamers that are interested in titles like Modern Warfare and BioShock have 360s and PS3s to play them on. This is Nintendo's problem with the low sales of third party 'core' titles. If you're a 'core' gamers, 9 times out of 10 you're not just playing a Wii, so why would you ever buy an inferior version of a game?

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Sorry DK, but i believe Shoe is not right. Why would Reggie pitch the Wii to people who already own one? Just to prevent people from buying PS3s? Not really.

Reggie's talking about the steady stream of new gamers who may (or may not) be interested in motion controls, people who don't have a Wii or a PS3. The motivation behind his "value" comments is that these people face the decision to spend in two ways. With the Wii, they can spend $200 and get a system, a bundled motion controller, and a piece of software with which to use it (Wii Sports/Resort). With the PS3, they can spend $300, spend another $100 for the non-bundled motion controller, and then spend $30-60 on a piece of software. The ultimate question: who would pay $460 rather than $200 to play games?

The question is obviously leading / semipropagandistic, because it neglects the PS3's other strengths (HD, Blu-Ray, great online, quality lineup of non-motion control games) that could obviously factor into a buyer's decision, but that's his job as the honcho.

[Betagam7]

Originally Posted by hippiecrite

Probably because people like your friend in in the minority. Most gamers that are interested in titles like Modern Warfare and BioShock have 360s and PS3s to play them on. This is Nintendo's problem with the low sales of third party 'core' titles. If you're a 'core' gamers, 9 times out of 10 you're not just playing a Wii, so why would you ever buy an inferior version of a game?

Yes, this is precisely my point. The graphics of games like Bioshock are part of the games appeal and most of the people who want to play those types of graphically intense games own another format already as they worked out pretty quickly that they wouldn't be able to ever play them on Wii.

These games tend to fail, not because Wii owners arn't interested in core games but because they just buy the 'real' version for their 'core' console instead.

Nintendo's best shot at solving the problem isn't trying to convince publishers to produce gimped, downgraded Wii ports but rather for them to offer some real reason to purchase the Wii version that constitutes an improved gameplay mechanic. Case in point: I own a 360 and a Wii but I'd buy the Wii version of Sega Allstar racing over the 360 version because although its graphically inferior I think that I'd prefer the control method of playing with a Wii Wheel, on the other hand a few sloppily bolted on waggle controls were never going to make me buy an inferior port such as a Dead Rising or Smackdown vs Raw over the 360 version.

[dk_xcalibur]

Originally Posted by R.O.B.

When asked about the <a href="http://joystiq.com/tag/playstation-move">PlayStation Move</a>, Fils-Aime questioned the Sony device's appeal. If the Wii already scratches the itch for motion-based gaming, then why would consumers be <em>moved</em> to pick up a PS3? "What's going to motivate them to spend minimally $300 for a new [PS3] system, plus minimally $100 for the Move motion bundle? So [as a consumer], now I'm into this for $400 and I still have to spend money on software. What's going to motivate me to do that?"
Source: Joystiq

Jogurt, we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm reading the above and interpreting it differently. "If the Wii ALREADY scratches the itch for motion-based gaming" I interpret that to mean that people who already own a Wii for the motion controls will most likely not be interested in shelling out the money for the PS3.

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Agree to disagree then. That comment is far more likely to mean that the Wii scratches the motion control itch of the market in general, i.e. the Wii is already on the market doing the motion control thing. When people want motion control, they already have somewhere to go. In fact, if the comment is interpreted your way, then Reggie is in fact making an incorrect statement, since there are lots of people interested in motion-based gaming who don't have Wiis yet.

If I have a hankerin' for carrots, a product exists that will scratch that itch: carrots. That doesn't mean I currently have carrots in my fridge. Reggie's point is that if I have a hankerin' for carrots, I'm more likely to go get carrots from the grocery store (established product in market) than I am to get gold-plated carrots from Tiffany's (new expensive product without the established cred of existing carrots).

[dk_xcalibur]

Originally Posted by hippiecrite

Probably because people like your friend in in the minority. Most gamers that are interested in titles like Modern Warfare and BioShock have 360s and PS3s to play them on. This is Nintendo's problem with the low sales of third party 'core' titles. If you're a 'core' gamers, 9 times out of 10 you're not just playing a Wii, so why would you ever buy an inferior version of a game?

Originally Posted by Betagam7

Yes, this is precisely my point. The graphics of games like Bioshock are part of the games appeal and most of the people who want to play those types of graphically intense games own another format already as they worked out pretty quickly that they wouldn't be able to ever play them on Wii.

These games tend to fail, not because Wii owners arn't interested in core games but because they just buy the 'real' version for their 'core' console instead.

Nintendo's best shot at solving the problem isn't trying to convince publishers to produce gimped, downgraded Wii ports but rather for them to offer some real reason to purchase the Wii version that constitutes an improved gameplay mechanic. Case in point: I own a 360 and a Wii but I'd buy the Wii version of Sega Allstar racing over the 360 version because although its graphically inferior I think that I'd prefer the control method of playing with a Wii Wheel, on the other hand a few sloppily bolted on waggle controls were never going to make me buy an inferior port such as a Dead Rising or Smackdown vs Raw over the 360 version.

I was only trying to say that Bioshock for the Wii could be done. That's it. Being a 360/Wii/DS owner I am fully aware and I agree with what you are both saying. I was responding specifically to Betagam7's original comment "how exactly". I was trying to say that it could be done. I also agree though that new original games for the Wii are always preferred but I also respect the gamers who only own a Wii who really enjoy some of the same games that the other systems are already enjoying. If you're Reggie, why would you not want Bioshock on your system? I believe there's a market for ports of established "hardcore" games onto the Wii. A lot of casual gamers have at least heard about Call of Duty and Bioshock.

[pdRydia]

Originally Posted by Jogurt the Yogurt

If I have a hankerin' for carrots, a product exists that will scratch that itch: carrots. That doesn't mean I currently have carrots in my fridge. Reggie's point is that if I have a hankerin' for carrots, I'm more likely to go get carrots from the grocery store (established product in market) than I am to get gold-plated carrots from Tiffany's (new expensive product without the established cred of existing carrots).

Loser. Carrots from the grocery store are for babies. Gold-plated carrots from Tiffany's are for posers. Keep it real by growing your own.

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Originally Posted by pdRydia

Loser. Carrots from the grocery store are for babies. Gold-plated carrots from Tiffany's are for posers. Keep it real by growing your own.

I wonder if my balcony would be carrot-friendly.

Wait, where is this analogy going? Do you mean I should scratch my itch for motion controlled gaming by actually moving around in real life?! Come back, analogy! Come back!

[SegaFan]

I see the Playstation Move as closing the last gap in the PS3's capabilities. Now there will be nothing that the Wii can do that the PS3 theoretically can't do, but there's a significant amount the PS3 can do that the Wii can't. The Wii is fine if you just want motion controls, but what advantage is there other than price now there's a competitor with motion controls?

To respond to Jogurt's analogy, it's not about the carrots being better, it's that you're not going to only want to have carrots.

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Originally Posted by SegaFan

I see the Playstation Move as closing the last gap in the PS3's capabilities. Now there will be nothing that the Wii can do that the PS3 theoretically can't do, but there's a significant amount the PS3 can do that the Wii can't. The Wii is fine if you just want motion controls, but what advantage is there other than price now there's a competitor with motion controls?

To respond to Jogurt's analogy, it's not about the carrots being better, it's that you're not going to only want to have carrots.

Long gone, long gone.

Anyway, there is one important thing that the Wii continues to do that the PS3 theoretically can't do, and that's Nintendo games. Take that for what it's worth.

[Betagam7]

Originally Posted by dk_xcalibur

I also respect the gamers who only own a Wii who really enjoy some of the same games that the other systems are already enjoying.

Me too, unfortunately I don't see it as possible. Chop till you Drop is not the "same game" as Dead Rising, similarly there is no real comparison between the two versions of the Smackdown vs Raw franchise. They have the same name but they are not the same game and its not just a matter of slightly worse graphics the gameplay is also directly affected by the Wii's lack of horsepower.

If 'Bioshock' came out for Wii it might be called 'Bioshock' but would really only be something vaguely similar and would playing something vaguely similar really satisfy? To stick to the current carroty theme if I want to eat organicly grown carrots but my supermarket only sells the nasty tinned stuff then would I be satisfied eating those or would I just buy from a different supermarket?

Originally Posted by dk_xcalibur

If you're Reggie, why would you not want Bioshock on your system? I believe there's a market for ports of established "hardcore" games onto the Wii. A lot of casual gamers have at least heard about Call of Duty and Bioshock.

Unfortunately sales figures are indicating that the majority of that market is choosing to buy the games for their "hardcore" console. The portion who arn't don't seem to exist in sufficient numbers to make it viable.

[theUndead_feature]

Originally Posted by Jogurt the Yogurt

Long gone, long gone.

Anyway, there is one important thing that the Wii continues to do that the PS3 theoretically can't do, and that's Nintendo games. Take that for what it's worth.

This.

Nintendo's strength is it's characters. If Super Mario Galaxy and Super Smash Bros. Brawl came out on the PS3 I would have bought that.

[SegaFan]

Anyway, there is one important thing that the Wii continues to do that the PS3 theoretically can't do, and that's Nintendo games. Take that for what it's worth.

Unfortunately I would say that was worth a lot more 5 years ago before it was all Wii Sports, Brain Training and remakes. Sad but true. I hate to always be the negative one, especially when it comes to Nintendo who have produced such great games in the past, but at least (going against what I said) I'm still glad I own a Wii even just for Mario Galaxy, it shows the old Nintendo is still there somewhere.

[Jogurt the Yogurt]

Originally Posted by SegaFan

Unfortunately I would say that was worth a lot more 5 years ago before it was all Wii Sports, Brain Training and remakes. Sad but true. I hate to always be the negative one, especially when it comes to Nintendo who have produced such great games in the past, but at least (going against what I said) I'm still glad I own a Wii even just for Mario Galaxy, it shows the old Nintendo is still there somewhere.

True enough, hence the "take it for what it's worth" caveat. I don't think Nintendo has been on top of their game since the SNES days. But the Wii is still home to some quality stuff, including Galaxy, Twilight Princess and whatever the next Zelda game will be, some Metroid stuff, Fire Emblem, Brawl, and yes, Wii Sports (we'll see if Move's sports game will be as fun—we'll see). I also don't think the VC would work as well on the PS3. I know your thoughts on digital distribution services, so it's not a point towards you, but a lot of people see it as a huge selling point.