So Satoru Iwata's speech has now come and gone and we have many questions left unanswered.
- What is the final name of the Revolution?
- How much will Revolution cost?
- When will Revolution release?
- How will Wi-Fi Connection work on Revolution?
- What software will be available for the Revolution launch?
- What is the pricing structure for the Virtual Console?
- What software will be available on the Virtual Console?
- What developers are creating software for Revolution and the Virtual Console?
- How will Nintendo market these various products?
Iwata effectively only answered [partially] one out of a long list of questions. My main concern is that there is actually too much left to announce. Perhaps this is part of Nintendo's strategy -- let hype grow and allow the silence to pervade our every waking thought. Or it could be the other explanation: that Nintendo simply doesn't know and furthermore, isn't ready to tell us. Could it be Nintendo is merely making it all up as they go? Did they truly have this master plan when they started?
Some point to a few contradictions in Iwata's speech as proof that Nintendo isn't being consistent in its plan. Iwata talked about the need for disruption and non-games and followed it with talk of Zelda, Metroid and traditional games on the NES, Genesis and TurboGrafx. Some are perplexed by this message. It seems those individuals missed the part of Iwata's speech where he reiterated the company's goal of attracting all game players. "When we talk about expanding the market to new players, many times this means new kinds of software," Iwata remarked. "However, I hope that Metroid shows we're not only after new players...we're catering for all tastes."
Still, I can't help but slightly agree with those that share these concerns. Whether it's intentional or not, Nintendo is conditioning its audience to expect more Zelda, more Mario and more Metroid. The question begs to be asked, "What kind of example does that give to third-party developers?" Not everyone can find success by simply copying Nintendo's strategy. Nintendo has its wealth of franchise games to fall back on if an experiment such as Brain Training fails. Others are not so lucky and one failure at a small studio can mean bankruptcy. Fortunately, it sounds as though Nintendo has acknowledged this concern.
"We understand the future Zeldas, Marios and Metroids will be bigger masterpieces [that cost a significant amount of money to develop]," Iwata noted. "But this doesn't have to be the only business model. We want to help you make new ones. We offer a combination of opportunities that can't be matched. Our controller...it allows for game creation that isn't just dependent on the size of the development budget. Our Virtual Console concept is the videogame version of Apple's iTunes music store. Since I announced this virtual console, other people have been interested in digital downloads. But they will not be the same as us: for we will be truly disruptive. The digital download process will bring new games to the widest possible audience of new players."
After hearing this from Iwata, Nintendo's plan feels more consistent and firm. However, I'm still skeptical. Before you bite off my head, I say this only because I'm a bit bewildered that Nintendo failed to deliver a North American release date for the Nintendo DS Lite. The company further refused to reveal a final name for the Revolution console. I have to wonder, what's the hold up? Nintendo is having manufacturing complications with the Nintendo DS Lite. It's very possible Nintendo had originally prepared to announce release information at GDC however the continued shortages in Japan changed their minds. So this brings me back to my concern. If they knew they were going after new gamers all along, don't you think they would have likewise been better prepared to supply this large, new market? Also why is Nintendo continuing with the Revolution name? Is it merely trying to ride that name's aura of mystery and hype as long as possible? Seems to me that it would be a better idea to prepare the public and media's conscious for the real title before they become too attached to its codename.
On the other side of the spectrum, I feel incredibly confident as to where Nintendo stands as they move into the next generation. The company has a multitude of competitive advantages -- a few of which include the obvious controller, back-catalog of well-known franchises, and a cheap development platform. I am also excited about the fruits we've been seeing from Nintendo's internal development structure that Iwata initiated back in early 2005. It hasn't been since the SNES generation that we've seen Nintendo releasing such high quality software on a consistent basis.
I think Nintendo's most difficult hurdle in this coming generation will not be the obvious faces -- Sony and Microsoft. The biggest hurdle is Nintendo itself and the many questions that remain unanswered. The answers Nintendo provides to these questions will undoubtedly determine the company's future fortunes or distant distress. If you ask me, I can see that Iwata is a good man to lead Nintendo. He has the passion and experience needed for success in this industry. Granted no one is perfect, but I guess that's also why the meaning of Nintendo is "leave luck to heaven." I can only hope Iwata and Nintendo's luck helps them discover the right answers.
What are your thoughts? Let us know.