Email: 3DS Questions

Hello Malstrom.

Hello reader! (waves at reader)

You’ve talked a lot about your concern about the 3DS (some of which I share, such as the D-Pad placement. Couldn’t it have been a little higher or something) and that it’s going the wrong direction. I had some questions on your view points. First, back in March of this year, you mentioned you thought the 3DS was disruptive, in that it was going to disrupt Sony’s jump into 3D (TVs movies). But you’ve retracted your statement. Why do you think the 3DS is not disruptive now and is it still a shot against Sony?

With disruption, there are two parties: the disruptor and the incumbent. The incumbent, in 3DS’s case, is Sony’s 3d output gaming. “No glasses!” says the Reggie.

The problem is that Sony’s 3d output gaming is not a market. Nintendo has made this mistake earlier with User Generated Content. Nintendo gets word that Sony is embracing User Generated Content (such as with LittleBigPlanet). So Nintendo not only puts out Wii Music, they embrace UGC in a huge way. They want to beat Sony to the punch. But the problem is that it was undetermined whether consumers wanted UGC in gaming. Since they didn’t, both Sony and Nintendo have UGC backfire on them.

There is no evidence to support that gamers want 3d output in games. Or, to be more precise, there is no evidence to support that gamers are willing to pay extra money for a 3d output experience.

Nintendo might say, “But Malstrom! 3d output has saved the movie industry! Look at all the interest in 3d movies like Avatar! Hoo-hah!” But this is a classic situation of Nintendo seeing what they want to see. 3d output isn’t so much as removing disinterest in movies as it was giving people, who already watch movies, reason to watch it in theaters before it hits DVD. Also, the price increase of 3d movies have increased revenues but not customers. The point is that it isn’t making movies ‘exciting and interesting’ again. It is not like when Star Wars and Jaws came out.

Why would Nintendo see what they want to see? It is because they are obsessed with 3d effects. But that is a topic for another day. Writing about it just makes me angry.

When someone plays a video game, they only care about: “What can I do?” and “I feel like a master!” So a game must be challenging, but not easy, lots to do but not overwhelming. Passive effects such as HD or 3d effects will not have people rush out the door to get the system. It doesn’t change the nature of the game.

Just because something is ‘disruptive’ doesn’t mean it will sell crazy especially if there is no market demand for the incumbent’s product. Pretend if a company disrupted the N-Gage. Yeah, it is disruption, but so what? No one wanted the N-Gage. Making a cheaper, simpler N-Gage type product with some other features isn’t going to go anywhere.

The general gaming decline is illustrative of this. We have seen consoles competing for ‘better 3d’, ‘more graphics’, ‘larger and more bloated worlds’. It doesn’t matter who won such a ‘Console War’ as everything would decline anyway. It is the same thing disrupting a product that no one wants.

Does anyone want Sony’s User Generated Content? No. So disrupting it wouldn’t matter. Does anyone really want Sony’s 3d output? Not really. So disrupting that wouldn’t matter either.

Imagine if Sega, seeing the Virtual Boy come out, consider it a threat and ‘disrupted it’ back in the 90s. The result is both Sega and Nintendo would lose instead of just Nintendo.

Second, I agree that the 3DS may be going the wrong way (what topped me off is that it’s main feature is visual). If things go south for the system, is there any hope that they could salvage it. Could they make a game(s) like New Super Mario Bros. that could help move the system, or is it dead in the water?

There are two major problems with the direction of the 3DS. One, the screen is making Nintendo’s handheld extremely expensive. I bought the original Gameboy for $90. It came with batteries. It came with Tetris. It came with headphones (which still work today and outlasted all those stupid freebie white ipod headphones). And they expect people to buy it for $250? Get out of here! Worse, the economics of all the major markets are moving from bad to worse. This is the absolutely the worst time to bring out an expensive handheld. We are entering a state of economic depression, this is not the time to put out expensive gaming products. Not even the PS3, with its brand name and all, could do it back in 2006 and those were the good times.

The second big problem of the 3DS is that all software designed on it will be tailored for ‘teh uber 3d effects’. Any old school gamer will tell you this is exactly where gaming truly fell off a cliff. During the N64/PS1/Saturn Era, we kept wondering, “Why must every game be in 3d?” Sony went out of their way to make sure 2d games did not appear on the PlayStation because it would not represent the ‘power of the machine’. It was such rot!

Every 3DS game will be a 3d game that is large, bloated, and slow so you, the user, can properly marvel and be in ‘awe’ at the 3d effects and the ‘genius’ of the developers. The developers do not want you to say, “This was a good game!”, they would much rather hear you say, “This is a better experience than a Hollywood movie!”

The placement of the analog stick and the D-Pad confirms that 3d games are planned to dominate the system. This is the N64 debacle all over again.

Many game developers today do not understand what a video game is. And what I mean by this, I am referring to the more recent video game developer who thinks better 3d animation equals a better game. It does not. A game experience revolves around the player’s personality, not the developer’s personality. This is why the better games tend to be those where the players are allowed to explore their own personality rather than the developer’s personality.

I want to make ‘Gamecube’ into a verb. To ‘Gamecube’ would be to embrace a process of game design philosophy where you emphasize 3d effects and developers’ personalities at the detriment of everything else. From Super Mario Brothers to Super Mario Sunhine, that was a process of being ‘Gamecubed’. No one cares about the stupid story in ‘Sunshine’. From Legend of Zelda to Windwaker was the process of being ‘Gamecubed’. The ‘art style’ was developers trying to express their personalities which rubbed gamers the wrong way. Metroid: Other M was ‘gamecubed’ as it was about Sakamoto expressing his ‘creativity’ much to everyone’s pain.

I expect all 3DS software to become ‘Gamecubed’. Kid Icarus, a NES games, appears as if it has been ‘Gamecubed’. Mario looks like he will become ‘Gamecubed’ again as 3d Mario was hinted for the 3DS. Unlike the Gamecube and N64, the ‘3d debacle’ will probably be worse. How do these ‘Gamecube games’ work for the job that a handheld is supposed to do? They were controversial for home consoles. They didn’t work at all for the PSP. Why should they suddenly work for the 3DS?

Add in a depression. Add in intense competition from other handheld devices. This isn’t looking good for Nintendo. The DS to 3DS is looking more and more like the PS2 to PS3.

The cost issue for the screens will go down in time. Hopefully, dramatically. If I recall, the two screens for the DS was what made it expensive and that cost went down as computer screens became more popularized and cheaper everywhere else.

The big problem is the software. Even if Nintendo decides to make more classic type games for the 3DS, it will feel like playing NES games on the Gamecube. It won’t feel right. It will always feel as if you are doing something the system wasn’t designed to do. (I never got that feeling on the Wii as Mario 5 feels natural on the system. NSMB feels natural on the DS.)

Since the name of the system has 3d in it, I don’t see any easy way out for Nintendo.

One reason for DS’s success was selling the device to older people via Brain Age. This will not work with 3DS. The 3d capabilities will push people away (as it is pushing me away). The reason being is that older people were there when Buck Rogers first came out. They have seen the ‘This is new because it is 3d!’ over and over. They will not be impressed by it.

Would grandma buy a 3DS? Honestly, I cannot see any reason why she ever would. “But no one thought grandma would buy game hardware with the Wii and DS!” I always knew it was possible because grandma would buy a NES or Gameboy to play games like Tetris (she probably also would get an Atari Era console too).

I see the 3DS software philosophy (i.e. 3d effects to be entertaining) and the price PUSHING PEOPLE AWAY. Nintendo needs to do the opposite: put out stuff that invites people in.

These bad decisions by Nintendo seem to come from two sources. One, Nintendo is obsessed with harpooning Sony just as Captain Ahab was with harpooning Moby Dick. Revenge seems to be the dominant motivation with these moves to constantly disrupt Sony even when it won’t bring in more customers. Second, Nintendo developers are obsessed with 3d effects and think the future of gaming is the Gamecube direction.

I don’t think Nintendo has ever imagined the future of gaming to not be ‘more 3d’.

Lastly, if Nintendo is truly leaving the path of the expanded market, do you think that might be why Cammy left? She was an expanded market gamer who played Brain Age, among other DS games. Could that signal a change in their business behaviors?

Technically, the ‘expanded market’ for the DS is now considered the ‘core market’ for the 3DS. People who buy Nintendogs for the 3DS cannot be called ‘expanded market’. They are now part of the ‘core market’. Another example of people who bought the Wii for Mario 5 would be ‘expanded market’ but with Wii’s successor, they would be the ‘core market’. The Wii Sports audience will be ‘core market’ to the successor of the Wii.

Of course, Nintendo has never had an ‘expanded market’ before the DS and Wii because all Nintendo hardware has seen is decline. Note that this decline from NES to Gamecube was Nintendo’s quest of 3d effects. This quest of 3d effects gave us scary controllers, created bloated and slow games, and ruined the productivity of Nintendo in that they could only release fewer and fewer games each year.

When looking at the Big Picture of Nintendo in regards to their Quest for More 3d Effects, it appears the problems outweighed any benefits. The business side of Nintendo knows the Gamecube direction cannot possibly be the future of video games. Someone should inform the development side as they haven’t stopped thinking the Gamecube direction as the future for video games.

Thanks for taking the time to read this e-mail. I know you get a lot.

Actually, this one came to mind as I typed the last bit. You talk a lot about Nintendo’s business strategies. So, let’s say that they hire you on as the new CEO of Nintendo. What would you do (you can skip this if you want. Just want to hear the specifics of how Malstrom would run a huge video game cooperation)?

Thanks again for reading this and hopefully answering my questions! Take care!

Off the top of my head…

I’d revamp the Virtual Console (and the Ware services) to not be tied to any hardware. If you bought Super Metroid on Virtual Console, you should be able to play it on any Nintendo hardware instead of having to re-buy it for each hardware Nintendo puts out. There might be some legal obstacles but those can be remedied. Why? Gamer behavior is that they desire a library. Gamers will not buy games if they cannot collect them, if they cannot create a library. Tying every digital Nintendo title to specific hardware destroys any incentive for a gamer to ‘build a library’. Also, the more a gamer invests in creating the library, the more invested that gamer is in continuing to buy new Nintendo hardware. For example, if someone bought every SNES game available, they will easily purchase the next Nintendo console as they already know they can play their old SNES games. It is perfect backwards compatibility. All this software creates a Massive Library that only grows and grows, snowball like, with future Nintendo consoles. The library would be so massive that each new hardware generation means more reason for people to get the hardware. And previous customers will have software to play on hardware they haven’t even bought yet. Game software will improve in general because every game must compete against the classics like Super Mario Brothers 3 or Super Metroid. Nintendo’s approach to this is very scared one as if people will pirate all their Virtual Console games or find a way around the system. But this is already occurring on the Wii. And prior to the Virtual Console, people were pirating the games anyway to play on emulators. Fearing someone will steal something is the stupidest move a business can take (which is why we get rampant copyright protection on game software that has been the bane to gamers). Did the founder of Wal-Mart fear that the checker could take some of the money that comes in? Maybe, but it didn’t stop the company from being founded. In all the Wal-Mart stores, does some checker somewhere steal from it? Of course. Nintendo’s choice with Virtual Console is either to make SOME money from their old games or to make NO money from their games. With their ridiculous tying to hardware, Nintendo is pushing away people and preventing this tree, of the Virtual Console, to not grow beyond its sapling stage.

I would have every Nintendo hardware, handheld and home, launch with a new 2d Mario. Another 2d Mario would appear later on in the console’s lifecycle. If Miyamoto doesn’t want to make it, fine. There are young Nintendo people, eager to make their stake in the world, who are dying to create the glory of games that made such an impression on them when they were younger.

I would clean house at Nintendo of removing developers pushing for ‘movies’ and ‘stories’ and generally trying to make anti-games. A divided house cannot stand. Either Nintendo is trying to explore what video games are or they are trying to make crappy narratives. It cannot do both.

Every employee would be able to devote 20% of their non-crunch time to develop any project they desire. The aim is for them to focus on a prototype. This way people can ‘get out of their systems’ all their ideas instead of trying to slip it into the main games. If this existed, perhaps people like Sakamoto would get ‘maternal instincts’ out of his system before he infested Metroid with them. Google has a system where a small sliver of employees’ time can be spent pursuing any project of their own. This would lead to vast true innovation instead of the fake innovation of placing a Nintendo franchise with some gimmick found with the hardware.

Zelda would be revamped. Innovation in Zelda would be confined to a single mandate: “How do we create a larger and more interesting world in Zelda?” For example, one possibility would be to combine Animal Crossing’s realtime event system with Zelda (where if you stopped playing Zelda for a day, a day would pass in Hyrule. New quests could appear. Shops would change. Monsters could move around. If you don’t return to Hyrule eventually, perhaps something bad happens. Hyrule would become a living and breathing world.) Another possibility is to use the Minecraft type random world generator which would work with 2d Zelda. No matter how far you go, the world would keep generating. Dungeons would be automatically generated and the further away from your spawn point, the harder they would be. All items, of course, would be used in a non-puzzle way. Pieces of heart will be randomly places which could be very interesting as some might be out in the open while some could be in some hard to reach places. Each time you play, you get a different experience. The point is that Zelda’s direction would shift away from the puzzle/story direction the series has lately been on.

When the Wii launched, there were campaigns of NOA people going around trying to put the controller in as many hands as possible. I would never have stopped that campaign. I would hold tournaments, city by city, nation by nation, continent by continent, based on Nintendo games and other third party games on the system (just how it was done during the 8-bit Era). This competition would be so interesting, TV channels would switch to it. It is not necessary for everyone to play video games. If I cannot get someone to play video games, then I will get them to watch it as a sport or for some other reason.

I would seriously consider pulling NOA out of Seattle and their other areas in San Francisco and New York. Why? It is because those places are in heavy decay and are not the future of the United States. The future growth is away from the coasts and more inland and more towards the south. To give an example, while car companies in Detroit are broke (and nationalized), car companies are thriving in places you never hear about such as Alabama or Georgia. A big, big reason for the move is taxes. Anyone setting up a business in New York state is stupid. The state’s taxes are insane. Ditto for any business in California. And probably Washington state as well. There are much better areas to relocate the business to. NOA in Seattle is cramped and cannot exactly grow as everything is pressed in to one another. The Census will reveal that population is declining in California because people are fleeing the state. There are no geographical ties to any of these areas of decline. It is much better to relocate to an area of growth and lower taxes. One could even find some swamp, somewhere, that no one wants and buy the land at very cheap rates. Or you can spend more and get the people to rename the town to ‘Nintendo Land’ (or whatever). Building there would raise all property value. The neighbors would love it. People would flock to the town and Nintendo-Land would become a sort of Mecca to anyone interested in working in video games (as various companies would locate there). It would become a sort of ‘new’ Hollywood, a capital of video game entertainment.

Those are some of the things I’d do right off the top of my head.