Thoughts on How Information Spreads and How Misinformation Harms Us

Whilst there are plenty of problems with the sources of news, the way that news spreads and peoples own way of re-telling and piecing together the information they get amongst each other and through out society can cause just as much harm or good as the reporting itself. The effects of bad reporting or lack of complete information can create nightmares for individuals, companies and politicians as the effect then becomes magnified by the way that information spreads and people try to make sense of the relevant information, and the effects of wild fire gossip on its own can distort information and peoples own views, especially if the media picks back up on that reaction as part of its reporting. This essentially creates an echo chamber, causing disparity between what should be known as fact and fiction, leaving an impenetrable mess of notes and vibrations leaving it impossible to be left with a clear view of anything.

The People

First, lets point out fundamental things about the very individuals and groups that become part of and help accentuate this mess.

A fundamental point point about people in general, and no, it is not that they're inherently evil...no, it is not that they're idiots. No, it's not that we're all involved in a giant inter-continental game of Chinese Whispers. It's that we as people simply do not always have the time nor inclination to keep as close track of the multitude of subjects and hundreds of different things that happen every day. Everything comes to us through many filters we have consciously or unconsciously built, rather like the automatic sorting of spam in your email inbox, amongst potential tagging features that allow you to mark different pieces of mail not just under different topics, but of importance (with the 2 not being mutually exclusive).

A good talk on a subject very similar and has influenced my thinking on this called Filter Failure not Information Overload, which addressed the point that it may not be information overload that is a problem for us moving into a world where we're even more constantly bombarded with information and such on a daily basis, as humanity has always been facing what always seemed an insurmountable amount of information to absorb, but a fundamental filter failure in how we address and handle the information we both send and receive in the modern age.

Because people do not always have the time nor the interest/inclination, this means they are more likely or will definitely miss various amounts of information depending on how far out the topic is from their "core" interests, their social connections, etc. Subsequently, this means the knowledge they do have is likely to be incomplete. Also here comes the social interaction part - they end up relying on or receiving information through friends or family. Second hand information that will likely be simplified for the sake of conversation and brevity. If this process goes through a chain of several people, whilst quicker and easier to digest for someone less interested (and who probably won't take much note anyway), means a far higher likelihood of the absence of potentially important minor and major details. This leads to certain assumptions or overall views being constructed from incomplete knowledge. This is not absolutely dire in all situations though, as sometimes certain issues or topics are just that simple to grasp. However, in quite a few cases leads to what might be important topics having their debates and idle chit chatter coloured and skewed, purely because the information was not there or available to them to be able to take a solid, grounded stance (no matter which side of the fence they're on).

The Vacuum

Are we suddenly heading out into space? Is Scotty going to beam me up just to tell me TL;DR?

No. Sadly for you the reader, I do not have the budget for such extravagant special effectences to put down on paper what would surely be wondrous passages of text that you could only imagine.

Using the word vacuum in this case refers to a vacuum of information. When Ripley opened the airlock doors, air rushed out along with several weeks of rubbish that had built up, rushing to fill that empty void, the vacuum of space at work. Much the same applies here. As already touched upon, given a lack of clear information, assumptions, "educated" guesses and judgements based on common sense will rush to fill the void. Effects will vary, but this causes a minimum of slight confusion or misappropriation, and a maximum of infinite internet memes, massive misunderstanding and undermining of the very topics and discussions themselves, to the point where all sides will be convinced that they are right, but when pressed, will never be able to tell you why or how they truly and rationally came to that conclusion. Their beliefs will simply be repeated as if they are obvious and discussions will either break down or become an endless cycle of arguing. If this were applied to society at large, it may even lead to violence and war.

Ninja's Watching Video

This is a little "How To" I did for Linux on a very popular video site. Putting up here for convenience and stuffs.

Most of the lessons in this guide should be general enough for you to be able to apply this to your own distro as necessary, even if this guide does revolve heavily around GUI (Ubuntu specifically). This was to make it easier to spell out what needs to be done, and for the last few pictures, show the difference between a common non-working setup and working setup. I cannot be expected to be able to tailor everything to your specific GUI or heavily modified theme/setup.

First step:

Install the Medibuntu Repository

The Medibuntu repository contains mostly media codecs and programs that can't be included by default because of the shaky legal ground some of them are on. Go to the official page for info on how to add it and more information on it in general:

http://www.medibuntu.org/

If you are a Fedora user and want to try to get through things yourself, you will probably need the RPM Fusion repository, at the very least for codecs and mplayer.

http://rpmfusion.org/

Remove Potentially Conflicting Plugins

Ninja needs a specific video player to work. A sword can't do bugger all when you're blinded by a smoke bomb (does that metaphor make sense?). By default, Firefox in Ubuntu has the Totem plugin installed. This will conflict, and most likely not work with Ninja (unless anyone has experience to the contrary). Your first port of call should therefore be to close Firefox after you've memorised, saved the page or copied and pasted this paragraph/guide into a text editor, and do the following in the terminal (applications > accessories > terminal):

sudo apt-get remove totem-mozilla

Press enter. It might ask you if you are sure - type y, then press enter, If you have installed VLC, you might also have installed the plugin for that

sudo apt-get remove mozilla-plugin-vlc

Installing Necessary Components






!!!8.04 users and earlier - Only Sun Java will work. Install that instead.!!! - 64 bit users of earlier Ubuntu or general distro versions won't have a native solution either. See the bottom for a link to a not recommended, hack-ish guide.

Fedora 10 users - Use the OpenJDK Web Browser Plugin (System > Administration > Add/Remove Software) and use something like the RPM Fusion repository from there to get Mplayer and codecs. All should hopefully be well.
Now to check,

Are You Doing it Right?

First, make sure pop-ups aren't blocked for Ninjavideo in Firefox. When you launch the helper, this should come up:



Take note of the applet started notification, that needs to be there. If not, 8.04 users should go back and make sure you have uninstalled the IcedTea and OpenJDK java's, and installed Sun Java, as per the pics above. 8.10 users (should) be OK with OpenJDK + Icedteaplugin6. It might take a few seconds before it starts. This step might prove useful too:

Just installing new Java flavours does not change the default Java pointed to by /usr/bin/java. You must explicitly set this:

- Open a Terminal window

- Run sudo update-java-alternatives -l to see the current configuration and possibilities.

- Run sudo update-java-alternatives -s XXXX to set the XXX java version as default. For Sun Java 6 this would be sudo update-java-alternatives -s java-6-sun

- Run java -version to ensure that the correct version is being called.

You can also use the following command to interactively make the change;

- Open a Terminal window

- Run sudo update-alternatives --config java

- Follow the onscreen prompt

An easy way to check is in Firefox, go to Tools > Addons, then click the plugins tab. Check the names in there for which plugins you do and don't have installed.
Now for the real crunch - video. If it looks like this:


YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

This means the Totem plugin is still installed. Again, go back and check. Use Synaptic (System > Administration > Synaptic Package Manager, and search in there for totem-mozilla. If the box next to it is green, click it and mark for removal, then click apply).

Hopefully by now it should look like this when you go to a video page:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q88/amazingjanet/Screenshot-Ninjavideonet-TheDail-1.png

YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT

And then eventually:



YAY

Extra Tricks/Tips

Xbox Streaming - Use this command:

wget -c -O more_appropriate_filename.avi --referer="http://www.ninjavideo.net" --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6" 300" http://127.0.0.1:64653/[i]working_file_id_number

Thanks to Colonel Bat Guano for this little tid bit.

Other Issues

64-bit Users - Ubuntu 8.10 and Fedora 10 users will do fine with the Icedtea6 and OpenJDK Web Browser Plugin respectively. Only Sun Java will work with earlier versions (Fedora 9, Ubuntu 8.04 and before), and there is no 64-bit plugin for Sun Java. This is a rather hackish guide that is not recommended however that might enable you to use 32-bit Java and Firefox for use with Ninjavideo. There is a second one here too taken from the Ubuntu forums (thanks to Mene).

Sun have released an early release of their Java plugin with a 64-bit native version, but this is form early testing and develpoment, along with the fact it isn't generally needed, and Canonical cannot support it. =http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1011899>Here is the link if you want to risk it anyway.

No Sound - Right click the video and click Configure. Change your audio output. You may have to refresh the page, or restart Firefox for the change to fully take affect. Change it and refresh/restart 'till your audio works. ALSA will be the most likely option to use here.

No Video - Right click in the video area and click Configure. Change the video output to Xv. Make sure other instances of Mplayer and other media players are closed, as they might hog it so to speak. Otherwise, try the alternatives (X11 mainly). Refresh or restart Firefox for the changes to take affect. Also make sure to check the boxes for MPEG, MP3 etc. support.

Slow Full Screen Performance (Video goes out of sync) - This can happen when the output is set to X11, as this requires video acceleration from your graphics card. Because of the spotty nature of some drivers, even for popular cards, sometimes even fairly recent and powerful cards might suffer. Switch to Xv in for the meantime. Ongoing and improving support from AMD/ATI, Intel, proprietary support from NVIDIA, Via and other open source driver projects is slowly improving the situation however.

White blank area - Again, check plugins, mainly Java. Uninstalling won't necessarily remove everything so try using purge instead of remove as the command in the terminal. 8.04 users and earlier should use Sun Java, whilst 8.10 users and Fedora 10 users will be fine with the OpenJDK/Icedtea Java - the Icedtea6 plugin and OpenJDK Web Browser Plugin respectively. Go back through every step.

If you have 7.10 or earlier, it will most likely be a case of outdated Java, Firefox, Mplayer, or all three. Ubuntu only put out point releases (smaller, mostly bugfix releases) rather than full version updates after a distro is out in the wild. An example would be when FF3 beta 5 was chosen for 8.04 - it was an LTS release, and if they had stuck with FF 2, support for that from Mozilla would've been cut off after a much shorter time than the LTS's are supported for, so they went for an early version for the sake of future official support and development.

Firewall - Linux has iptables, what can essentially amount to a built in firewall. Try installing Firestarter or GUFW to configure it via GUI. This will be very unlikely however to cause problems. More info here:

http://www.wikipedia.com/iptables

Make sure you have not installed any other version of mplayer, or any other video/audio player browser plugins. If so, remove or disable their plugins through Add/Remove or Synaptic
Other Resources

PrinceHector's Orsum General Guide To Just About Every Issue in the Known Universe

Official Ubuntu Forum For All Your Ubuntu/Linux Support Needs

Java News Update Thread (Ubuntu Forums)

A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux

Iwata's Views

Think Iwata doesn't know compiling money from compiling software? You think he just plays with bean counters and cancels new Zelda and Mario titles all day? Think again.

GDC 2005

On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer.

Today I'd like to speak to you from my heart about jobs and about our industry. I remember the first videogame I ever played. It was Pong - and I loved it! By the time I was in high school, I was the first person in my class to buy an early Hewlett Packard Pocket Calculator. I think I was one of the original early adopters. But where most people used their calculators for higher mathematics, I used mine to program videogames. My first creation was a baseball game. I don't think anyone can say it had bad graphics because it had no graphics. Gameplay was represented only by numbers. But when I saw my friends playing that game and having fun, it made me feel proud. To me, this was a source of energy and passion. As that passion for games began to blossom, I think my life course was set.

Perhaps the biggest moment in the history of HAL came when we heard the rumor that Nintendo was developing a machine capable of incredible new graphics: The Famicom, or NES, as it was called here in the States. We knew that this machine was for us. So we used every contact we could to get a meeting with Nintendo, sure that one of our ideas would become an instant hit. Yes, Nintendo did hire us, but not to amaze the world with one of our projects. Instead, they told us to fix on of their projects, a game that had fallen seriously behind schedule. Instead of creating a game, we repaired a game, and it was eventually release as NES Pinball. That experience taught us that even artists must know the business side of game development. After all, if a game never comes to market, there is very little chance of it making any money.

Working in those days was also instructive in another way. Because graphics were so primitive by today's standards, we asked ourselves how we could spur the players' imaginations as a substitute for what we couldn't display on the screen. Think about this: someday our games won't look any better. What will we do then?

Well, our work was satisfactory enough that we formed a close association with Nintendo. And as HAL invented a couple of early franchises, we also learned other lessons. Our first Kirby game taught us the value of teamwork. Since not everybody can be a Miyamoto, we discovered that ideas can come from several team members, building on each other, to make something superior to what one person could invent. Then we worked with the Famous Japanese creator Shigesato Itoi, who was already an avid gamer himself, to develop his first idea for a game. That series, called Mother in Japan and released in America as Earthbound, proved to us that ideas take on a special appeal when they become interactive.

Many years and many projects later I went to work for Nintendo full time, and then one day, about three years ago, Mr. Yamauchi appointed me to succeed him as company president. Of course, this was a great honor, but it was also a great challenge. I knew this would require committing much more time and assuming much more responsibility. But unfortunately, game developers are familiar with such things.

So I'd like to move on this morning and answer two questions that I'm often asked, now that I've had two decades of experience in the videogame world. First, over the last 20 years as a developer, what things have changed? And second, what things have stayed the same?

One thing that has not changed - and will not change - is our nature as a form of entertainment. Like any other entertainment medium, we must create an emotional response in order to succeed. Laughter, fear, joy, affection, surprise, and - most of all - accomplishment. In the end, triggering these feelings from our players is the true judgment of our work. This is the bottom line measurement of success.

Fourth - and this never changes - software sells hardware. People buy games to play the games they love. I agree with Steve Jobs, the head of Apple, when he says, "Software is the user experience. Software is the driving technology not just of computers, but of all consumer electronics."

Now I don't think any of this is news - bigger budgets, bigger staffs and bigger companies. It's there for all of us to see. Big is obvious.

On the other hand, what's more prominent in my thinking these days is how our industry is getting smaller. We are smaller in the amount of risk we're willing to accept. We are also smaller in how we define videogames. The list of genres seems fixed - shooters, sports, platformers, puzzles, and so on. When is the last time we invented a new genre? But as importantly, even within these genres, we have reduced the environments we use. The racing tracks, the sound tracks, the bosses, the heroes, are starting to look more and more alike. Consider Tiger Woods Golf and Mario Golf - each a successful franchise, but using two different looks for this game genre. Such variety is becoming harder and harder to find.

We are even getting smaller in how we define progress. Making games look more photorealistic is not the only means of improving the game experience. I know, on this point I risk being misunderstood, so remember, I am a man who once programmed a baseball game with no baseball players. If anyone appreciates graphics, it's me! But my point is that this is just one path to improved games. We need to find others. Improvement has more than one definition.

Finally, I am most concerned with what we think of as a gamer. As we spend more time and money chasing exactly the same players, who are we leaving behind? Are we creating games just for each other? Do you have friends and family members who do not play videogames? Well, why don't they? And, I would ask this: how often have you challenged yourself to create a game that you might not play? I think these questions for an important challenge for all of us.

the standards we set for all software we develop. We call these standards the Four Is. First, is it truly innovative - something different from what has come before? Second, is it intuitive? Do the control of the game and the direction of gameplay seem natural? Third, is it inviting? Do you want to spend time in this world? And finally, how does it measure up in terms of interface? Can the player connect in new ways?

But I would like to spend the rest of my time today on what is perhaps the next logical question: where does Nintendo go from here? Let me try to explain it first with an image. In the universe of interactive entertainment, there is a planet we call videogames. It is the one we know best. But it is only one. Also in our inverse are other planets which entertain, but in different ways from current games. It is this part of the universe that we are anxious to explore.

This idea creates the dual passions of Nintendo. On one hand, we work every day to make what we describe as videogames better. We want to give players what they want. But at the same time, we are intent on finding out what else we can use to entertain. Our second goal is to show players something new, something they may not even know they want. You already are familiar with a good example of this philosophy. It's called Pokemon. At its core, Pokemon is a wonderful role-playing game. But it's also much more. Players will collect and trade Pokemon, maybe the same way you once collected and traded bottle caps or baseball cards. Pokemon expanded RPGs to places they hadn't gone before.

Another example was our decision to put Pictochat into the DS. It's not a game, not a competition, but a way for us to better understand how communicating wireless might also entertain. And Pictochat, as a wireless function, also represents just the latest step in something much larger for Nintendo.

So this is Nintendo's plan. Make our existing game world much better. Better Zeldas, better Marios, better partnerships creating games like Resident Evil 4. But also, exploring other worlds in interactive entertainment. For us, this is a passion. This is a mission of adventure. And most importantly, we want you - the creative heart for our entire industry - to take that journey with us.

If you don't mind, I will finish today with memories from one more franchise in my development career - Super Smash Bros. At the time it was being developed for Nintendo GameCube, I was already working full time for Nintendo. But my heart told me I was still a developer. So, as president, I assigned myself to HAL to rejoin the team finishing the game. Once again, I was living on the developer's diet of chips, pizza and rice balls, and working through the night. From their offices, it was possible to see Mt. Fuji, which many say is most impressive if you're willing to wake up and see it at dawn. But during this period, just as years before with our Kirby Games, we at HAL would see the sun shining on the mountain before we ever went to bed. May say the sight of first light on Mt. Fuji inspires them. But for me, I hope I never see it again! [Laughs]

I also remember the first version of Smash Bros. developed for Nintendo 64. The concept for this game, as you know, was to take the classic, friendly Nintendo franchise characters and have them - as you say in America - beat the heck out of each other. The ideas not brand new - there certainly have been a lot of fighting games. And the characters looked pretty much the same way they always had. So when we brought the idea to Nintendo, the concept did not sound hip or cool or revolutionary. And because of all this, there were people both inside and outside Nintendo who did not strongly favor the idea. And this was the environment that we worked under.

That attitude remained until the moment of truth -- the moment when testers began picking up the controllers and actually playing the game. This is what happened. People smiled. They laughed. Then began shouting at each other. That was the moment when everything for Smash Bros. changed. And I must tell you, this was also one of the proudest moments in my development career. Yes, the Smash Bros. series has become a great worldwide success because it's sold more than 10 million copies. But the memory of that first moment when the testers began to play stays with me always. That is the moment I call success.

We at HAL found a way to bring our idea to life. Our team believed deeply in the concept and we did not waver in our approach. So in this important sense, we at HAL - we're just like every one of you. Even if we come from different sides of the world, speak different languages, even if we eat too many chips or rice balls, even if we have different tastes in games, every one of us here today is identical in the most important way: each one of us has the heart of a gamer.

Thank you for your attention.

Seattlepi Interview '05

Question: All three consolemakers, yourself included, have unveiled their plans for the next console generation. How do you feel about Nintendo's prospects with Revolution at this point?

Iwata: In the first place, Sony and Microsoft are taking about the same approach for the future by making machines with powerful and sophisticated technology. Nintendo is taking a little bit different approach, and I think this is an interesting contrast.

Of course, we are applying advances in technology. But when you use those advances just to boost the processing power, the trade-off is that you increase power consumption, make the machine more expensive and make developing games more expensive. When I look at the balance of that trade-off - what you gain and what you lose - I don't think it's good. Nintendo is applying the benefits of advanced technology, but we're using it to make our machines more power-efficient, quieter and faster to start. And we're making a brand-new user interface. I think that way of thinking is the biggest difference.

Q: Bill Gates said recently that he thinks Nintendo will be more of a niche player in the future, with Sony and Microsoft battling for the number one spot. What do you think of that characterization?

Iwata: Talking about the definition of the niche, or niche market, I really have the completely opposite opinion. The people the other companies are targeting are very limited to those who are high-tech oriented, and core game players. They cannot expand beyond that population. We are trying to capture the widest possible audience all around the world. (He cited the example of Nintendogs, a new virtual pet game for the Nintendo DS handheld machine that has taken off in Japan.) In other words, we are trying to capture the people who are even beyond the gaming population. So for that kind of company, we don't think the term "niche" is appropriate.

Q: Microsoft will be the first to market, releasing the Xbox 360 later this year. Revolution comes sometime next year. How does that affect the ultimate outcome in terms of market share?

Iwata: If the first entrant always wins the market, the Dreamcast must have won the race against the PS2, for example. (Sony's Playstation 2 came to market after Sega's Dreamcast and was extremely successful, while Dreamcast fizzled.) There are many precedents like that in the past. The first to market is not necessarily the winner in the race.

Q: The general perception is that Nintendo appeals to a younger audience. Will you try to embrace that, expand upon it, or move away from it in the next console generation?

Iwata: First of all, I've never once been embarrassed that children have supported Nintendo. I'm proud of it. That's because children judge products based on instinct. Everyone wants to appeal to people's instincts, but it's not easy. That doesn't mean we're making products just for children. We believe that there's interactive entertainment that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s can enjoy, so we're doing various things.


GDC 2006

Once upon a time, way back in the 1980s, a company became number one because its products meant fun to young people. Then, in the 1990s, a bigger company with a bigger brand name and bigger budgets took away the number one spot.

Fortunately, that first company also had another line of products that let it remain popular and profitable. This company used that threat to reconsider its strategy, and think how it could regain overall leadership. And this is what it decided. It would redefine its own business, and expand its market beyond current core users. Could this strategy work?

Well, we already know the answer. The answer is yes.

Because that first company, Pepsi, has returned to number one in its industry, displacing Coke. Pepsi stopped asking, how can we sell more cola? Instead, it started asking, what else do people want to drink?

Today, Pepsi is number one in bottled water. It is number one in sports drinks. It is number one in health drinks. And, of course, it remains number one in the snacks business that it used to maintain profitability while they executed their disruptive strategy. (As every game developer understands, the three basic food groups are Fritos, Cheetos and Doritos.)

I am here today to share some stories about Nintendo. But, I begin with a story about Pepsi because it demonstrates how thinking differently, and holding strongly to your strategy, can disrupt an entire industry and in a good way.

For some time, we have believed the game industry is ready for disruption. Not just from Nintendo, but from all game developers. It is what we all need to expand our audience. It is what we all need to expand our imaginations.

Several years ago, when I began talking about reaching out to casual gamers and non-gamers, few people listened. Today, Nintendo DS is succeeding in disrupting the handheld market. In fact, you could attribute most industry growth last year to just this one product line. Now, people are listening more closely.

I have been asked many times how we decided to develop these games so I thought maybe this is the first story I should share with you today. Where did this idea come from? I m sure you can guess it started where all great creative ideas begin, from a board of directors!

When Atsushi Asada was a member of our Executive Committee, he complained that he knew no one his age who played video games. Because Japan is an aging society, he thought a game designed just for seniors might work.

I agreed it was a good start, but I said it might be a mistake to target only seniors. Instead, maybe something that would appeal to other users, as well.

This meeting occurred just after the E3 show two years ago, a very busy time for us. We were finalizing the Nintendo DS hardware, as well as preparing DS launch games. Even so, I asked each of our four main development groups to nominate a few people to serve on a task force.

Some of them did not have much experience making games, so I got to play the role of professor, talking to them not just about games, but about overall product planning. The goal of the task force was to invent a game whose appeal would include everyone from youngsters to baby boomers to seniors.

Our early meetings were just brainstorms and didn't produce any solid ideas. But at that time, people in Japan were beginning to read a new book and do its brain exercises. I noticed this and thought it might be a good game idea. Even Mr. Mori, our chief financial officer, was doing the exercises himself and convinced me to go forward. Then I consulted with Mr. Miyamoto, and when he got excited, too, I asked the task force to tackle the job.

When we talk about expanding the market to new players, many times this means new kinds of software, but certainly not always. I hope that Metroid Prime Hunters shows we re not turning our backs on the kind of games that current core players already love. We will serve all tastes.

The third story I have to share is the answer to a question people ask me all the time: how did we get the idea for the Revolution free-hand controller?

Well, we started out with a very simple question: why is it that anyone feels comfortable picking up a remote control for a TV, but many people are afraid to even touch the controller for a video game system? This was our starting point.

Our first controller meetings began early in 2004, and from that initial thought we added two other requirements. First, the controller must be wireless. We need to give players freedom to move. And second, the look of the controller had to be simple and non-threatening. But of course, at the same time, it had to be sophisticated enough to serve the needs of complex games.

And yes, we also wanted it to be revolutionary.

Many of you know that we have been experimenting with networks since the 1980s. Back then, you could use your NES in Japan to trade stocks. We kept working, but never thought the time was right to introduce a game network until Nintendo DS. In 2004, we began considering Wi-Fi gaming.

[...]

In the end, it is the freedom of choice, I believe, that has made the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection so successful. To date, we have surpassed 1 million unique players, totaling more than 29 million play sessions and, this in only 18 weeks of availability.

We reached 1 million players almost five times as fast as the Xbox Live service, which also offered free connections when it began. It took them 20 months to reach 1 million different users. Of course, this has made our Wi-Fi development team very happy as you can see.

Some people put their money on the screen, but we decided to spend ours on the game experience. It is an investment in actual market disruption. Not simply to improve the market but disrupt it. We believe a truly new kind of game entertainment will not be realized unless there is a new way to connect a player to his game.

New is good, but there also is an appetite for old. For young players, classic games are brand new. For others, they are a way to feel young again. After we announced the virtual console concept for revolution last year, many people asked me if only games for Nintendo systems would be available. Today, I have a better answer. I can announce that games specifically developed for both the Sega Genesis and the NEC TurboGrafx system will also be available for Nintendo Revolution via the Virtual Console.

Thank you for listening to my stories this morning. However, the most important story of all is still to be told. I hope all of you, the creative force of our industry, will help us write it. It is the story of how disruption will help every one of us overcome the growing barriers to game development.

We know what the main barrier is cost. There is one dominant business model for our industry. Publishers work backwards from a console game at retail that sells for $50 or now, even $60. To compete at that level, games must be longer, larger and more complex, which requires bigger development teams. Success is more likely if a strong license is acquired, but even then, huge amounts of money are needed to market that game to a mass audience.

It's understandable that many publishers, in order to reduce risk, feel most comfortable relying on sequels to already successful, high budget games. As a result, our business is beginning to resemble a bookstore where you can only buy expensive, full sets of encyclopedias. No romance novels. No paperbacks. No magazines.

In our business, too often people with a fresh idea don t have a chance. I believe if Tetris were presented today, here is what the producer would be told: Go back give me more levels give me better graphics give me cinematics and you re probably going to need a movie license to sell that idea to the public. The producer would go away dejected. Today, Tetris might never be made.

Nintendo understands the dominant business model. We work with it every day. And future Zeldas and Marios and Metroids are going to be bigger masterpieces than ever before. But, this does not have to be the only business model. We want to help you create a new one. One where your simple Tetris will be made.

With Nintendo Revolution, we offer a combination of opportunities that simply can't be matched. Our controller allows for every existing form of game to take on a new character. It allows for game creation that is not dependent on just the size of the development budget. I consider our virtual console concept the video game version of Apple's iTunes music store.

Since I first announced the virtual console concept last year at E3, other people have become very interested in digital downloads. Others will offer such a service, but it will not be the same. Because for us, this is not just a new business opportunity, for us, this is true innovation true disruption. It is part of our DNA. The digital download process will bring new games to the widest possible audience of new players. Young people, older people, even those who never played video games before. When I think of what faces all of us right now, I imagine what it must have been like for the explorers who first set foot on a new continent. For them, it was impossible to imagine all the adventure that lay ahead.

Our adventure is still ahead of us. Nintendo is committed to creating an environment where all of your work can prosper. I began today saying that disruption is not just a strategy for Nintendo.

Yes, we have already disrupted handheld and it worked. Yes, we have already disrupted Wi-Fi and it worked. We disrupted the very definition of a game and that is working, too. In a few weeks, you will better understand how to disrupt console gaming. You will play, and you will see.

At Nintendo, we do not run from risk. We run to it. We are taking the risk to move beyond current boundaries. It should be our goal, each of us, to reach the new players as well as the current players. Our goal is to show them surprise. Our reward is to convince them that above all video games are meant to be just one thing. Fun for everyone.

Thank you again so much for inviting me.

Level Up Interview

Now, however with Phantom Hourglass, we were successfully able to convey to the market that this is a Zelda that everyone can play and we've seen the results in the increased number of younger female gamers. We've also seen the return of previous players of the Zelda franchise who maybe played ten years ago or fifteen years ago on whichever system they once played and they sort of drifted away--we're seeing a resurgence of interest in the return of those players to the franchise.

And the pattern for games like Zelda in Japan is in that first week, there's a huge sales number and then that drops off immediately in the second week sales. However, with Zelda, we're not seeing that drop-off, and if it continues to sell as we have seen now, we definitely think that this could be a million seller. And the great thing about it is the buzz around the game: we are picking up new players who are then telling their friends and telling other friends. That's working very well in our favor.

I believe that currently, the number of publishers who--or the feeling amongst publishers who want to put their best teams on Nintendo platforms and who want to make software for Nintendo platforms is the highest it's been in, say, the last ten years. However, six months ago, you know, I don't think the people out there were saying that Nintendo is done, they're going to roll over and vanish, but at the same time, I don't believe that there are too many people who thought we wouldn't be where we're at today. So I believe that a lot of people out there thought, "Okay, this is a fad. It's not something that's going to continue."

That attitude is not something that's going to change quickly. That, in addition to the fact that Nintendo was doing something that really kind of flew in the face of common industry practice and common industry knowledge. If you look at the common practices and the common way that games have gone in the industry in the past, it's "Okay, we focus on the high teen market, that core market, and then we let them disseminate game knowledge or game popularity. The better-looking the game is, the higher quality the graphics, the more we're going to sell." That sort of pattern is something that Wii was not following, and again, because we took that different approach, it caught a lot of people by surprise.

I believe that the job of first party software is to drive hardware. If you don't have a quick impact and quick dissemination amongst the audience, you lose momentum. If you don't have momentum, the third parties don't want to jump on your platform. So that's not a good situation to be in.

Actually, the same thing that happened to Wii, a lot of the same conversations took place when the DS was launched. And that's because Nintendo was really the only one that was very focused on that user expansion goal we've talked about so often and because we are creating unique software that no one else is creating, the phenomenon of Nintendo software selling was insane. So we had a very, very strong position and again, Nintendo was the only one really selling a lot of software. If you look at the beginning of this year, Nintendo-published software sales for the DS have slightly declined, and that's because third party has increased.

There were doubts, of course, when we first began this whole approach. Once we were able to show success with what we were doing, that's what brought about that initial change that you're speaking of. Being part of the entertainment industry, part of our job is to surprise our audiences. So actually, if you look at this pattern where we came out with these ideas, everyone said you're not going to succeed, and yet we overcome all these obstacles and we do succeed, there's sort of a drama in there that is very fitting for us being part of the entertainment industry. [Laughs.]

On the other hand, if we now say "Oh yeah, that's probably going to work out okay," there's no drama involved in that. And there's a danger that comes with that. Because if you're introducing these new things and everyone's saying, "Oh yeah, this is great," "We'll take that," "That's a great idea," it's very difficult to maintain within the company the energy it takes to be always looking forward. That's probably Nintendo's next obstacle is to not lose its internal energy and internal momentum. I believe my most important role right now is to prevent Nintendo from being in a company where people say, "Oh, Nintendo is arrogant," "Nintendo has let its guard down," or "Nintendo has lost its challenging spirit." We want to avoid all of the pitfalls that can come from losing one's momentum.


Gamespot Interview '08

GS: Were you confident you could pull it off?

SI: I would sound so cool if I could say, "Oh, I knew it all along," but it is not necessarily so. [Laughs] It was more of a conviction that somebody needed to go there and push things in this new direction.

We knew that if games appealed to fewer people, the future was going to be bleak. And with video games being demonized by the public, it was hard to see how games could flourish in all that. So we knew we had to change it. We knew that to change that, we'd be playing to and reinforcing Nintendo's strengths.

It's not that the opinion of those with different perspectives weren't convincing for us. With each suggestion, we thought through many things, but with each step along the way, we could feel the market changing bit by bit, and that is why we were able to keep going. Hearing stories about customers who seemed like they'd never touch a game scouring store shelves for a copy of Brain Age is what encouraged us.

Little reactions like that show up before the actual sales numbers start rolling in. Still, we didn't know whether a major shift in those numbers would take months or years to achieve. I worked under the assumption that if five years went by and the world didn't change, I could kiss my job good-bye. [Chuckles.]

At the same time, Nintendo has teams working on meeting the needs of more hardcore gamers. The big complaint from them now may be that we're not pouring all of our resources into that sector exclusively, but I feel that it's Nintendo's mission to make both kinds of games. Every experienced gamer today was a beginner at some point, who encountered an experience that made them fall in love with games.

I think it's absolutely critical to keep that entryway open for new people. I think it's really important to strike that balance between the two extremes. While it's possible to create a game like Brain Age in an extremely short period of time with a great idea and the right people, a game like Zelda contains content that physically and inevitably demands more time to create.

I feel that the current imbalance between the time a person spends enjoying a game and the time it takes to create it is a real problem, and something that we as developers need to work on resolving.

GS: What do you mean, specifically?

SI: No matter how fun a game is when you first pick it up and play it, people eventually get bored. Our task is to come out with the next big thing before that boredom sets in and to go beyond just releasing an extension of the current titles every three months.

Not only that--coming out with the next Mario or Zelda game means coming up with a ton of innovative ideas. Otherwise people will say, "Yeah, this used to be fun." Keeping up an existing franchise alone requires much creativity, but in addition you have to come up with something fresh and new that people have never seen before. That's where ideas like Wii Fit came from.

We're constantly working on a variety of ideas for new, different games, but it's only after the specifics have been nailed down and they're ready to be announced that we can talk about them. So while I can tell you all about a project that we can have out within two months' time, games that still need six months or a year's work really have to be kept under wraps.

Touting the slogan of expanding the gaming population is our way of declaring to our internal development staff, other software makers, distributors, the media, and ultimately to the customer our intent, which is that we as a company are standing on ground that will crumble away underneath us the minute we stop moving forward, and that this knowledge is driving us to keep working.

If we just stand there, our customers will get bored and leave. Our survival depends upon our ability to create a situation where new people are entering, and established gamers aren't leaving.

SI: The first question I would ask is whether the service is fun if you're 5 or 95, if you're tech-savvy and if you're computer illiterate. If that's not a hurdle we can get past, it's not something Nintendo is going to pursue.

Take the Miis, for example. Sure, we could go crazy with the interface until it was so customizable that you could make an avatar that looked like anyone you could imagine. But it's because the interface is the way that it is now that the average person can pick it up and create a family member's portrait and feel a personal connection to games unlike anything available in the past. Mii is the answer we came up with after a long process of questioning just how low we could keep that entrance threshold.

In that respect, the virtual-world services out there now still aren't at a place where we'd like to join in--and certainly not to the point that we'd want to jump into competition with everybody else. We'd rather focus on doing things that nobody else would do.

Our job is to constantly look into what people find fun and interesting. I mean, nobody else wants to develop a video game where you get on the scale and see how much you weigh. [Laughs] That's how we're able to keep offering people surprises and entertainment, so even if we were to make a virtual-world-like product, we'd be sure to make it something that nobody would call it a product similar to another company's offering.


Iwata Asks Series

Iwata Do you think they are worried that in the future we won't give priority to making the kind of games they have come to expect?

- Yes, those kinds of concerns. As a gamer, there is a side of me that likes to stay up at night, playing alone, silently, head-to-head with the game. Of course, Zelda and Mario will come out, and listening to your speeches, I understand that you don't intend to neglect your core fans. I understand all that, but even so...

Iwata Although we're putting a huge amount of energy into Mario and Zelda, since those games don't feature that much at the Wii Preview events, they don't seem to be the main pillar of Nintendo's strategy. Is that what people are saying?

-Yes, it seems so. How can I put this? I understand it on an intellectual level. When I hear you say that there is no future in simply continuing in the same way, I think you're right. But even though I can see that, the more a gamer understands that reasoning, the more they feel excluded by it. It's not that they don't understand what you are doing, it's simply how they feel on an emotional level. (laughs)

Iwata It does seem that there is a level of misunderstanding among some people. I am concerned about this. It's true that Nintendo is reaching out to non-gamers, but this does not mean that we are ignoring game fans. I believe that if we don't make moves to get people who don't play games to understand them, then the position of video games in society will never improve. Society's image of games will remain largely negative, including that stuff about playing games all the time badly damaging you or rotting your brain or whatever. If that happens, then even people who enjoy games will start to feel a strange guilt when they play them. If people who haven't played games up til now start playing them, and appreciate how enjoyable they are, it is highly likely this situation will change. Society will be more accommodating towards people who play games, and it will become even easier to produce "traditional" games. In reality, while Nintendo is looking to reach out to people who don't play games, it's not as if we've become less committed to Zelda. On the contrary, we've invested four years and a huge amount of effort into developing the new Zelda. There's no question that we are passionate about it. For the people who are willing to wait for them we will absolutely continue to produce games like that. But I think if we don't also develop things for non-gamers, the future for game fans will become bleak.

- I see what you're saying.

Iwata Now going back to that "but..." you mentioned... (laughs) Of course, I know exactly the sort of emotion you're describing...

- (laughs)

Iwata But having said that, we don't develop games with two categories in our mind: "This one's just for people who don't play games..." or "This one's just for gamers..." Take Wii Sports, for instance. I think gamers will enjoy the Target Practice mode more than anyone else. Even with something like Brain Training, which generally isn't seen as being a game, lots of users recognised that there was the same excitement in trying to beat the clock, as there is in a racing game, to put it in very basic terms.

- Ah, yes. It's the same feeling of enjoyment. On the calculation problems, searching for numbers on the edge of your field of vision...that thrill when your hand movements have become almost robotic...it's very much like that of a puzzle game.

Iwata It's exactly the same. I think the place in your brain where this feeling comes from is the same in both cases. That's why, even in Touch! Generations software, the core elements have all the original fun of a game.

- You've simply expanded the scope of what a game can be. That is to say, ever since the DS came out, everything you have done has ultimately boiled down to broadening the dynamic range of video games. You are not trying to replace, or reject, the games that have come before.

Iwata You're exactly right.

Well, everyone is busy...! (laughs) People have a certain amount of potential within them. Ensuring that this potential is used as productively as possible greatly helps an organisation. To put it another way, there is a vast amount of energy which disappears inside organisations, or is expended going in directions which don't end up leading anywhere. If all that energy is properly directed, it can add up to a huge amount of power that can be used to produce visible results. That's why I think that over the last three years, as the level of awareness shared by the staff has increased, each individual's understanding has also developed. I believe this has meant that the total amount of energy in the company has increased more than it would have by simply increasing the number of staff. That is to say, the overall potential within the company has become more fully realised.

I really believe that we've come this far because of our vision. If you simply repeat the process of building up the hardware specs, then you just end up with higher costs and a larger console. I think a better approach is to have a clear vision, decide what you want to accomplish, and then work towards your goal.

"Hardcore" to "Casual" to "Hardcore" Again?

A recent interview with a dude from SEGA that I found of note, showing that Sega "gets it" to some degree, but also shows some misconception between any differences between Wii and PS3/360 audiences. Good on SEGA though considering how willing they are to take a chance on Wii and really start pushing it.

And it's a circular, almost incestuous vibe that then starts perpetuating in the industry - developers are gamers, they're making games for themselves and their friends. So you start feeding that need, and we still retain that kind of ghetto niche to it.

So barriers to entry still exist - some of them are price-driven, but I think there are some other attitudinal things in the industry that we need to stop and change about the content of the actual gaming itself.

It's been said that the number of core gamers is decreasing, and I think a lot of companies could find themselves out in the cold if they don't adjust attitudinally to servicing that market.

Darren Williams - Head of Sega A&R

He's practically on the money there. As he says, it's a perpetual cycle. You can't expect people to turn gamer overnight, or blame lack of mainstream attention on old people, when older people in spades own Brain Training and enjoy Wii Sports. To make any medium relevant, you have to make content relevant to their lives, or make it easier for gaming to fit into their lives. Games that can be enjoyed in short, 10 minute bursts are a great way of doing that, and the likes of Wii Fit and Brain Training are great as games designed to complement your life, rather than draw you away from real life. There are many people out there with aversions to fantasy, especially younger, more social people (including women). Nintendogs is very much a social thing. You can't understand Nintendogs without going out and about with it and interacting with others through it, that's just the kind of game it is.

His last point is interesting, but not quite as on the mark as the rest of it. It's less so that there's fewer core gamers, it's that the definition of core gaming is changing. Core and Expanded Audience are transient terms - core means your "old" or current mainstream audience, and Expanded Audience are the ones outside that. To understand them, you have to understand the current mainstream values, and look at what's valued outside of that traditional bracket. This means that core and expanded audience are not fixed demographics or values - they are shells to represent the current trends. Once again but a shill for Malstrom, has an article exploring the theory of cycles. In other words, detailing the different trends of gaming, and outlining the recurring change of values from the old core to the expanded audience becoming the new core.

As they say, what is "hardcore" gaming today will be the "casual" gaming of tomorrow, but the same applies in reverse - where do you think the new core comes from to replace the old one as it moves into apparently being "casual"? As core represents the current values, then obviously it has to come from somewhere new - the expanded audience.



What is the expanded audience of today will be the core of tomorrow. Don't believe me? See WoW, Wii Fit, Mario Kart Wii, Wii Sports, Second Life, Battlefield Heroes ("casualised" Battlefield), flash/in-brower gaming, ....These are all gaining, while the trend of the current core is mostly declining. The expanded audience is moving toward the core. Remember when Nintendo said they were bringing about a revolution? This is it. Notice how the Wii "X" titles have been the ones for experimentation that Nintendo talked about. The Wii MotionPlus is motion control moving upmarket to meet more demanding tastes, driving out the old values of visuals and length.

Even Mario Kart, which at the end of the day is Mario Kart - a very good version of it, because it comes bundled with a steering wheel so it's a very physical experience. You aren't necessarily going to see that - I know there's been talk of Sony with a motion controller, there have been demonstrations of 360 tech, but that's slightly monkey-see-monkey-do, and it doesn't really have that tangible value to it.

So I think there's a market on the Wii for different tastes of gaming. Whether then people will graduate upwards, that's an open question. I'm sceptical about it, because I think what the Wii offers is a very physical, fun experience. Any degree of percentage from 10 to 30 to 40 per cent of the experience is the Wii remote - so I'm not so sure.

Darren Williams - Head of Sega A&R

In this particular part, both the question and the answer mix two completely opposed values between the current core and the expanded audience. If people bought the Wii for the physical experience, then logic dictates they would not be moving up to better visuals, but to better motion control. Hence, MotionPlus. MotionPlus is that move upwards, not HD visuals. The two values are opposed - no customer buys Wii for its visual experience, so it does not make sense that they would somehow jump ship. The duplicated ownership is just the most upmarket of the core - the ones who demand the most, have the most expendable income, but might also themselves as time goes on be converted to the new expanded audience values that the Wii represents.

Miyamoto's Views

You think Miyamoto's views on gaming are recent? You think he's gone crazy? You think he's abandoned his old values?

Think again.

Q:Are you finding it harder going from N64 to Gamecube than from SNES to N64?

A:That's a good question. As we move from one format to the next it's my job to take advantage of that new system's capabilities. But to explain the life of Nintendo, going from NES to SNES we were working with the same elements - going from 8bit to 16bit, staying in 2D. We were just able to do more in the same framework than we could before. Whereas going from the SNES to the N64 we were going from a 2D word to a 3D world and we had to completely start everything over. It took a lot of energy, everything had to change. It took a lot of time. I think that change was really drastic for us.

This time around - going from the N64 to the Gamecube - were going from a 3D platform to another 3D platform so it's more like the move from the NES to the SNES. They're both within the same basic framework - only we can do a lot more.

So in terms of gameplay when we went from 2D to 3D it was really exciting, it had a of appeal for me personally to grow the game in that manner, and I think it had a lot of appeal for the customers too, to be able to experience these brand new lush worlds. But really I think we've got to a point where the capabilities of the new system the 3D world is just one option in the world of creating meaningful and creative gameplay. The period where '3D world = value' for the customer is over. It doesn't have the freshness that it had before and now it's really just one option in many for creating these kinds of fun in games.

If you look at human history games themselves and playing itself haven't really changed a whole lot over time. But as for computer games we have seen a lot of new developments a lot of new gameplay, we've added to it. But I think that one of the problems is because of the demand and markets game developers don't have the time to spend thinking of new ideas and thinking of ways to integrate them into games. They feel that they're being pressed to get them done and pressed to get things out. It would be nice to give them a bit more freedom and that's what we want to do.

A lot of people consider hardware to be the internal components of the machine itself to me the hardware really is the system as a whole - including the controller and how that interacts with the game. Like the Game Boy Advance and how you can link that up. We've been planning for this since back in the days of he N64. These are the kind of things that I plan for and work with.

I think we've seen - repeatedly, over and over - the capabilities of the hardware systems dramatically increasing. And now we've seen it again here and we'll see it again in the future - you're going to get machines much more powerful that what we have here. Really I think that - and we're lucky that we've caught this when we have - we're at a stage where developers competing to maximise the capabilities of a system are finding that the development costs and the rewards that can be reached from those costs in terms of sales no longer match. It's become so expensive to fully maximise the power of the system that you can no longer take the types of risks and challenges that you need for innovation.

We're lucky that we've noticed this when we have and so really the challenge for us is to find that new key and what it is that's going to be able to create these games simply and have them packed full of fun and entertainment in a way that they are going to sell to the masses. And that's a role that all game designers are going to have to take in this next generation and it's hard to say what that 'key' is going to be right now.

Those were taken from 2001.

I wouldn't want others to imitate the size or volume of the game. I hope that they'll concentrate on improving the quality of the games. We haven't done anything special in Ocarina of Time, we've just made use of the N64 technology. As long as you have proper knowledge of the N64's technology, you shouldn't have to concern yourself with making a game of this caliber in terms of sheer size and volume.

I myself wanted to be a cartoonist at first, so I was reading a lot of cartoons. I was imitating some others' works and made up my own stories at first. If you want to become a game artist, it's good if you play games and make up your own ideas. Regardless of the subject, you have to come up with something on your own, whether you're drawing pictures or cartoons or making toys. [b]Just try to surprise people[/b]. What's important is that you make something up on your own and show it to somebody else so they can critique your work. Even if you get harsh criticism, don't give up. Just keep at it.

From 1998.

Though I have talked mostly about the technical aspects of game design, I would now like to talk about something on the opposite end of the spectrum. We must not forget the importance of human ingenuity and creativity in game design. Naturally, it is new and unique expression of ideas that gives birth to new games. Recently, I am very sorry to see that the uniqueness of many titles has been dependent upon new technology and specialty development tools, while the personalities of the creators have been diluted. For me, game creation is like expression through music. When I am working as a director on a game, while I always try to hit upon new plots, I place great importance on the tempo of the game and the sound effects. I feel that those directors who have been able to incorporate rhythm and emotional stimuli in their games have been successful. When I am holding the controller and setting the tempo, I feel that my own, personal game is in the midst of creation. I have never created a game that has been of a level that I could be satisfied with. Understanding the technologies is the requisite if we want to fully realize our expression. Game designers are apt to boast of the technical aspects of their games, and I, too, have fallen into this trap. Speaking of my own case, I tend to highlight new technologies when I am less confident about the new ideas I am putting forward in the game, and later, I always regret doing this. It is important for us to remember that technology can inspire new ideas and help us realize those ideas, but it should do so from the background.

Shall I begin making Zelda for our next generation hardware. At this point, the answer to that question is no. The reason for my saying this is that all of the elements for which Zelda has received so much praise for had already been incorporated into the game more than a year before completion, when I felt the game was not fun to play. I think that a lot of the reasons that Zelda has been so praised are not related the N64's level of expression, the unique camera systems and auto-jump system, nor the gorgeous cinema scenes and spectacular boss fights. It is true that some other team may realize the level of expression that we achieved with Zelda, but of course it will not be the exact same as Zelda. With improved hardware, I can imagine Zelda having more detailed graphics and a quicker response time, but when it comes to increasing the degree of fun, I cannot be certain of that at this time. This is something that I feel we as designers must reconsider.

Also, I want to constantly make efforts to create new ideas. I want to propose new game ideas without worrying about the headaches of management, such as inflated development costs. Video games have become far more popular than in the past, but I feel that we have just been repeating the same events again and again in this unique market. Even with Zelda I did not feel that sense of freshness that I had with the original Super Mario Bros. I want to make efforts to convey the charm of video games to the general public that is currently outside the reach of the industry in which we do business. This is because I really want to feel the unique zest of the entertainment industry, where one simple idea can create an unexpected social phenomenon.

We have expanded this industry and welcomed new users with innovative products that continue to surprise us. At a time when we were all developing Mario style scrolling games, Tetris was born thanks to a team that tried to make a new product with game and watch style software. When we were stuck on talk of the spectacular 3D graphics of Mario 64 and racing games, we a saw huge hit in the form of Tamagochi - a tiny key chain boasting pictures made up of no more than 10 or 20 dots. At that time, I thought that Mario 64 had lost to Tamagochi.

I want game designers to be the designers who make technology their tools, and use it to express their own individuality, their own unique-ness and their own rhythm, as well as the entertainers who make this world a more enjoyable one. It is with this extravagant hope that I wish to end my speech.

My friends, let us design unique, fun software with new appeal. Let us take on new challenges so that the world of gaming is not left behind as a separate, closed off world. And in the process, let's see if we can't make a little money.

From 1999.



Well, we certainly don't have the intention to fight against anybody else, and don't think that we are cowards, but we are working on the subjects which become necessary for what game users want. In other words, what we have to do in order to make a 'weapon', in your wording, is to make fresh and exciting games. It's not like "who's winning and who's losing", and as far as 'war' or 'fighting' is concerned, please count us out. We like to go our own way.

One of the biggest concepts concerning Gamecube is that I want it to be a machine the whole family can use. So that's why it must be reasonably priced, and even small children can use it, and these kind of concepts are enshrined in the controller design, console design and the cheap chipsets. Of course, if we are simply going to make the best games format in the videogame market, and we have the hardware to realise that, then I can tell the hardware people that we must have a cheap chipset. We want the whole family to use it, and it must be easy, and we don't want them to think about how much it's cost. Those of you that have experienced Super Mario Bros. In your childhood may now be of the generation where you have children that are starting to play games. That's what videogames should be - things the whole family can play.

It's very simple. It's the Nintendo company motto that we have to do what only Nintendo can do, and the multi-purpose games machines - meaning that you can do a variety of things - so often end up being the machines that can't do anything. In the case of Nintendo, it's rather different. What Nintendo can be proud of is constantly providing the customer with guaranteed quality software. That's what we can say when we're providing the customer with a new generation of gaming platforms. On the other hand, people are talking about multi-purpose machines, and from the manufacturer's standpoint, they're saying "look, we've made this machine, it's up to you how to use it". Through the many years I've been in this business, I've seen many hardware manufacturers simply ignore what content will be running on their platforms. I have to admit that I don't like these kind of ideas. Now is the time that we, the content creators, have to get together to lead the market. Nintendo is good at entertaining, and we are going to guarantee with this new platform that it is going to be fun. And, of course, it has the capability for 'multi-purpose', but we are not guaranteeing it's going to be multi-purpose, that's all.

Yes, I have to admit that of course we are working on Gamecube games featuring these popular characters. But, frankly speaking, I don't want a situation where our creative staff is solely occupied with the creation of established game series. For example, at Spaceworld last week, we exhibited a game called Animal Forest; it's a very unique game, we call it a 'family communication' game, and we hope that we can bring these kinds of new genres to the Gamecube.

That's right, family communication, NOT MMO or RPG or openworld or whatever everyone keeps demanding it to be.

I think this is interesting, simply because nobody can tell what will come in the future. Some may say the 'movie-type' game can become interesting, but I don't think so. The integration between the movie and the game should not be the main focus of this industry; yes, we can learn a lot from the movie industry, but we should absorb these ideas, so we can improve game contents, so we can evolve the shape of the game. That's the kind of thing that makes sense in this industry. If we are simply trying to make a movie-like game, then I don't think that's so good. After all, we are making interactive entertainment, so we can all be the pioneers of any new entertainment, and create different things from movies and what we have now.

I don't want to say that videogames are transforming into any other existing entertainment medium. President Yamauchi has some different ideas, though... [laughs]. I believe that the entertainment business is kind of an industry which puts different value to 'ordinary stories', so they can sell 'ordinary stories' at much higher prices. This is the kind of business where you can make money out of a simple idea, and when people say 'we are going to make a 'movie-type game', they are saying 'let's spend so much money on the gorgeous graphics and sound'. I don't think that that's the shape of the games industry. We should be spending time and money making magic.

From 2002.