Nintendo to reconsider better graphics after high-def "takes off"

by Blake Snow { Nov 16th 2006 at 3:25PM }

Business Week spoke with Nintendo birthday boy Shigeru Miyamoto and designer Ken'ichiro Ashida in an interview discussing gaming for moms, thoughts on power consoles, how Wii was influenced by the DS, and the overall development timeline of the new console. Also of note is how Miyamoto described the challenge of making a $200+ console given the investment spent on Wiimote R&D:

"We had to compromise on graphics and give up on a powerful chip. Many of our employees initially wanted high-definition graphics. But they agreed with us that graphics wouldn't matter if the games weren't fun to play ... As new chip technology becomes available, we'll consider less power-hungry varieties that don't cost too much. And once high-definition TVs take off, we'll consider the merits of better graphics and more power."

[Thanks, >]

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Textbook @ Nov 16th 2006 3:28PM

read this earlier today, seems like theyre really into those moms...

pete @ Nov 16th 2006 3:30PM

so whats the life cycle of the wii anyway, ps3 suppose to be around 10 years the 360 will be replaced in 5 and is the wii gonna get and update in less than the average 5 or 6 year life cycle of consoles. beacause of the power or lack there off you think theyd move it up.

Martin @ Nov 16th 2006 3:36PM

lol I hope your mom likes the Wii while you are playing on your 360 or PS3

Mullinator @ Nov 16th 2006 3:37PM

It won't at all surprise me if they decide maybe 3 years from now to create a seperate Nintendo division for the Wii and have the rest of the company refocus on hardcore gaming consoles. Nintendo might be thinking of eventually becomming a two console company, one focuses on drawing in new gamers with cheap, simple, fun games (Wii division) while the hardcore system would be the more expensive more powerful hardcore gaming machine.

Kevin @ Nov 16th 2006 3:40PM

Coming late 2008.

The Nintendo Wii^2

Wargazm @ Nov 16th 2006 3:41PM

1. Nintendo is planning a reactive rather than a proactive strategy. While I have no opinion on this necessarily, I do like that Sony and MS are doing their part to push us into the HD era, which has been a LONG time coming.

2. I'm sick to death of the graphics vs gameplay argument. They are NOT mutually exclusive things, nor should they be.

nootau @ Nov 16th 2006 3:41PM

This isnt new. Nintendo has been saying this since E3.

Don @ Nov 16th 2006 3:42PM

"Pete", how can you really believe that the PS3's lifespan is going to be 10 years?

Joe @ Nov 16th 2006 3:43PM

How would the 360 have 1/2 the lifespan of a PS3? Sure the PS2 has lasted a long time... but the 360 is >= the PS3 in the minds of a lot of (educated) people.

RJ81 @ Nov 16th 2006 3:44PM

This article makes me think everyone at Nintendo is, well, insane.

MysticX @ Nov 16th 2006 3:45PM

I can´t w8 for Super Nintendo Wii.

trent @ Nov 16th 2006 3:45PM

i understand nintendos position, but its flawed.

fun games negate graphics. but fun games WITH great graphics become legendary games. mario1 was a fun game with great graphics. metroid was a fun game with great graphics.

why would they settle for only filling up the fun meter, when they could fill up the good graphics meter as well? to save money?

it kinda makes me sad knowing that my next journey through hyrule, while being extremely fun, will also be like watching ice cream melt (but with hdr lighting!!)

Kevin @ Nov 16th 2006 3:46PM

@ #8 Don, I believe it was Sony themselves that the Sony PS3 will last 10 years(before coming out with a new console).

J.Goodwin @ Nov 16th 2006 3:49PM

Sony talks about product life cycles differently than Nintendo (except in portables) and Microsoft.

They keep producing their old console almost up to the point where the successor to the successor console is launched, and call that the lifecycle.

So, the Playstation was produced in various configurations up until about a year ago, thereby granting it a 10 year life cycle. We all know that the PS2 was launched just five years after the Playstation though.

And I think that we all know that in five years, we'll all be looking at another console round.

pete @ Nov 16th 2006 3:50PM

i read that a while back i think it came from sony them selfs, i'm sure i did'nt make that up. i am currently at work and websence does not let me stray from joystiq but i will find the link and post it.

crono141 @ Nov 16th 2006 3:50PM

You are all missing the point. The constraint was 200+ sale price, not graphics OR gameplay. They put all their R&D into re-inventing gameplay for a 250 dollar console, not a 400 to 600 dollar one.

Wii could definitely have the uber graphix if they wanted to charge 500 dollars for it. They wanted to keep costs (to consumer) low.

Katoh @ Nov 16th 2006 3:51PM

I dunno, if anything they'd just make one console (cheap powerful parts like the upcoming 360's) and have it play both sides of games (it'd be alot cheaper). I'm thinking though that in the future Nintendo won't even use a TV, they may use HD but it'll probably be in some sort of way to give you 360 degrees of vision when playing, to feel more realistic. But I'll wait for that time to come.

Iscariote @ Nov 16th 2006 3:52PM

The PS3's "ten year lifespan" comes from Sony PR trying to convince people it's not overpriced. The PS4 won't come out before November 2016, yeah right.

Todd @ Nov 16th 2006 3:54PM

I agree fully. An awesome looking game doesn't guarentee good play. I've played some beautiful crap titles in my life, and have played some games which were fun as hell but looked awful compared to other hot titles.

Regula Oblique @ Nov 16th 2006 3:54PM

Nice idea Mullinator i like the sound of that.

Christopher @ Nov 16th 2006 3:56PM

I agree with some of the comments: graphics and gameplay are NOT mutually exclusive. But think of it this way: Nintendo HAD to make a choice between the 2 with the Wii (if they wanted to release the system while they're still relevant).

From their point of view, they wanted to innovate gameplay (which I think has always been their position) FIRST, and then catch up with graphics. I think this move had to be made at some point, lest the industry become stale.

Furthermore, they don't see enough penetration with HD in the market. Hence, they don't want to pursue the graphics development line.

Lookout: Nintendo's NEXT system will blow us all away (moreso than the Wii). It will have a more developed version of it's innovative control system AND striking HD graphics.

I respect Microsoft and Sony for fighting the format war (although I hate the idea of it) and pushing realism and graphics in gaming, but I think Nintendo just didn't want to join that fight.

And the result? The gaming industry is BETTER as a whole for it. We, the gamers, are getting more incredible entertainment devices as a result.

Dux @ Nov 16th 2006 3:56PM

I predict the PS4 to come out in 2011 or 2012, 5 or 6 yrs from now.

spoo @ Nov 16th 2006 3:57PM

Shill bidding FTW?

spoo @ Nov 16th 2006 3:57PM

^oops wrong topic, stupid tabs..

Regula Oblique @ Nov 16th 2006 4:00PM

About the Ps3 having a 10 year run, they mean thats what the worth should last but theres no doubt that ps4 wont be out in 5 years, just look at the ps1 made in 95 it still gets games for it made, not mainstream but they're there

Mabui @ Nov 16th 2006 4:00PM

Sure, Wii could bring customers in, teach them how to play, how video games generally work and slowly work them into a more accepting state of hardcore games.

If anything Sony and Microsoft can only benefit from Wii doing well because that means more people introduced to gaming and say somewhere down the line they decide they want HD graphics, and more complicated controls.

Well... honeslty, who would be left to go it to them

AJ @ Nov 16th 2006 4:02PM

The next Nintendo home console will come out in 2011, 5 years. Nintendo has always done 5 years and it will stay the same. I think this is an excellent strategy for Nintendo. They are going for a bigger market share without losing money. They are sitting back and watching Sony and Microsoft duke it out in the format wars and push HD into our homes. The next generation Nintendo will have a console as powerful as the PS4 and the Xbox 720 with the winning format (or both formats).

Conbus71 @ Nov 16th 2006 4:04PM

lol, some people actually believe the things Sony says about the PS3 lifespan. hahahah

ok, so considering that most of the country has normal TV sets, HD has not "taken off" yet. It is popular, but I guess Nintendo wants to wait until it is the norm.

ehh, doesn't affect me, I will probably be able to afford HD by the time Nintendo embraces it. And that won't be for a while.

devi8i @ Nov 16th 2006 4:05PM

Come on people lifecycle is not the time from the release of a product to the release of its successor. Lifecycle is the time between production and end of support. I am sure we will continue to see original xbox and PS2 games produced for the next couple of years. just as we will continue to see games produced for the 360 ans ps3 for a number of years after their replacements are on the market.

Evan @ Nov 16th 2006 4:08PM

High-definition graphics would have HARMED the Wii. The Wii's controller is too unproven, and therefore too risky, for developers to spend high-definition money to develop games for it. High-definition games are very expensive to produce, and 360 and PS3 games are running $15-$20 million dollars to develop. As a result, publishers are being conservative and only producing sequels and clones of proven concepts for those systems.

The Wii's graphics are at the sweet-spot for developers, with games only costing $5-$8 million to produce (according to THQ), less than half the cost of developing for the 360 or PS3. That's a big reason why developers are throwing their support behind the Wii. The Wii's standard-definition graphics reduces the cost of game development, which in turn allows developers to take greater risks on new series and unproven concepts.

fester @ Nov 16th 2006 4:11PM

Well a 2 console aproach could work for them. I mean they originally said this was the plan for the DS (The DS being an experiemental/casual sideline to the Gameboy brand).

So technically they could have Wii and DS as the casual/new interaction dept and one brand new super powerful console that is ~ 5 times the power of a PS3 (and therefore around 2.5 times the power of an Xbox 360 ;) ).

Yes they could.. but it wouldn't be happening for a while (Nintendo 'ON' anyone? Full VR as the next step!)

Dan Dickinson @ Nov 16th 2006 4:16PM

"ok, so considering that most of the country has normal TV sets, HD has not "taken off" yet."

If 'most of the country' was the metric by which companies waited to support technologies, then consoles wouldn't be supporting broadband, or wireless, or surround sound, or...nah, I'll stop.

You don't need to hit 51% to have "taken off".

JS Beckerist @ Nov 16th 2006 4:17PM

Wii^2.... Wii wii? HAH!

Sony Fanboy #777 @ Nov 16th 2006 4:18PM

"[Thanks, >]"

Rofl.

Terry @ Nov 16th 2006 4:19PM

One of the benefits of a unified architecture between Nintendo's home platforms would be the ability to have dependent code that hinged on the hardware of the machine currently running it... There is no reason Nintendo couldn't come out with a "Super Wii" (Wii Too?) with a faster processor and higher resolution, while still being playable on all first gen Wii units. Wii games coded properly would run at higher resolutions on a newer Wii and lower on the older Wii.

Think about PC gamers and their video cards. Sure, most games will run on any bare bones PC, but higher and faster video cards allow you to run at higher resolutions, FPS, and to "turn on" fancy particle/lighting effects and the like. The game code works across divergent systems because of the commonality of the underlying X86 architecture.

And if you think Nintnedo wouldn't attempt such a strategy in a console... well, they had the expansion pack for the N64, didn't they?

Gozan @ Nov 16th 2006 4:29PM

I agree, it's not graphics vs gameplay - it's graphics vs interface.

As for the Wii's successor, considering the XB360 and PS3 are sold at a loss and the Wii is not, the next product cycle is really in Nintendo's hand. Sony has spent so much on the PS3 that if a new cycle were to be introduced before the PS3 has become profitable, it could break them. MS are not in quite so dire straits, and could well go along, just to get Sony out of the market. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Wii2 with HD graphics and a XB720 with motion detector already in 2010...

MetaHuman @ Nov 16th 2006 4:48PM

I don't think he meant Gameplay > Graphics exclusively.

I read it as, how fun would the game be if the processor and visual responses couldn't keep up with the Wiimote functions?

Also, happy B-Day Shiggy. :)

Jacob @ Nov 16th 2006 4:55PM

I still think that Nintendo will simply upgrade the Wii to RUN in HD when the market suits them and chip prices go down. ("Wii HD", maybe?)

It would use the exact same games as Wii, but display them in a higher resolution. No gameplay differences, no content differences, no need for any software or media changes (all games would still simply say "Wii" on the box): just high-res done in hardware, much like putting a faster video card in your PC.

Hoffer @ Nov 16th 2006 4:55PM

I can see not wanting to make the Wii expensive. It's a completely new control mechanic. They don't want to create a $500 console with a crazy new controller that nobody buys.

If the controller takes off, I hope they come out with a HD version sooner than later.

v0yce @ Nov 16th 2006 5:34PM

I call BS on most of this.

First, Nintendo could still keep the cost down to consumers with a high end graphics machine. They'd just have to sell it for a loss like their other two competetors. But they dont' want to dip into that huge pile of cash they've amassed so we get stuck with dated visuals and are drilled with "graphics don't matter."

Second, I've got to think that a large chunck of the R&D they claim had to be done by Gyration well before Nintendo ever came into the picture. Nintendo didn't build this tech. Another company did. Granted Nintendo had to devise a way to incorporate into gaming, but come on.

When a company is touting record profits, I have a hard time stomaching the idea that they couldn't deliver a more powerful machine becauase of cost.

Mr. Khan @ Nov 16th 2006 5:52PM

@ Voyce

well, duh

Nintendo makes record profits by keeping costs low
This is the way most companies in most industries make money
Video Game Consoles are the exception, as Sony and MS both sacrifice $ on Hardware (and Online services) in order to pull ahead in marketshare, and then pray their consoles have a high enough software (and accessory) adoption rate that they turn a profit

If Nintendo was also doing this, i'd be very scared as to the nature of the Industry, since crappy games would wipe it out again (like in '83)

Microsoft is betting on Accessory sales and Software to turn a profit (ever wonder why Wireless Controller sold seperately?) and Sony is betting on Microtransactions and Software sales. But even if the Wii has mediocre software sales (like the GC) Nintendo will survive to the next-next-gen

crono141 @ Nov 16th 2006 5:53PM

Everybody, Welcome v0yce, the latest sony fanbot, to the boards!

Nintendo can't afford to sell stuff at a loss because they don't have a TV or OS line to bouy their income. Nintendo makes games, only games.

I know, why don't you go invent something, and then sell it at a price that will net you -240 per sale. Sure hope you've got a good day job to offset that loss.

And by the time HD has hit mass market, in the next generation, nintendo will be able to make a game console that runs crazy HD graphics and incredible gigaflops and all that crap, and it will still be small and cost less than 300 dollars, because the technology will be cheap by then.

Do you really want the average price for a game console to sit at 400 dollars, instead of the historically 200-300 dollars?

ackmondual @ Nov 16th 2006 6:00PM

@ #12
""i understand nintendos position, but its flawed.

fun games negate graphics. but fun games WITH great graphics become legendary games. mario1 was a fun game with great graphics. metroid was a fun game with great graphics.

why would they settle for only filling up the fun meter, when they could fill up the good graphics meter as well? to save money? ""

B/c in software engineering/development, it's difficult to have it all. Good, low cost, fast. Choose 1of3 or 2of3 if you've got more resources.

This has been evident in many cases. Many devs bitched about how PS2 dev kit and the way the graphics unit worked could'v been MUCH better. A lot of extra time wasted perfercting the graphics could've been allocated to other areas in making the game better (storyline, testing, etc.). Recall, SNES also went up vs 3DO which actually did real 3d graphics! Something that didn't swing around again till the PS1 came into play. I forgot how much the 3DO was at launch, but it was much more than the SNES. SNES still managed to beat out the 3DO.

Optimus Prime @ Nov 16th 2006 6:13PM

By using cheap, off the shelf tehcnology, Nintendo can get their product to market without the hitches that Sony is experiencing.

Essentially, they've traded short term profits at the risk of early obsolescence. Their job is to convince people to keep buying the Wii after their fanbase has been exhausted and when the wiimote isnt NEW anymore.

PSWii60 @ Nov 16th 2006 6:18PM

Crono141 #43...

I would rather be a Sony fanboy than a Nintendo, since even now sony is pwning nintendo. (I'm not either one)

But people fail to realize that nintendo has always been one step behind in processing power and graphics. the lack of these have made there games terrible and lacking what the other consoles have.

The fact that they are considering going into high-def in the next-gen provs their subordination in power. 720p in the next-gen hile the xbox360 and ps3 will be in optimized 1080p or higher. Even if they find a way to go into high-def this generation with the wii, it will prove that they couldn't stand behind what they said in the first place that graphics don't matter and is all about gameplay.

Not that i am saying that only graphics matter in a game, but if i get a next-gn system, i want it to have next-gen graphics along with gameplay. You can be just as innovative with a regular controller as you can with a wiimote.

Cherry Ghost @ Nov 16th 2006 6:43PM

@ #4

I'm sorry, but your idea makes absolutely no sense. If the Wii is a smash success Nintendo will milk it for as long as they can (more than three years). On the flip side, if it fails miserably some people had been saying this would be Nintendo's last offering in the home system business. For Nintendo to make two home systems the Wii would have to gain the top market share (or just make a ton of money), a victory that not even the most crazed Nintendo fanboys are predicting. Despite their love for implanting their product into every home in the world, Nintendo is still a company and needs to be profitable.

A more realistic plan is for Nintendo to support the Wii after their next-NEXT gen system is released, a similar scenario that Sony seems to be following with the PS2. By that point a Wii would probably be around the $100 range, if not cheaper.

Pitt-Brandon @ Nov 16th 2006 6:54PM

v0yce:

I call BS on this, too.

So, in Nintendo-Speak, this translates into, "Damn, maybe we shouldn't have skimped out on graphics so much this gen, those PS3 and Xbox games not only look way sweeter, but feature mechanics, physics, and creative gaming opportunities that the Wii couldn't hope to produce. Oh well, instead of admitting we were wrong, let's just come up with some 'this was all a part of our plan; graphics don't matter; gaming was on the brink of destruction until we saved it' crap. Don't worry, not only will our fanbase buy it, they'll defend it to the death."

I'm a Nintendo fan, but I'm not delusional enough to believe that everything Nintendo does is right and good for the industry and gamers and not just good for them.

I'd buy that crap about the wiimote costing so much in R&D if that actually seemed to be the case. But face it, it doesn't. First of all, the bare-bones of the technology was already developed by another company, all they had to do was implement it in gaming. It's not something they had to build from the ground up (heck, look at how easily Sony jocked them with their controller).

Second, even then, I'd buy it if the wiimote were shaping up to bring about a revolution in gaming, but it's not doing that, either. They should have spent more on R&D, because most reviews for the games out there are NOT proclaiming the wiimote to be the natural evolution of the gaming interface, which is what Nintendo had no problems leading us to believe. It still has its flaws, and there are several obvious genres that it won't work better than an analog controller for. Heck, the developer of Brawl has already stated that it's using the classic controller over the wiimote. One of Nintendo's FLAGSHIP titles is not going to fully utilize the wiimote. So how is this “an evolution in gaming"?

Sure, it does some things right, and it does some things better. But I think the general consensus is that the wiimote is just shaping up to be a DIFFERENT way to play, and not a revolution, and DEFINITELY not an evolution.

So where's the justification? There isn't one. Nintendo just wanted to protect its precious profit margin, and going HD would have required them to put more hardware into the system than they did. So they rely on some bogus "HD tv's aren't penetrating the market" crap to justify it, completely disregarding that HD has nowhere to go but UP, and getting in on the ground floor is always better than showing up late to the party. And boom, the blind Nintendo fanboi buys it.
Look, I’m a Nintendo fan, too. The first system I’m getting is a Wii, because I trust Nintendo to make good games. But that’s about as far as I’ll trust them. Nintendo as a console designer has lost its integrity. And people need to realize that. Buy a Wii because you want one. But don’t act like you’re better than the rest of the gaming community by buying one. And for heaven’s sake, stop it with the “well, it’s all about gameplay, graphics don’t matter” argument, as if PS3 and Xbox360 won’t be able to achieve both. It’s tired and flawed as all hell. As a Nintendo gamer, I’m admitting that I’m going to miss out on games that NAIL both graphics and gameplay. You all should too.

Avinash_Tyagi @ Nov 16th 2006 7:26PM

Nintendo is taking the same route with HD as it did with online, waiting until its profitable, look at Sony and MS how much money they've lost on their consoles, Nintendo is in it to make money, and if that means downscaling the power then that's what they'll do, if Wii is a scussess, they'll release in 4-5 years a new console with motion sensing and HD quality graphics.

Go0n @ Nov 16th 2006 8:03PM

Ok, Sony and microsoft are forcing the HD issue. More so Sony, It's being crammed down our necks. Sony's console isn't that much if at all more powerful then the 360 it is only because it has a Blue-ray player in it which is only in there so Sony can get a massive foothold in the next gen media war which has only just kicked off with only the very rich or the stupid bothered about.
The avaerage Joe does not even know what blueray is and certainly wouldn't spend the amount of money on a player or a PS3. Most people who say they want a PS3 or are waiting for one don't even know how much it costs, When they find out they don't want one anymore. Add to that the fact that you really need a HD tele, of which not many households have at all and if they do its only the one in the front room its going to take at least another 3/4 years before there is a common base of HD tele users etc. At least! Because the difference between HD quality and DVD quality to uncle bob is tiny and he couldn't care less so the systems ( 360 & ps3 ) although they will sell the majority of owners will not be using them on a HD tele.

Nintendo have got it spot on nearly. I would of liked to see the Wii be a bit beefier. Only a little but then maybe it is and im just thinking of zelda at the moment because its basically a gamecube port. When you look at Mario the visuals are pretty damn good. The average joe will want one because its available, The games are cheeper there will be more games, the control is easier to use, its new, its fun and younger kids as well as older people can play together unlike the very hardcore appeal that the 360 and PS3 have. Sure the PS3 will sell and more so when the price drops but Sony would have lost a massive amount of money and will still be pouring money into the PS3 while nintendo rake it in form day 1 and pour it all into their next console which I would take a guess will come out along with microsofts next offering with Sony lagging a couple of years behind.