Should Nintendo bolster their Western Development Empire?

Currently, The majority of Nintendo's software development divisions and subsidiaries are Japanese. Nintendo EPD, Intelligent Systems, MonolithSoft, NdCube, HAL Laboratory. With a few Western subsidiaries and partners, Nintendo Software Technology, Retro Studios, and Next Level games being among them. Over the years though, Nintendo's western development has declined in both output and relevancy. NST was locked into MvDK games and Ports after burning bridges with Project H.A.M.M.E.R., Retro Studios has spent 5 years toiling away at... whatever the hell they're making at this point. And Next Level Games isn't even a true subsidiary. It's weird because two major Japanese publishers, Square Enix and Sega, already have quite a few Western developers under their belt.

In the past, Nintendo has said they don't like doing studio acquisitions a lot since they feel a game is nothing without the creative talent behind it, and if those leave, then you get stuck with a big metaphorical paperweight, which is why they prefer co-productions with independent studios over buyouts. But with a new CEO Shuntaro Furukawa, and a change in management over the years, should Nintendo at least do more to bolster a sizable western development empire? Nintendo's got a lot of talent behind them, but I do think they can add a bit more cultural variety to their portfolio with a few acquisitions. It doesn't have to be a Microsoft-level shopping spree, but I think Nintendo could do well by signing with some western mid-tier developers, similar to what they do in Japan. The developer keeps its independence and joint ownership of the IP, while Nintendo gives them the budget, assistance, and marketing support. It could help the Switch be even more appealing to Western gamers as well.

Meh I think this is a misuse of Nintendo's resources honestly.

Well if they can find the talent to make the kind of games that they would like to make then I guess so. However I think they are doing just fine as it is right now.

They should hire some people to help them with everything that isn't game development.

Of course.

Western gaming constitutes the majority of the industry today, unlike back in the eighties and nineties, ironically a time when Nintendo was far more into western markets. Iwata was the one who upon becoming president shut down all Nintendo's western studios and moved their work to Japan, as well as letting all western relevant licenses go. It's he to thank as to why Nintendo's shrunk and has become far more insular and eastern-centric over the years.

Many of Nintendo's best games have been neglected or given minimal love because they're more western flavored (Metroid, Wave Race, F-Zero, Star Fox) which they obviously just don't care for. Not only this, but online gaming predominantly holds a more western appeal and Nintendo's online implementation and competence in this arena demonstrates a complete disconnect and large indifference towards an immense market that is just begging to throw money their way. They have all the IPs (not to mention legacy) to exploit it yet do the bare minimum possible. It's just mind-boggling how they are so clueless, and if not clueless, apathetic, to this.

I strongly believe, and have for years now having watched them, that Nintendo is a company that being precluded from their fullest potential because they're wrapped up in their culture so much so that it's hurting them.

It's not hurting them as they're far more successful at the moment. But having some more western developed productions under their belt could help them.

I'd argue that western devs are getting WAY over their heads right now, while Japan is fighting back, so no.

Nintendo is in unique position where they can churn out Marios every year and somehow not considered milking. They could give those studios a mario game for them to learn the nintendo way.

Right, poor phrasing. I wouldn't say they're hurting, only not as successful as they could be.

They should start with more collaboration projects first and see where it goes. I heard the Mario and Rabbids was good, but I haven't gotten around to buying it yet. I know Ubisoft is a huge publisher so they should do this kind of stuff with smaller to midsize devs.

well, im not sure what new talent or studio theyre going to find unless they're going to pay people to specifically neuter their own games for the nintendo console.. nintendo has always been a generation behind on hardware specs.. i was really hoping nintendo would push their limits and challenge sony and xbox and get some more AAA titles.. but im at the point now where i will no longer buy a nintendo console specifically for its exclusives

@burntbyhellfire: AAA is a much smaller market than it used to be. The sheer costs of making them means that indie games and now AA titles fill in the gaps. The Switch is getting plenty of those, there's not much of a need to compete in the AAA space these days.

I think what Nintendo could do, is sign with some Western mid-tier developers. The Ninja Theories and Obsidians rather than try and buy a AAA Western studio. The studio would be independent, but Nintendo would be their exclusive publisher, similar to how Next Level Games is.

its just an example, it doesnt have to be AAA but even small dev and indie teams are putting out games far beyond what the switch can actually do, and few companies want to have to develop the same game twice just to release a version that can function on the switch... nintendo should step it up with the hardware specs and just attracted more third party games in general

@burntbyhellfire: Except A, that's not true as most indie games are very simple in scope and graphical fidelity, and B, you don't have to develop the same game twice on Switch. It's out of the box engines support and PC-like hardware means you can just downscale the assets you have on other consoles. It's not like the Wii or Wii U which required a lot more work to run the game due to lack of engine support.

Point is, if it can run on Switch, it's more than likely coming to Switch at some point. Developers don't have to target high end specs of they don't want to.

Perhaps they should learn how to do online first.

Ori and the Blind Forest I wouldn't qualify as being simple in scope nor graphical fidelity. It's rumored the developmental budget for that game was $10 million, which for Nintendo, is peanuts.

I don't know why everyone defends Nintendo (not saying you are, just in general) on the premise that they cannot compete in the AAA sphere as if every game they'd create to compete with western tastes would be a GTA or RDR 2 tier 20 billion dollar developmental enterprise that would place their entire company in peril. There's games out there that easily give the AAA market a run for its money that have been developed on breadcrumbs of a budget (Hollow Knight, only developed by three people, being an example).

I suspect, as I said, that Nintendo's main problem with the west is more cultural than it is financial. They could expand their reach here easily if they wanted to, they simply don't seem to hold much of an incentive to.

Ori is closer to a mid-budget game. A game that has better production values and a larger budget than a standard indie game, but nowhere near the budget and team size of a big AAA game, the game was also published by Microsoft as a first party exclusive, so that helps its case as well. Nintendo's games actually aren't that high budget to begin with. Most I would assume have a budget of around $10 million or lower. Sure, once in a while you'll get a BotW or Smash Ultimate, but those are generally exceptions.

Nintendo intentionally keeps their game budgets as low as possible. It's a deliberate strategy, it gives the developers more creative freedom with the project, letting them take more risks with it, while also ensuring the game is profitable. Nintendo has shown that with a few exceptions, like BotW, they aren't interested in the AAA dick-measuring contest in terms of budget and scope. It's not that Nintendo can't compete in the traditional AAA market, its just that they choose not to. They rather find new ways to play and take risks on games most major publishers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. You'll hardly see a company like EA take in a game as bat-shit insane as Astral Chain.

I think what Nintendo should do, is try and sign exclusively with western AA developers, similar to what they did with Next Level Games. Nab the Ninja Theories and Obsidians rather than buyout big AAA developers. The developer keeps its independence, but Nintendo gets to be their exclusive publisher, and thus Nintendo gets more first party exclusives.

And the first thing they do is include lootboxes.

They already use always online DRM, sell last gen games at a contemporary price, and charge for previously free online that literally offers nothing.

Drop in the ocean.

They still make good games with actual gameplay. Next they will be told to design games around lootboxes/MT.

Minuscule budgets doesn't limit creative freedom in theory, but it does preclude it from reaching its fullest potential in practice. In keeping their budgets so low as to be able to make any games they desire, they are compromising its realization. You can have the best car maker in the world. Give him little money, and sit there and watch what he produces.

Bigger budgets equate to bigger and better games, which is what people have come to expect. Nintendo doesn't do this, but I don't believe they are incapable, nor do I believe their manner of fiscal responsibility is necessary given their financial position. They are a multi-billion dollar company. And I'm not saying they need to be farting out GTAs, Assassin's Creeds, and RDR 2s every other week, but they certainly could be upping their output in terms of investment to bring us more games like Ori or bringing back some of their old classics, and in better form that Metroid: Samus Returns (a game from a series which fans have been begging for for forever), which looks pathetically cheap. I'm not holding my breath that Prime 4 won't look incredibly cheap either and be at best a half-assed effort.

I honestly don't much care for how creative a game is if it reeks of minimal effort, which seems to be Nintendo's M.O. Put in as little effort as possible except for their mainstays, charge a premium price, and profit. They could easily be putting in more money to see their talent to its fullest realization. I don't even consider them fiscally responsible. Fiscal responsibility is not only being conservative, but knowing when not to be.....it's understanding how to invest to gain best RoI. They are overly conservative to a fault in this respect.

It's like everyone else is splashing around in the pool, having a good time, and Nintendo's sitting on the edge dipping their toe in and crying because it's too cold.

I'm of the belief that games should only cost as much as necessary to make. I agree that the more money you have, the more you can do. But bigger isn't always better, and its often best to stick with just the budget you need to complete the game, rather than waste millions of dollars on superfluous stuff like bleeding edge graphics, or fancy cut-scenes, or marketing. Nobody's going to spend $10 million to make a puzzle game. But it makes sense to throw that money at say, an action game.

Nintendo keeps costs low on purpose, but that doesn't mean they won't splurge every now and again. We got BotW, which should have a budget of at least $30 million, same with Mario Odyssey. And I'm pretty sure Sakurai was given as much time and money as necessary to make Smash Bros. Ultimate the best it can possibly be. Nintendo's simply careful about overspending on their games. ARMS for example, doesn't need a budget any higher than $10 million. Same with games like Splatoon, Mario Maker, Even Link's Awakening 2019. These are games that don't really benefit from a bloated budget that much, so why spend more than what you need to?

Nintendo's not the only one who does this. Most indie developers are very careful about spending too much on a game, same with AA developers. Even Ori and the Blind Forest like you mentioned, pales in comparison to what AAA developers spend on their games. Like I said, bigger isn't always better, and Nintendo will splurge on a budget if that's what the game needs. But for the types of games they usually produce, $5-20 million, $30 million at most, is usually what's needed to get the job done. And that's not to say they don't put effort into their games, most of their titles are known for their insane polish. It's just that Nintendo does that, without wasting money on needlessly large worlds or fancy realistic graphics.

Doing this, also allows Nintendo to put out more games than most other publishers. They publish an insane amount each year, more than what most publishers put out in an entire console generation. And like I said, it allows them to take in more unique and riskier ideas like Astral Chain, ARMS, and Nintendo Labo.

Problem is that there aren't many Western studios nowadays that share Nintendo's game design philosophy.

I think their philosophy regarding buying studio's holds true.

Maybe nintendo should invest in Bungie get a Oni 2 or Oni remaster going on the switch would be cool

@TheMisterManGuy: I'm of the belief that games should only cost as much as necessary to make. I agree that the more money you have, the more you can do. But bigger isn't always better, and its often best to stick with just the budget you need to complete the game, rather than waste millions of dollars on superfluous stuff like bleeding edge graphics, or fancy cut-scenes, or marketing. Nobody's going to spend $10 million to make a puzzle game. But it makes sense to throw that money at say, an action game.

But is the budget dictating the game, or is the game dictating the budget?

Nintendo keeps costs low on purpose, but that doesn't mean they won't splurge every now and again. We got BotW, which should have a budget of at least $30 million, same with Mario Odyssey. And I'm pretty sure Sakurai was given as much time and money as necessary to make Smash Bros. Ultimate the best it can possibly be. Nintendo's simply careful about overspending on their games. ARMS for example, doesn't need a budget any higher than $10 million. Same with games like Splatoon, Mario Maker, Even Link's Awakening 2019. These are games that don't really benefit from a bloated budget that much, so why spend more than what you need to?

There's no way Breath of the Wild had a budget of $30 million; it probably took about three times that if not more. Miyamoto stated it would need to sell at least 2 million to break even on its developmental budget. 2 mil (60)= 120 mil. I can't say for certain what the cost was, but I know it's definitely more than $30 mil. But as you said, that's the exception, not the rule. And again, "spending more than you need to" is contingent upon priorities. Is that dictated by creative endevour, or fiscal considerations? I think with Nintendo, given their past and the types of games they create, that the answer's evident.

What bothers me most about Nintendo is that they don't bother with anything that won't get them an assured return. I know they're a business, but they also create. There are many franchises they have that remained untouched for generations now, left to rot and die, because, according to their fan base, "they don't sell". This has been the typical defense for Metroid foremost amongst these from their apologists (until Nintendo announced Prime 4, then they've quickly shut up), but there's many others that it applies to as well: F-Zero, Pilotwings, Wave Race. These are properties they should heavily invest in even if they don't guarantee a return.

The latter. The more ideas and bigger ambitions you have, the more money you might need. If you're making a fairly simple game, you don't really need to spend that much as it'd require less design and QA work to make it decent. If you're making a big open world epic, you'll need tens of millions of dollars to make sure the world is detailed, make sure there's intractable environments, complex enemy AI, etc.

Like I said, the budget of the game depends entirely on what you want to do with it. If you only want to do a simple, linear action/adventure title, you only need a fraction of a AAA budget. If you want to do a big, epic action game or open world RPG, you'll obviously need a much larger budget. It's ultimately the developers choice, you don't have to throw more money at a game than necessary to make the game great if you don't want to.

Actually, the reason Nintendo often rests on IPs is because they simply ran out of ideas for them. That's actually the real reason why F-Zero hasn't been seen in a while, Miyamoto said it was because the team could really add any new ideas or ways to play for the series at the moment. But if they do, they'll at least try it out to see if it works. That's how Nintendo designs most of their games, they start with a game-play idea first, and then they build everything else around that, until they have the game. Baring exceptions, Nintendo rarely kills IP that don't sell as well as others, Pikmin has never been able to push past 1 million copies, yet here we are, with 3 games and a spin-off. Again, there are exceptions, but that's only after a string of unprofitable titles back-to-back (Chibi-Robo, and almost Fire Emblem).

Nintendo will even produce games that have no chance of selling, but someone, somewhere wanted to make them. Sushi Striker is an example, a puzzle game that had no chance of being a hit, was still made because it didn't cost too much, and so it didn't really matter if it failed, it was just something the team had fun making.

Nintendo's goal is to balance creativity with profitability. Yes, making money is important, but providing a wide range of titles for different consumers is equally as vital.

Actually, the reason Nintendo often rests on IPs is because they simply ran out of ideas for them. That's actually the real reason why F-Zero hasn't been seen in a while, Miyamoto said it was because the team could really add any new ideas or ways to play for the series at the moment.

And yet Nintendo seems to have absolutely no trouble giving us Mario Kart after Mario Kart, Smash after Smash, Zelda after Zelda. Games that build on their foundation in iteration on already established mechanics and world building. I don't buy for a single second, from Miyamoto no less, that the reason they rest on unused IPs is due to (for a lack of a better term) creative bankruptcy. Not Nintendo. This is why I'm always led to believe with these properties it's other considerations than creative (cultural mostly). They simply have little interest.

That's how Nintendo designs most of their games, they start with a game-play idea first, and then they build everything else around that, until they have the game.

I remember Miyamoto coming out and explaining how they work on an idea and then look to their existing IPs to see which would be the best fit. I heavily disagree with this design approach for three reasons:

Firstly, I believe games, once made, are established and beholden to their mechanics in the genre of which they reside (with some room for iterative flexibility), but to completely uproot that risks betraying the fundamental tenets that gives the IP its strength and appeal and has made it so beloved and risks alienating the fan base (Federation Force is a prime example of this). Secondly, I find it risks stagnation and IP fatigue by neglecting other creative elements that people enjoy gaming for: new music, new worlds, new characters. No matter how fresh or innovative an idea is, it's not going to bring in anybody new who already doesn't care for Mario, Kart, or Smash, etc. Finally, it limits variety of their software catalog which would help bring new customers into their ecosystem and help broaden their market demographic.

Baring exceptions, Nintendo rarely kills IP that don't sell as well as others, Pikmin has never been able to push past 1 million copies, yet here we are, with 3 games and a spin-off. Again, there are exceptions, but that's only after a string of unprofitable titles back-to-back (Chibi-Robo, and almost Fire Emblem).

Pilotwings, F-Zero, and Wave Race cry out from their graves at the bolded sentiment, though as I've said, I don't think money is the main factor in their disregard. But they're effectively as good as dead. I would include Metroid into that list had Prime 4 not been announced, but I think it's safe to say that it will be the last we will see of that franchise until most of us are in our fifties and possibly sixties, if ever. I'm expecting it to be the last entry.

Pikmin seems to be one game Nintendo is willing to front for Miyamoto, perhaps in appreciation for him nigh single-handedly building the company up on the back of his ideas and talent. That's kind of his personal love child.

Nintendo will even produce games that have no chance of selling, but someone, somewhere wanted to make them. Sushi Striker is an example, a puzzle game that had no chance of being a hit, was still made because it didn't cost too much, and so it didn't really matter if it failed, it was just something the team had fun making.

Yea, sorry. It's difficult for me to give Nintendo credit for making a game like this that won't have much of a chance of selling when its investment will more than likely be recouped from a day or two of interest coming from their billions of dollars in the bank.

This should be treated as an absolute afterthought to a company their size. They are the third largest corporation in Japan....they are a frikken' monster.

Nintendo's goal is to balance creativity with profitability. Yes, making money is important, but providing a wide range of titles for different consumers is equally as vital.

Which I think they are perfectly capable of doing while putting out something a bit more ambitious than the above. Indies and mobile-tier games should be supplementary to the main titles. I just would like to see more games on the level, effort, investment, and polish the likes of the Galaxy games, Zelda, Smash, Kart. But NEW properties. They have a few, but need to up it even more. Bring out the older ones, give them their due respect, broaden western support.....and bring back the old Nintendo that I used to love.

The difference is that the teams behind those games consistently have ideas for where to take those series. If Nintendo had any ideas for one of their IP, they'd peruse it. That's actually how Star Fox Zero was born, for better or worse. The team sat around without ideas, and then they decided the Wii U gamepad was a good fit for a Star Fox game (in practice it wasn't, but that's beside the point).

That's how Miyamoto likes to design his games. Everyone else at Nintendo is a bit more liberal than that. Also keep in mind, that Nintendo's internal software isn't run by Miyamoto anymore. Sure, he'll look at stuff and give advice if developers choose to ask, but he's not an active decision maker anymore regarding games. That's Shinya Takahashi, who came from the former SPD division at Nintendo, who was more liberal in how they approached the Nintendo design philosophy. Sure, if it's a game that would work really well with an existing IP, Nintendo will peruse it. But if not, then they build a new one from scratch.

Fortunately, Nintendo puts out more than Mario and Zelda on an annual basis. Ever heard of Astral Chain? or Nintendo Labo? ARMS?

Those series died not due to poor sales, but due to lack of new ideas as I mentioned. Pilotwings got a 3DS game, but aside from that, not much else, since there doesn't seem to be much left to take the series. Like I said, Nintendo will bring back an IP if they or someone they know has any good ideas for it. Kid Icarus was seemingly dead until Uprising came along, and that's because Sakurai had a radical idea for where to take the property. Nintendo prides itself on being unique, even from itself a lot of the time. If the team can't find some new element or gameplay style to put into their games that fits, then it's probably not worth making, at least not in-house.

Pikmin continued despite modest sales because the Miyamoto is very passionate about the series, and thus has many different ideas and directions to take it in. Plus it sells well enough for Nintendo to keep it around. Likewise, if Kosuke Yabuki has a lot of ideas for an ARMS sequel, he'll go forward with it. It was successful, and there's a lot of room to grow from the gameplay and universe.

@MirkoS77 said:

Yea, sorry. It's difficult for me to give Nintendo credit for making a game like this that won't have much of a chance of selling when its investment will more than likely be recouped from a day or two of interest coming from their billions of dollars in the bank.

This should be treated as an absolute afterthought to a company their size. They are the third largest company in Japan....they are a frikken' monster.

That's just one example, but there's obviously bigger budget stuff as well. The Wii game Pandora's Tower comes to mind. It was a labyrinthy action game with a depressing tone and atmosphere. Nintendo published the game in Japan, and it never sold all that well due to being released late in the Wii's life. Nevertheless, Nintendo more than likely new this game was too niche and too late to be anything but a failure, but they were willing to take a chance on it because the developers at Ganbarion really wanted to go forward with the idea. Another example is Ever Oasis, another late release in the 3DS' life once again in a niche genre with a decent budget that once again sold poorly due to its circumstances. There was no way in hell anybody at Nintendo thought this would be a hit, yet it got made anyway.

You have to remember that the bigger the budget, the more money you could potentially loose on the game, so Nintendo is very careful about not overspending on the games they produce, especially the niche, risky ones. Sure, a company with their net-worth can chew through an Ever Oasis or Astral Chain if they fail, but put too much money into those games, and a good chunk of that war chest can be gone in an instant.

Fortunately they do that. They splurge on big budget stuff Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild, games that also deconstruct and toss out conventions of their IP as well. Have younger staff, toy-around with mid-budget projects like ARMS and Nintendo Labo. And also take in low-mid budget projects from outside developers like Astral Chain and Snipperclips. Nintendo is one of the most well rounded major publishers on the market at the moment. Sure, there's room for improvement, like with their Western developed games, but the position they're in now is actually the best for them at the moment.

Appreciate you taking the time here, I'm enjoying this exchange.

Fortunately, Nintendo puts out more than Mario and Zelda on an annual basis. Ever heard of Astral Chain? or Nintendo Labo? ARMS?

Can't say I'm a fan of those game, but granted.

Those series died not due to poor sales, but due to lack of new ideas as I mentioned. Pilotwings got a 3DS game, but aside from that, not much else, since there doesn't seem to be much left to take the series. Like I said, Nintendo will bring back an IP if they or someone they know has any good ideas for it. Kid Icarus was seemingly dead until Uprising came along, and that's because Sakurai had a radical idea for where to take the property. Nintendo prides itself on being unique, even from itself a lot of the time. If the team can't find some new element or gameplay style to put into their games that fits, then it's probably not worth making, at least not in-house.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. It's a poor, transparent excuse by Miyamoto in trying to deflect from their neglection of longstanding properties, and looking at their current games evidences as much.

Don't you find it curious how Nintendo's best sellers and biggest games always seem to have new ideas to justify their existence? That's not a coincidence. Nothing new that Nintendo includes in their sequels is so significant gameplay-wise that it justifies one IP above another, and especially to the extent that the others are ignored for so many years. Perhaps they'll add one or two novelties, but the games are largely the same in their basic concepts, premises, and mechanics that we have been enjoying for decades now. What did the newest Mario Kart introduce, for instance? Upside down gravity courses? Something of which is far more befitting of an IP with futuristic hovercrafts than a cartoony kart racer with wheels, yet the IP that seemingly was far more suited to this new idea was entirely ignored.

Even if this weren't true, I simply don't accept that Nintendo is incapable of thinking up new ideas for their older IPs. They could do it if they wanted to and I doubt the fans would complain much even if they didn't. People enjoy IPs for the known. General improvements are expected, but not the reinvention of the wheel or significant mechanical innovation every time, which is simply a flawed philosophy to hold when it gets to the point where valuable and beloved IPs are left on the floor that could be selling systems, bolstering their software catalog, broadening their appeal, bringing back older fans, leveraging nostalgia, and ultimately getting them more profit.

It's just bad business, and a large waste of their resources.

You have to remember that the bigger the budget, the more money you could potentially loose on the game, so Nintendo is very careful about not overspending on the games they produce, especially the niche, risky ones. Sure, a company with their net-worth can chew through an Ever Oasis or Astral Chain if they fail, but put too much money into those games, and a good chunk of that war chest can be gone in an instant.

You also need to remember that Nintendo runs an ecosystem, and their games are not products that stand by themselves. Their developmental investments shouldn't be viewed or determined on its RoI in exclusivity, but in the grand scheme of how they benefit the entire platform.

If they significantly invest in a game and it recoups only 50-75% of its developmental budget, that's not necessarily a loss. There are people out there who will buy a system for one game. Rest assured, Metroid Prime 4 (if great) will sell systems to people who otherwise may not have ever bought a Switch. So if Nintendo loses on 4's developmental budget, they very well may have gained more by selling many systems worth five times the game's cost to new customers. That's profit. They in addition bring people into their ecosystem who will buy further games to capitalize on their investment over the years. More profit. They may then subscribe to Nintendo Online. Even more profit. Nintendo will also have added more variety to their software catalog. Yet even more profit, and all of which helps offset the loss.

That potential cannot exist when Nintendo sits there determining which games they should allocate large amounts of money to predicated solely by viewing its success in exclusivity and not in the context of complimenting and nurturing a thriving ecosystem. And I'm sorry.....those smaller games and experiments that Nintendo does? They're not system sellers. Nor are the Marios or Zeldas that they do splurge on as the fan-base already exists. If Nintendo wishes to broaden their reach to new audiences, they should be investing heavily in uncertain bets that move away from their typical flavor (which games like ARMS and Splatoon, while nice to see, do not do).

And Nintendo's war chest can absorb more than a few large scale bombs. You know how much Nintendo's valued at in 2019? $85 billion. Not sure how much of that is liquid, but it's got to be a decent chunk.

Fortunately they do that. They splurge on big budget stuff Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild, games that also deconstruct and toss out conventions of their IP as well. Have younger staff, toy-around with mid-budget projects like ARMS and Nintendo Labo. And also take in low-mid budget projects from outside developers like Astral Chain and Snipperclips. Nintendo is one of the most well rounded major publishers on the market at the moment. Sure, there's room for improvement, like with their Western developed games, but the position they're in now is actually the best for them at the moment.

Yes, they splurge on assured bets, which again, does nothing to help gain new customers' interests. Nintendo may have a lot of output, but I'm not sure I'd consider them a well-rounded publisher. If they were, they'd pay more heed to the western market and be more fiscally liberal with games that wouldn't be sure bets.

What western ‘empire’? They have what, one studio and they haven’t released anything new in 4 years? Wow, you sheep or cows (whatever Nintendo fanboys are called) are wacky!

Thank you, I appreciate the debate as well.

If it was a thinly veiled excuse, that doesn't explain why Metroid still came back after laying dormant from Other M crashing and burning. Or why Nintendo decided to give Sakurai Kid Icarus of all properties to work with, or why even Star Fox was brought back with the 64 remake on 3DS and Zero on Wii U. Miyamoto has truth in what he's saying, Nintendo only really seems to shelf an IP if there's not many ideas, or interest among the development teams to explore it at the moment.

The teams behind Nintendo's mainstays are able to come up with a lot of new ideas simply because those series have a lot to mine from. Sure, you can argue that it's a bit odd that Mario Kart 8 went with zero gravity courses when they already have F-Zero, but that's really on the Mario Kart team. If Nintendo wants to bring back F-Zero, they'd need to find a way to distinguish it from Mario Kart 8 DX besides just "Make it Faster". It'd need to be radically different and unique from that series in just about every way.

Nintendo never really forces their producers or developers to make games they don't want to. Zelda BotW 2 for example is happening because Aounuma and his team had so many ideas for BotW DLC that they were simply too big and elaborate to make into DLC, so they decided to do a sequel. They're making BotW 2 because they want to make it, not because the Marketing department told them that open world RPGs are hot shit right now, so you need to fart out a BotW sequel by Holiday 2021. Likewise, we're not really getting a new Star Fox at the moment because the team behind Zero really don't seem to have any ideas that could gain interest among players. As I said, for better or worse, Nintendo insists on being unique, even from itself. Thus, Games in IPs only get made if the team wants to make them, not because marketing committees tell them.

I get what your saying. And it makes sense for a big AAA showstopper like Metroid Prime 4, that's a case where Nintendo is letting the developers take as much time and money needed to make the game as great as possible. So much so where they publicly had to announced that they restated development, and change developers to make it possible. Splurging on a popular brand like that to get people to buy a Switch makes sense, even if it doesn't make back all of its expenses, it should at least sell systems, so you'll make the rest back on the amount of profit you get from a boost in Switch sales.

But could the same really be said about something like Astral Chain? A weird, niche action game from a developer who's never had a proven track record for blockbuster success? Spending too much on a game like that is frankly, financial suicide. It's not a game that moves units, and is too odd and Japanese to be marketable to a mainstream audience, so it's more important to express discipline over the budget there. Make the game great, but don't go overboard on a game that niche.

I'd argue, that even existing IP can broaden Nintendo's audience. Breath of the Wild introduced so many new people to the Legend of Zelda series, many coming from other open world RPGs. Super Mario Odyssey is the best selling 3D Mario game in years, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold largely to an audience that didn't even know what the Wii U was. Smash Ultimate brought back people who bounced off the series after Melee, as well as newcomers. You see my point. You can use a pre-existing property in a new way to attract new audiences, while not alienating previous ones. The Switch proves that, first party software sales are the best Nintendo's ever seen on a system, even niche games like Xenoblade and Labo can pull a decent 1 million copies.

Again, I point you to Switch software sales, which are breaking series records on a regular basis. And while yes, Nintendo has room for improvement as I mentioned, they're still doing better at delivering a diverse lineup. Like Marvel UA3, which launched a week prior to Fire Emblem 3H, and was made mostly to appeal to western audiences. So it's a start, one they need to take further, but a start none the less.

@TheMisterManGuy:

The teams behind Nintendo's mainstays are able to come up with a lot of new ideas simply because those series have a lot to mine from. Sure, you can argue that it's a bit odd that Mario Kart 8 went with zero gravity courses when they already have F-Zero, but that's really on the Mario Kart team. If Nintendo wants to bring back F-Zero, they'd need to find a way to distinguish it from Mario Kart 8 DX besides just "Make it Faster". It'd need to be radically different and unique from that series in just about every way.

F-Zero is already distinguished from Kart. It's a futuristic sci-fi-centric, extremely fast-paced racer with an amazing techno soundtrack that's an exhilarating rush, while Kart's more of a family-centric, slower-paced one that exploits the Mushroom Kingdom. They share mechanical similarities due to genre, but they hold appeal to different audiences.

Both Kart and F-Zero saw their inception on the SNES, and Nintendo had no trouble whatsoever in distinguishing them in the marketplace right aside each other when they weren't that drastically divergent mechanics-wise. Nor on the GameCube was this a problem. Why now? It is this inconsistency that tends me to view Miyamoto's explanations as a cop out. But I suspect that more of the issue stem from Nintendo's leadership changing from a businessman's hands (Yamauchi) into a creator's (Iwata).

Nintendo never really forces their producers or developers to make games they don't want to. Zelda BotW 2 for example is happening because Aounuma and his team had so many ideas for BotW DLC that they were simply too big and elaborate to make into DLC, so they decided to do a sequel. They're making BotW 2 because they want to make it, not because the Marketing department told them that open world RPGs are hot shit right now, so you need to fart out a BotW sequel by Holiday 2021. Likewise, we're not really getting a new Star Fox at the moment because the team behind Zero really don't seem to have any ideas that could gain interest among players. As I said, for better or worse, Nintendo insists on being unique, even from itself. Thus, Games in IPs only get made if the team wants to make them, not because marketing committees tell them.

I believe we're both being somewhat disingenuous in downplaying the role of how these franchises sell in how much attention Nintendo accords them. I think we both know that Mario, Zelda, Kart and Smash will never be shelved for a lack of ideas. Not simply because they're IPs that are more conducive to novelty in gameplay, but because they sell well. If F-Zero moved truckloads, I would not be convinced that Nintendo wouldn't keep coming up with new ideas for it.

Thing is, gamers don't love IPs solely because they are constantly reinventing themselves. Again, iterative improvements are expected, but people are interested in Starfox because they enjoy blowing shit up in space as Fox McCloud while dodging asteroids, dog fighting spaceships, and trying to shoot down Slippy. I just cannot agree that Nintendo lets these franchise rot because they cannot think of a single thing that would keep it "fresh" to players.

I get what your saying. And it makes sense for a big AAA showstopper like Metroid Prime 4, that's a case where Nintendo is letting the developers take as much time and money needed to make the game as great as possible. So much so where they publicly had to announced that they restated development, and change developers to make it possible. Splurging on a popular brand like that to get people to buy a Switch makes sense, even if it doesn't make back all of its expenses, it should at least sell systems, so you'll make the rest back on the amount of profit you get from a boost in Switch sales.

But could the same really be said about something like Astral Chain? A weird, niche action game from a developer who's never had a proven track record for blockbuster success? Spending too much on a game like that is frankly, financial suicide. It's not a game that moves units, and is too odd and Japanese to be marketable to a mainstream audience, so it's more important to express discipline over the budget there. Make the game great, but don't go overboard on a game that niche.

Metroid has never been one of Nintendo's better sellers; as you probably are aware it's more popular amongst western audiences than eastern. They've never lost money on it, but it's nowhere near the success of Mario Kart. They simply don't see it as all that worth it fiscally and time wise, which again, I disagree with due to my previous point about games assisting an ecosystem.

As for determining which properties to pay more heed to financially, I believe Nintendo should be respectful to their legacy. As for new properties, that's where shrewd business acumen comes into play, and where I believe their cultural insularity is hurting them. Ascertaining and reading the market, recognizing trends, and aligning them with their creative predilections while effecting prudent fiscal allocations respectively. This is precisely what happened with BotW, to great result. But there's always going to be risk involved no matter what they do, that's simply the nature of business.

I'd argue, that even existing IP can broaden Nintendo's audience. Breath of the Wild introduced so many new people to the Legend of Zelda series, many coming from other open world RPGs. Super Mario Odyssey is the best selling 3D Mario game in years, and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe sold largely to an audience that didn't even know what the Wii U was. Smash Ultimate brought back people who bounced off the series after Melee, as well as newcomers. You see my point. You can use a pre-existing property in a new way to attract new audiences, while not alienating previous ones. The Switch proves that, first party software sales are the best Nintendo's ever seen on a system, even niche games like Xenoblade and Labo can pull a decent 1 million copies.

I'll grant there's probably a bunch of people that've jumped on BotW considering the market's current appetite for open-world experiences (and that their last Zelda was coming off of Skyward Sword....ugh), but I'm not sure I'd entirely attribute new customers solely to it, or Odyssey. It's difficult to say how much Switch's portability comes into play but I'm suspect that's a reason people have purchased one more so than franchises that Nintendo's been leaning on for so long now. The same argument could've been made for the Wii as it's fairly evident that that system sold into the stratosphere due to something that transcended traditional gamer (and franchise) allure to grab mainstream interest.

When it comes down to it, I'm more arguing it looking at Nintendo and their properties from a business/marketing/fan perspective and you're viewing it from Nintendo's developers' perspective who are being driven by their creative desires. That's fair enough, but I feel that a careful balance needs to be struck in this and that Nintendo is (if what you and Miyamoto say holds water) so creatively focused in adherence to mechanical ingenuity that it's coming at the cost of wasting their potential and losing fans.

It is, but with Mario Kart 8, it'd be harder to distinguish it since the game already has Zero Gravity and a 200cc mode. A new F-Zero in Nintendo's eyes, would need some form of new gameplay element to not only better stand out from the competition, and Nintendo simply hasn't come up with one yet. Personally, I'd be fine with just an HD GX, but again this is Nintendo, the company who can't seem to release a game unless it's completely unique from anything on the market, or even in their own catalog.

With Mario Kart 8 DX, it's much harder for a new F-Zero to distinguish itself from the other series. Sure, back in the past, it was easier, as stuff like Zero Gravity and 200cc didn't exist in Mario Kart. But these days, there doesn't seem to be any ideas or interest from the development team to try and make a new F-Zero work. Mario Kart 8 is selling well, and if there's no real ideas to take F-Zero in a new direction either from inside or outside the company, then Nintendo doesn't see why they should bother at the moment. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying Nintendo's decision is right or wrong, I'm just giving some perspective as to what they might feel when trying to bring it back.

I think it could very well be possible. My honest opinion? I think we probably won't see an original Mario Kart game on Switch... Ever. Maybe the next console, but I feel the team is more interested in building on ARMS at the moment than coming up with new MK ideas. So in a way, Mario Kart could be shelved for a while despite its great sales.

If Nintendo cared only about the sales of their properties, Star Fox would've been dead and buried after Assault Bombed on the GameCube. The fact that they even bothered resurrecting it despite mediocre sales shows Nintendo is willing to use any of their in-house IP if they find a good use for them. 64 3D happened because the team thought the 3DS' 3D was a good fit for Star Fox, same with Zero and the Wii U Gamepad.

I don't buy the fact that Nintendo doesn't care about Metroid simply because it doesn't sell. Even if it's less popular than Mario, Nintendo's always seen it as one of their premiere franchises, simply because as you said, it's typically always been a hit in the Western market. They wouldn't have bothered bringing the series back if they didn't see any potential in the series. They even went as far as to publicly update fans on the status of Prime 4's development, and started from scratch with the original developers to ensure that it's the best it can possibly be. All that work from the original build couldn't have been cheap, and restarting development like that was a pretty big risk, but it was a risk Nintendo was willing to take if it means a better product. This really isn't a move that a purely numbers-driven company would've done. Any other publisher would've just canned the game outright, but the fact that Nintendo gave the producers another chance to get it right showed that they care about delivering a great game regardless of the IP's sales history.

If you're aiming for commercial success, I agree. This thinking was also applied to Splatoon and ARMS. Creative games with business acumen put into them as well. Splatoon became Nintendo's most successful original property in years, and while ARMS didn't make quite as big a splash, it was still able to win over 2 million people. That said, there will always be ideas and developers that are almost never guaranteed to be a hit either. I think Nintendo should continue taking in those types of games as well. Even if it fails, it still helps bolster the library and provides consumers with more choice, even if its a really niche and unsuccessful choice.

I agree with this. As I said, I don't agree or disagree with Nintendo's thought process here, I was simply trying to explain where they're probably coming from. I certainly would like to see Nintendo branch out in terms of the developers they work with. They haven't worked with many western developers who aren't Next Level or Retro in years, so I would like to see them do more in this regard.