Should Iwata Resign?

[Serebii]

That's where they went wrong. If you have confidence in your hardware, you know it will be widely adopted and sell software. For that reason they should do as others have been doing and sell at a small loss, knowing that you'll grab customers, generate profit through software and services, and generate profit as it becomes cheaper to produce.

 

Also while next gen titles may have high launch RRPs but as has been shown with PS3/360, many games reduce in price a great deal after some months. Nintendo's often kinda stick.

Which is where I think Iwata's business structure change comes in. He mentioned not going smartphone. He implied not going third party, but he explicitly brought up the pricing model as an issue. That's what is going to change.

[Ashley]

I don't necessarily think he should go, but they should hire essentially a head of Nintendo America (not Reggie, who I know pretty much is that but he can go do a running leap for all I care to be frank) that has plenty of experience in the American/Western industry and they should bloody listen to them. I'm not saying that person should do Iwata's job, but they should have someone that knows the market, which clearly Iwata doesn't, and put their faith in them to 'Westernise' their strategy (working alongside Nintendo Japan). Give them power over advertising, give them power over buying up studios/creating deals etc and TRUST AN OUTSIDER!

 

I don't think the problem is necessarily Iwata, but rather Nintendo's insular we-only-know-whats-best attitude. They need to remember its not still 1889 any more and gaijins can have ideas too and the market/industry has in general shifted West. They can't keep expecting to keep Japan in their pocket and everyone else will fall in place because of their name any more. It's not 1989 either, Nintendo.

[James McGeachie]

If he's unwilling to change direction, yes.

 

If he finally gets it and steers a different course, no.

 

If the different direction is just to try and badly capitalise on the mobile market, super yes.

[Agent Gibbs]

Lets just hope they don't Hire Don Matrick for NOA

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

How many mistakes is Iwata allowed to make?

 

Eventually there gets to the point where you realise this guy just doesnt get it.

 

After presiding over two of the biggest consoles in Nintendo's history and also invading pop culture like Nintendo hadn't since the SNES, surely one borked console is allowed.

The way he turned around the 3DS after making a mess of that is phenomenal as well!

[Jonnas]

My view of this thread is that Iwata's successes are being downplayed, compared to his blunders. Just saying, give credit where credit is due.

 

Taking that into account, no I don't think he should resign. Give him a chance to recover (and really, some people here are overreacting. The Wii U is not in the same position that the Dreamcast was. A comparison with the Gamecube is more apt.)

 

I also like what Serebii said about his policies regarding DLC. It's always good to see a major company setting an example for responsible use of DLC, and sticking to that position out of principle.

[flameboy]

Only if the entire board agreed, or else he'd be out the door pretty much straight away. You bring up Square Enix but remember they were putting together a new strategy together at the time anyway (most strategies are updated every 3-4 years). Also, it is NOT Iwata's strategies, it is the entire organisations, and it is made up equally by those on the board. Iwata only has 1/20th of the strategy contribution for all we know (assuming there are 20 people on the board).

 

You're the one saying things are 'cut and dry', I'm saying it's not like that at all. I have no idea why you keep going on about this..I'm talking from experience here. If you're going to keep posting nonsense then just don't bother replying because this whole 'I know everything' charade is getting unnecessary.

 

Moving on.

 

The problem with their board structure isn't so much Iwata but the lack of Giobalrepresentation. I mean, why the fuck isn't Reggie on there? They talk about how much of an issue it is to have a console plugged into the main TV and how the Wii U solves that problem, but in America the average household has over 3 televisions, and the majority of gamers are young adults so having a quiet console so 'mum wouldn't mind it' makes no sense. I understand that they are a japanese company, but it's like they are oblivious to the state of their company.

 

Yes this is major. When I mentioned an outside hire in my previous post I did kind of potentially mean a foreigner. Whilst he may not be on the board look at the central role Mark Cerny took in engineering and being the face of the PS4. (whose to say if PS4 doesn't ultimately become the big thing that he won't one day be up there near the top) This would NEVER happen at Nintendo. Sony seem to much more embrace their global nature than I can imagine Nintendo doing which is bizarre when you consider their push and subsequent take over of the American market with the NES.

[Goron_3]

Yes this is major. When I mentioned an outside hire in my previous post I did kind of potentially mean a foreigner. Whilst he may not be on the board look at the central role Mark Cerny took in engineering and being the face of the PS4. (whose to say if PS4 doesn't ultimately become the big thing that he won't one day be up there near the top) This would NEVER happen at Nintendo. Sony seem to much more embrace their global nature than I can imagine Nintendo doing which is bizarre when you consider their push and subsequent take over of the American market with the NES.

 

Agreed.

 

The Mark Cerny thing is genius...Japanese company build a console..make the face of it to developers and fans an american bloke. Genius.

[Daft]

To be completely fair, Mark Cerny has been integral to Playstation since the very early days. He may be American but Sony have always had major posts in both Europe and America alongside Japan; and he may be a freelancer now but he has worked for and with Sony for a very long time. Sony's problem has always been a lack of cohesion and communication; it's why they've banged on about 'One Sony' so much of the past year or so (and why the Sony logo now appears before all their studio's trailers/films). Nintendo don't have the luxury of time invested overseas.

[Rummy]

I must say that Iwata has led Nintendo from disaster to disaster since he took over.

Selling Rare off was the biggest mistake in the history of Nintendo. They took a second party developer that was as productive as Nintendo themselves (compare the pure quantity of Rare vs first party Nintendo software for the N64 as an example. Then realise that Rare usually were on-par with Nintendo when it comes to quantity) and then gave them away to Microsoft. Thus Nintendo has consistently been experiencing a lack of mature titles, not to mention that Rare used to be complete masters of squeezing incredible graphics out of ageing Nintendo hardware, dare I say it more so than Nintendo themselves. As productive as those guys used to be, they could've solved Nintendos software droughts on their own.

 

Overall, Hiroshi Yamauchi and Howard Lincoln built solid relationships with western developers, such as Rare, Retro and others. Reggie should have continued where Lincoln left off and avoided his predecessors misstakes (look at the Rockstar situation). Instead Iwata and Reggie turned Nintendo into the North Korea of gaming.

 

How they pissed off their still large fanbase by releasing shovelware (every piece of software with 'wii' in the title, just look at how many of those there were) instead of delivering the Nintendo Experience. Oh, and to make matters worse, we must never forget:

"I'm not a gamer"

 

Iwata being a moron when it comes to which projects to greenlight has just made the perceived drought even worse than it is. The few first party games available and announced have generally focused on casuals or been to similar to each other (do we really need three minigame compilations and three 2D platformers announced within the first 6 months of the sonsoles release when the console's lacking in so many other genres?).

 

Rare was dead without Nintendo selling them - selling them in fact was a good idea rather than trying to carry the dead weight. The Stampers sold 51% of the company to Microsoft, no? Imagine the problems Ninty might have gotten down the line from that? Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken a number of employees left/defected(free radical was ex-Rare, no?). If Rare really were still that great of a company, then Microsoft would have profitted in so many ways from it - they didn't. Rare's output post MS has been pretty sub-par compared to their previous by most accounts; whether that's due to change in working relationship or what I'm not sure.

 

People will see I've posted in her and expect me to say off with his head! BUT I'm not going to, there is this quote that surfaced at their recent press conference:

 

Ok so let him come up with this new business structure present it to the company's shareholders/investors and then if they are not happy with it being the way forward that's the time to start accessing his position. I know some of would argue it is as simple as putting a version of Mario game on smartphones to lure people into Nintendo platforms but that's besides the point.

 

My real issue with sacking him/him resigns is if they are going to appoint from within I don't see the point. If Iwata can't get the team innovating correctly then whose to say anyone else internally would. Granted this does happen with companies but I feel like Nintendo employees are perhaps so entrenched in their philosophies that it might be struggle. So unless there is an outside hire they have head hunted and are ready to appoint what do they stand to benefit from him leaving? The only other issue for me would be is a year long enough to turn this around? If they lose a crap ton of money again next year surely he has to go no matter what growth or move into new markets they make?

 

If there's someone within the company who think he's equally as useless, has big ideas and thinks they could do a better job? That's how/why you might end up with someone better. Of course, they might NOT be better - but I've definitely seen a few people in my time failing in their job :p

 

I think Goron(and Ashley) are spot on about the biggest problem - lack of western/global representation and awareness.

 

Interesting about Sony and the global rep front - weren't they also the first to go region free? Is the 360 region free too, btw?

[tapedeck]

Iwata is a progressive, forward thinking CEO who has brought Nintendo out of their own shadows with Nintendo directs, Miiverse social integration and a sense of humour. He also greenlit the Wii and DS showing he has the bullet bills in his trousers to be of benefit to this industry.

 

However, as a prior game designer I think he focuses on the internal games at Nintendo too much. You would think he would want to know what developers were up to and to expand his own horizons more by exploring gaming concepts and relationships with other companies as well. I feel like Nintendo as a whole are only starting to do this again with Lego/W101/Bayonetta2/Hyrule Warriors/Fire Emblem crossover. I also think they were burnt in the past with Namco's take on StarFox and Team Ninja's Metroid attempt.

 

I believe historically, Nintendo were in the zone with Wii riding high on their fit/minigame/waggle concepts. This made Nintendo even more insular in regards to working with developers. Especially when few other big developers (certainly in the west) showed an interest in Wii.

I can just imagine them messing about all day with motion control - sawing, shooting, riding bikes, lunging, fencing. Bet it was like warioware at times and then they forgot to put games out...

 

I'd like to see Nintendo come out fighting and I think Iwata, as a developer will do this - albeit slowly.

Sacking a CEO over one major blip is a western approach. Cut-throat. Focused on the bottom line. Focused on immediate financial returns.

Not a Japanese 'culturally different' approach where work is arguably focused on honour, prestige and a team approach.

 

I know that if you sack someone instantly over one poor performance, the rest of the staff become worried. It breeds instability.

What next? Miyamoto makes a game that bombs and they sack him or stifle his creativity?

That's not the Nintendo ethos. It should be applauded in an industry obsessed with 'the next big thing' all of the time.

 

I just think he needs time. Nintendo turned the 3DS around and have invested a ton in staff and new development facilities -- which will bear fruit in time. They have used the Wii money wisely in my opinion, using it to grow internally at a slow rate sure, but nonetheless, with everything happening in Japan in relation to economics and the structure of their country - this was arguably a wise approach in the long term. But it HAS affected WiiU software, clearly.

 

I look forward to a Nintendo that does move forward. Time will tell if that is the case, but as believe Iwata to be the man for the job. Please understand. :p

Edited January 24, 2014 by tapedeck

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Having seen the quotes(which I presume to be accurate) of his repeated promises of each generation saying about keeping momentum and avoiding droubts, actually referencing the previous systems failures then failing with the next; I think something definitely has to change. Is that the position of CEO? Not neccessarily. There's not telling what a new CEO might do, and if they might make things worse, and I'm not fully educated or aware of who would be the ideal candidates for taking his place. If he was to be replaced, who's likely in line to do so?

 

I agree that the western approach is not always the best but...

 

Just how many times can this man fail? I remember the promises of ensuring the WiiU´s launch and launch window will be refreshed with a healthy stream of software. Perhaps I am being bias to the 'good' - but doing good is a given; a CEO is expected to make good decisions and make the right moves.

 

I'm not going to act like I know the hardships of adhering to such promises etc but I think its pretty OBVIOUS something has to change... Something isn't working and perhaps for a good few generations back.

[flameboy]

Rare was dead without Nintendo selling them - selling them in fact was a good idea rather than trying to carry the dead weight. The Stampers sold 51% of the company to Microsoft, no? Imagine the problems Ninty might have gotten down the line from that? Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken a number of employees left/defected(free radical was ex-Rare, no?). If Rare really were still that great of a company, then Microsoft would have profitted in so many ways from it - they didn't. Rare's output post MS has been pretty sub-par compared to their previous by most accounts; whether that's due to change in working relationship or what I'm not sure.

 

If there's someone within the company who think he's equally as useless, has big ideas and thinks they could do a better job? That's how/why you might end up with someone better. Of course, they might NOT be better - but I've definitely seen a few people in my time failing in their job :p

 

I think Goron(and Ashley) are spot on about the biggest problem - lack of western/global representation and awareness.

 

Interesting about Sony and the global rep front - weren't they also the first to go region free? Is the 360 region free too, btw?

 

I said about the global presence too!!!! lol Anyway yes you are right someone internally can change things up I've certainly seen it happen in my line of work.

 

I guess Nintendo were region free with handhelds until recently?! 360 was region free in theory but had some games that were still region locked. I only know of one Persona game I think of PS3 that was region locked.

[Jonnas]

Sacking a CEO over one major blip is a western approach. Cut-throat. Focused on the bottom line. Focused on immediate financial returns.

Not a Japanese 'culturally different' approach where work is arguably focused on honour, prestige and a team approach.

 

Funnily, I always saw the Japanese mentality as "You aren't sacked. You're the one who has to resign." (though this comes from my view their ever-changing Prime Ministers, who resign the moment a crisis hits )

 

I like what you said about Nintendo thinking of the long run, because I think it's true. Their business model is much more sustainable (even if a tad too conservative at times).

 

I agree that the western approach is not always the best but...

 

Just how many times can this man fail? I remember the promises of ensuring the WiiU´s launch and launch window will be refreshed with a healthy stream of software. Perhaps I am being bias to the 'good' - but doing good is a given; a CEO is expected to make good decisions and make the right moves.

 

I'm not going to act like I know the hardships of adhering to such promises etc but I think its pretty OBVIOUS something has to change... Something isn't working and perhaps for a good few generations back.

 

Once. Wii U's launch? That was one failure. The 3DS launch? Looked like one at first, but he sure fixed it (so was it really a failure?).

(You could say the falling out with EA was another failure, but I personally count that as part of the Wii U launch problem. Clearly something planned for the Wii U launch that simply didn't work out.)

 

Like I said, there's some overreaction. The promises he made regarding the Wii U haven't had time to come to fruition ever since he started making them.

 

If it's just a question of misliking the direction Nintendo has gone since the Gamecube, then it's more complicated. There's no denying that this path has worked for them, and that the GC underperformed, sales-wise. They might've had a few blunders with the Wii U's release, but to call the past couple of generations a mistake is a very broad generalization.

[Serebii]

Funnily, I always saw the Japanese mentality as "You aren't sacked. You're the one who has to resign." (though this comes from my view their ever-changing Prime Ministers, who resign the moment a crisis hits )

 

I like what you said about Nintendo thinking of the long run, because I think it's true. Their business model is much more sustainable (even if a tad too conservative at times).

 

I read somewhere that Nintendo is not a company that fires people often. If they want rid of you, they'll just shift you to somewhere where you'll be miserable and wait for you to quit. Don't know how true it is, but yeah.

[Daft]

That's a pretty traditional Japanese business tactic.

[Agent Gibbs]

yeah i thought it was more of a global thing to sack the bloke at the top! look how many ceo's chief officers etc etc have been sacked due to company failings or scandals in the UK - the BBC as a prime example - underlings fail, CEO goes (with huge pay off), replacement left to clean up, can't do it fast enough for everyone, resigns, nre guy to fix previous guys mistakes!

 

the way should be thery sort their mistakes ad potentially leave once they've rectified them/sum or are sacked with no payout after X months of no change

 

its like "oh yeah i fucked up gimme X hundreds of thousands and i'll leave...you with the mess"

 

how is that right? where is the acountability?

[Hogge]

Rare was dead without Nintendo selling them - selling them in fact was a good idea rather than trying to carry the dead weight. The Stampers sold 51% of the company to Microsoft, no? Imagine the problems Ninty might have gotten down the line from that? Not to mention that unless I'm mistaken a number of employees left/defected(free radical was ex-Rare, no?). If Rare really were still that great of a company, then Microsoft would have profitted in so many ways from it - they didn't. Rare's output post MS has been pretty sub-par compared to their previous by most accounts; whether that's due to change in working relationship or what I'm not sure.

Rare were brilliant up until when Nintendo sold them off. Starfox Adventures was a really appreciated title on release and Grabbed by the Ghoulies was really decent.

From what I've read in interviews, MS were ready to sign a deal with Nintendo to make all future Rare games both for Nintendo and Microsoft platforms.

Apparently a whole load of key staff left Rare when Microsoft took over. And while it's true that Retro was formed by ex-Rare people, those guys left quite shortly after Goldeneye was finished (because they felt that they, a team of eight people, had made a game that had sold eight million copies and yet hadn't received any bonus whatsoever), so Rare still managed to churn out a load of great games without them.

 

And the problem is that even if Microsofts involvement would've ruined Rares output anyhow, Nintendo have done nothing to allow for a replacement. Retro of course are great, but they're not particularly productive.

 

Nintendo received I believe a few hundred million dollars for selling Rare. This money should be enough to make sure there'll never have to be a software drought on a Nintendo console again (or at least the following ten years). Either by financing the acquisition and expansion of several smaller developers, or developing AAA products (MS paid 375 million for Rare, GTA V, the most expensive game of all time, developed 13 years after Nintendo sold Rare cost "only" 265 million, don't make me adjust that to inflation).

Instead Iwata wiped his nose with that money, or something like that, because the droughts of the last ten years have been ridiculous. We have seen no interresting new IP's, while many of our favorite ones have had a decade long sabatical.

[liger05]

Funnily, I always saw the Japanese mentality as "You aren't sacked. You're the one who has to resign." (though this comes from my view their ever-changing Prime Ministers, who resign the moment a crisis hits )

 

I like what you said about Nintendo thinking of the long run, because I think it's true. Their business model is much more sustainable (even if a tad too conservative at times).

 

 

 

Once. Wii U's launch? That was one failure. The 3DS launch? Looked like one at first, but he sure fixed it (so was it really a failure?).

(You could say the falling out with EA was another failure, but I personally count that as part of the Wii U launch problem. Clearly something planned for the Wii U launch that simply didn't work out.)

 

Like I said, there's some overreaction. The promises he made regarding the Wii U haven't had time to come to fruition ever since he started making them.

 

If it's just a question of misliking the direction Nintendo has gone since the Gamecube, then it's more complicated. There's no denying that this path has worked for them, and that the GC underperformed, sales-wise. They might've had a few blunders with the Wii U's release, but to call the past couple of generations a mistake is a very broad generalization.

 

Wasn't Iwata the boss when the Gamecube failed? The 3DS was no slight blip. Iwata had to dramatically cut the price within six months. It again was a total misread of the market thinking 3D was something people cared about and would pay big money for it. Also let's not forget while the 3DS did turnaround it's still not hitting Iwata's forecast, it was down yoy in Japan for 2013, sales in the West are lower than hoped and software sales are not as high as they should be.

 

The fact that numerous launches have seen software droughts is ridiculous and to say it's just the wii u which is the only blip on his cv isn't quite true. The only period where Nintendo have lost money has been under Iwata.

[Goron_3]

Yeah Iwata was the boss for most of the Gamecube's life, however Yamuachi didn't help the console before it launched tbf...Their attitude of '3rd parties should come to us if they want to develop games' and the choice of mini-DVD's basically killed the console before it started, not to mention that it looked like a toy and they didn't follow up games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark which were huge successes in the West. Iwata did promise 50 million Gamecube sales but in the end it fell way below that.

 

I do find it funny when Iwata is credited for turning the 3DS around, because it wouldn't have needed turning around if it wasn't for some ridiculous business decision and a lack of software. He has had some great years as CEO though (2007-2009), it's just a shame that he constantly missed the boat when it comes to knowing what the market is like.

[david.dakota]

I think Eurogamer's article is a better assessment of the truth.

 

Miyamoto is a creative lame duck nowadays.

[liger05]

Yeah Iwata was the boss for most of the Gamecube's life, however Yamuachi didn't help the console before it launched tbf...Their attitude of '3rd parties should come to us if they want to develop games' and the choice of mini-DVD's basically killed the console before it started, not to mention that it looked like a toy and they didn't follow up games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark which were huge successes in the West. Iwata did promise 50 million Gamecube sales but in the end it fell way below that.

 

I do find it funny when Iwata is credited for turning the 3DS around, because it wouldn't have needed turning around if it wasn't for some ridiculous business decision and a lack of software. He has had some great years as CEO though (2007-2009), it's just a shame that he constantly missed the boat when it comes to knowing what the market is like.

 

True but he didn't learn from the commercial failure of the Gamecube. Instead of looking at why the Gamecube failed he came to the simple conclusion that Nintendo cannot compete in the hardware business.

[Jonnas]

True but he didn't learn from the commercial failure of the Gamecube. Instead of looking at why the Gamecube failed he came to the simple conclusion that Nintendo cannot compete in the hardware business.

 

I said this in another thread, but I don't mind repeating it: hardware only sells if the company is willing to sell it. A couple of examples:

-With the PS4, the difference to its predecessor is negligible to a layman's eye, but as long as Sony hammers its tagline, people will convince themselves that the leap is significant (it's not like millions are buying PS4s due to its genuinely new features)

-The Mega Drive wasn't considerably better than the SNES, but they made power a selling point. It worked to the point that the marketing campaign is still well remembered today.

 

Nintendo will never make a big fuss over graphics or power, it's not their style. They'd rather show you Fox with a magic staff, Samus scanning corpses and Mario moving with the FLUDD, instead of pointing out Fox's gorgeous fur, Prime's detailed environments and Sunshine's brilliant water effects. They're also more likely to make Wind Waker before Twilight Princess.

 

So, could Nintendo make hardware on par with the competition. Certainly. Would they care to show it off and make it a selling point? No, not properly.

Taking this into account, is the hardware "competitive"? I don't think so, because it's not helping sell their product.

[Grazza]

-With the PS4, the difference to its predecessor is negligible to a layman's eye, but as long as Sony hammers its tagline, people will convince themselves that the leap is significant (it's not like millions are buying PS4s due to its genuinely new features)

 

I completely agree with that, but customers know the PS4 is technically a big leap over the PS3. Even if games don't yet have the "wow" factor, visually (which I don't think they do), they still require extra processing power to run. From now on, developers will be using the Xbox One and PS4 as a basis to design their games on. The Wii U is more like the PS3/Xbox 360, so customers will quite rightly realise it's not "in" the current generation the same way the PS4/Xbox One are, and thus won't get the same games.

[Hero-of-Time]

I said this in another thread, but I don't mind repeating it: hardware only sells if the company is willing to sell it. A couple of examples:

-With the PS4, the difference to its predecessor is negligible to a layman's eye, but as long as Sony hammers its tagline, people will convince themselves that the leap is significant (it's not like millions are buying PS4s due to its genuinely new features)

-The Mega Drive wasn't considerably better than the SNES, but they made power a selling point. It worked to the point that the marketing campaign is still well remembered today.

 

Nintendo will never make a big fuss over graphics or power, it's not their style. They'd rather show you Fox with a magic staff, Samus scanning corpses and Mario moving with the FLUDD, instead of pointing out Fox's gorgeous fur, Prime's detailed environments and Sunshine's brilliant water effects. They're also more likely to make Wind Waker before Twilight Princess.

 

So, could Nintendo make hardware on par with the competition. Certainly. Would they care to show it off and make it a selling point? No, not properly.

Taking this into account, is the hardware "competitive"? I don't think so, because it's not helping sell their product.

 

Nintendo often harped on about power during the N64 and Cube eras. If their console was a beast in terms of performance then no doubt they would be still doing it. They stopped doing this when they decided to back out of the graphics race.