By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo/Iwata's Bias Against The West

The original post is full of incorrect information, people should do their own research:

1. You claim Iwata sold Rare. Iwata didn't own Rare. The Stamper brothers owned Rare and they sold a majority share to Microsoft. Rare did attempt to sell to Nintendo, but it was Yamauchi's decision to turn them down, not Iwata.

2. You claim Iwata had nothing to do with Retro studios. Miyamoto was the one who made the decision to give Retro a shot with the Metroid license. Retro was purchased by Nintendo in May 2002 and invested heavily in the company.

3. You claim Factor 5 was cut loose by Iwata. The fact is that Factor 5 was not in any way owned by Nintendo, but by LucasArts. Factor 5 began developing for other consoles because the GameCube flopped and LucasArts wanted to expand the profitability of the studio in order to sustain them. It wasn't Iwata's decision, it was the decision of LucasArts and Factor 5 based on the failure of GameCube.

4. You claim that Western Studios began leaving under Iwata when it is a fact that they began abandoning Nintendo during the N64 era when Western studios began focusing on Sony consoles instead of Nintendo consoles. Unlike some of your examples, some of these departures are directly the fault of Nintendo prior to Iwata. A huge example is Nintendo second party DMA/Rockstar North. Nintendo had a deal with them to be the studio's publisher. DMA developed Uniracers, Body Harvest, Space Station Silicon Valley, and Grandtheft Auto - Nintendo during the N64 era dropped them as a studio, opting out of publishing their games because they would not appeal to the Japanese market. This was not Iwata, but rather the previous leadership. Iwata never, ever dropped a studio because the games wouldn't appeal to Japan, but the previous leadership did just that with one of the most important studios of the past 20 years.

5. You claim that Nintendo "stripped NoA of any real power" but there haven't been any such moves at all. What power are you talking about? When was it stripped away? NoA is simply Nintendo's publishing and localization office for North America, it is the equivalent of NCL, NoE, NoK, etc... If Iwata was biased towards Japan in regards to NoA, then NoA would have a Japanese CEO, not an American one. All of the other International offices are run by Japanese presidents, except NoA, which has been run by Reggie Fils Aime since he replaced Kimishima in 2006.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
dharh said:

Nintendo has no bias against the west. They just do not understand it. Read what I am saying. They don't understand it. Not even a sliver. They never have.

You think they understood the west in the 90s? You are wrong. They lucked out. Every success they have ever had in the west has been luck or just universaly acceptable/good products. Nothing else.


They understood the West because Howard Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa were in charge of NOA and Yamauchi basically relegated at some decision making to them. 

That's why Rareware was allowed to make games for Nintendo in the first place. Nintendo also did respond to gaming trends back then, for example the arcade fighter back then was like what FPS are to the market today, and Nintendo greenlit Killer Instinct specifically for the US market. Nintendo Sports was for the Western markets. 

You have things like Starcraft 64, at one point Nintendo was actually working with the developers that would go on to create Grand Theft Auto 3/4/5 (DMA Design, now known as Rockstar North). They were one of Nintendo's "Dream Team" members of largely Western based studios tasked to bring games to the Nintendo 64. 

GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Star Wars games (several of them), Starcraft 64, Killer Instinct, Kobe Bryant NBA Courtside, Ken Griffey Jr. MLB, Donkey Kong Country, the original Star Fox (SNES), the founding of Retro Studios were all largely due to NOA, these are not "lucky breaks", but natural pay offs to an American division that actually used to have some autonomy in doing things.

There's also a few games that Nintendo was working on through NOA that never got released like FX Fighter (a 3D fighter for the SNES) and Riqa, a Tomb Raider type game for the N64.  

If NOA's hands were not tied by the horrible cartridge-only console decision with the N64, I think the N64 would've easily sold 50+ million worldwide.



Jumpin said:

The original post is full of incorrect information, people should do their own research:

1. You claim Iwata sold Rare. Iwata didn't own Rare. The Stamper brothers owned Rare and they sold a majority share to Microsoft. Rare did attempt to sell to Nintendo, but it was Yamauchi's decision to turn them down, not Iwata.

2. You claim Iwata had nothing to do with Retro studios. Miyamoto was the one who made the decision to give Retro a shot with the Metroid license. Retro was purchased by Nintendo in May 2002 and invested heavily in the company.

3. You claim Factor 5 was cut loose by Iwata. The fact is that Factor 5 was not in any way owned by Nintendo, but by LucasArts. Factor 5 began developing for other consoles because the GameCube flopped and LucasArts wanted to expand the profitability of the studio in order to sustain them. It wasn't Iwata's decision, it was the decision of LucasArts and Factor 5 based on the failure of GameCube.

4. You claim that Western Studios began leaving under Iwata when it is a fact that they began abandoning Nintendo during the N64 era when Western studios began focusing on Sony consoles instead of Nintendo consoles. Unlike some of your examples, some of these departures are directly the fault of Nintendo prior to Iwata. A huge example is Nintendo second party DMA/Rockstar North. Nintendo had a deal with them to be the studio's publisher. DMA developed Uniracers, Body Harvest, Space Station Silicon Valley, and Grandtheft Auto - Nintendo during the N64 era dropped them as a studio, opting out of publishing their games because they would not appeal to the Japanese market. This was not Iwata, but rather the previous leadership. Iwata never, ever dropped a studio because the games wouldn't appeal to Japan, but the previous leadership did just that with one of the most important studios of the past 20 years.

5. You claim that Nintendo "stripped NoA of any real power" but there haven't been any such moves at all. What power are you talking about? When was it stripped away? NoA is simply Nintendo's publishing and localization office for North America, it is the equivalent of NCL, NoE, NoK, etc... If Iwata was biased towards Japan in regards to NoA, then NoA would have a Japanese CEO, not an American one. All of the other International offices are run by Japanese presidents, except NoA, which has been run by Reggie Fils Aime since he replaced Kimishima in 2006.

You need to go back and study what NOA was like in the 90s. They certainly had (sometimes very broad) power to greenlight game projects on their own. 

Most of Arakawa/Lincoln's work in the 90s was quickly undone after Mr. Iwata became president (offically in May 2002, though really he was already operating in that position for some time before that, Yamauchi basically effectively retired from day to day operations in 2000). I attribute much of this to Iwata, but also probably to the general Nintendo seniority (Miyamoto and others at the top are probably responsible for a dramatic shift in Nintendo's strategy to move away from Western devs). 

Iwata and the Nintendo today is biased IMO. If Hideki Kamiya was Henry Kelly, a developer in California or something, IMO Nintendo wouldn't give him the time of day in financing any type of title.

We know studios like Factor 5 and Silicon Knights wanted to continue their relationship with Nintendo. So did Rare. Nintendo is the one that ended those relationships. We also know they haven't been very proactive in replacing much of this lost production either. 



I am pretty sure Rare left on their own accord.
Factor 5 and Silicon Knights went belly up after Lair and Too Human respectively.

But yes, Nintendo could have done a LOT more to keep these studios.
I guess they felt like they didnt need to.
Oh how they must regret it now.



Australian Gamer (add me if you like)               
NNID: Maraccuda              
PS Network: Maraccuda           

 

Jumpin said:

The original post is full of incorrect information, people should do their own research:

1. You claim Iwata sold Rare. Iwata didn't own Rare. The Stamper brothers owned Rare and they sold a majority share to Microsoft. Rare did attempt to sell to Nintendo, but it was Yamauchi's decision to turn them down, not Iwata.

2. You claim Iwata had nothing to do with Retro studios. Miyamoto was the one who made the decision to give Retro a shot with the Metroid license. Retro was purchased by Nintendo in May 2002 and invested heavily in the company.

3. You claim Factor 5 was cut loose by Iwata. The fact is that Factor 5 was not in any way owned by Nintendo, but by LucasArts. Factor 5 began developing for other consoles because the GameCube flopped and LucasArts wanted to expand the profitability of the studio in order to sustain them. It wasn't Iwata's decision, it was the decision of LucasArts and Factor 5 based on the failure of GameCube.

4. You claim that Western Studios began leaving under Iwata when it is a fact that they began abandoning Nintendo during the N64 era when Western studios began focusing on Sony consoles instead of Nintendo consoles. Unlike some of your examples, some of these departures are directly the fault of Nintendo prior to Iwata. A huge example is Nintendo second party DMA/Rockstar North. Nintendo had a deal with them to be the studio's publisher. DMA developed Uniracers, Body Harvest, Space Station Silicon Valley, and Grandtheft Auto - Nintendo during the N64 era dropped them as a studio, opting out of publishing their games because they would not appeal to the Japanese market. This was not Iwata, but rather the previous leadership. Iwata never, ever dropped a studio because the games wouldn't appeal to Japan, but the previous leadership did just that with one of the most important studios of the past 20 years.

5. You claim that Nintendo "stripped NoA of any real power" but there haven't been any such moves at all. What power are you talking about? When was it stripped away? NoA is simply Nintendo's publishing and localization office for North America, it is the equivalent of NCL, NoE, NoK, etc... If Iwata was biased towards Japan in regards to NoA, then NoA would have a Japanese CEO, not an American one. All of the other International offices are run by Japanese presidents, except NoA, which has been run by Reggie Fils Aime since he replaced Kimishima in 2006.

 Let me add to your wonderful comment!

From OP:

" Under Iwata, Retro is stripped down to one team and kept under an extremely tight leash where they only work on Nintendo IP. The same is basically true of Next Level Games (one game at a time, on a Japanese Nintendo IP only). Nintendo does work with a very small handful of Western companies, but basically only lets them work on Japanese IP that they're too busy to do themselves."

Retro's games:

  • Metroid prime trilogy sold best in the west, while performed abysmally in Japan. 
  • Donkey kong duo: Sold best in the west compared to japan.

Next level games for nintendo:

  • Mario strikers duo for the GC and Wii sold best in the west
  • Punch-out sold best in the west
  • luigi's mansion sold best in the west.

It's quite obvious why he did not provide any example of these Japanese IP's or even defined what a "Japanese Nintendo IP" is. There is so much reaching in the OP, i just can't take it seriously. Then again, I am not surprise one bit at all.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:

You need to go back and study what NOA was like in the 90s. They certainly had (sometimes very broad) power to greenlight game projects on their own. 

Most of Arakawa/Lincoln's work in the 90s was quickly undone after Mr. Iwata became president (offically in May 2002, though really he was already operating in that position for some time before that, Yamauchi basically effectively retired from day to day operations in 2000). I attribute much of this to Iwata, but also probably to the general Nintendo seniority (Miyamoto and others at the top are probably responsible for a dramatic shift in Nintendo's strategy to move away from Western devs). 

Iwata and the Nintendo today is biased IMO. If Hideki Kamiya was Henry Kelly, a developer in California or something, IMO Nintendo wouldn't give him the time of day in financing any type of title.

We know studios like Factor 5 and Silicon Knights wanted to continue their relationship with Nintendo. So did Rare. Nintendo is the one that ended those relationships. We also know they haven't been very proactive in replacing much of this lost production either. 

The issue I take is that you are assigning blame to Iwata when he had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. It was Yamauchi who began dismantling relationships and investments with Western studios in the mid-late 1990's. Yamauchi's specific reason for cutting off the partnership with DMA/Rockstar North, was specifically because they were not developing games that would appeal to the Japanese market. It was Yamauchi who turned down the Stamper brothers to purchase Rare, whether or not Rare wanted to continue. It was LucasArts decision for Factor 5 to develop for other Platforms because they felt the GameCube was a weakly performing Platform, and they bet against the Wii. Similarly, Dennis Dyac broke off the relationship between Nintendo and Silicon Knights because he bet against the Wii. Iwata was the one who arranged for Silicon Knights to develop a Metal Gear Solid game on GameCube.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

mii-gamer said:
Jumpin said:

The original post is full of incorrect information, people should do their own research:

1. You claim Iwata sold Rare. Iwata didn't own Rare. The Stamper brothers owned Rare and they sold a majority share to Microsoft. Rare did attempt to sell to Nintendo, but it was Yamauchi's decision to turn them down, not Iwata.

2. You claim Iwata had nothing to do with Retro studios. Miyamoto was the one who made the decision to give Retro a shot with the Metroid license. Retro was purchased by Nintendo in May 2002 and invested heavily in the company.

3. You claim Factor 5 was cut loose by Iwata. The fact is that Factor 5 was not in any way owned by Nintendo, but by LucasArts. Factor 5 began developing for other consoles because the GameCube flopped and LucasArts wanted to expand the profitability of the studio in order to sustain them. It wasn't Iwata's decision, it was the decision of LucasArts and Factor 5 based on the failure of GameCube.

4. You claim that Western Studios began leaving under Iwata when it is a fact that they began abandoning Nintendo during the N64 era when Western studios began focusing on Sony consoles instead of Nintendo consoles. Unlike some of your examples, some of these departures are directly the fault of Nintendo prior to Iwata. A huge example is Nintendo second party DMA/Rockstar North. Nintendo had a deal with them to be the studio's publisher. DMA developed Uniracers, Body Harvest, Space Station Silicon Valley, and Grandtheft Auto - Nintendo during the N64 era dropped them as a studio, opting out of publishing their games because they would not appeal to the Japanese market. This was not Iwata, but rather the previous leadership. Iwata never, ever dropped a studio because the games wouldn't appeal to Japan, but the previous leadership did just that with one of the most important studios of the past 20 years.

5. You claim that Nintendo "stripped NoA of any real power" but there haven't been any such moves at all. What power are you talking about? When was it stripped away? NoA is simply Nintendo's publishing and localization office for North America, it is the equivalent of NCL, NoE, NoK, etc... If Iwata was biased towards Japan in regards to NoA, then NoA would have a Japanese CEO, not an American one. All of the other International offices are run by Japanese presidents, except NoA, which has been run by Reggie Fils Aime since he replaced Kimishima in 2006.

 Let me add to your wonderful comment!

From OP:

" Under Iwata, Retro is stripped down to one team and kept under an extremely tight leash where they only work on Nintendo IP. The same is basically true of Next Level Games (one game at a time, on a Japanese Nintendo IP only). Nintendo does work with a very small handful of Western companies, but basically only lets them work on Japanese IP that they're too busy to do themselves."

Retro's games:

 

  • Metroid prime trilogy sold best in the west, while performed abysmally in Japan. 
  • Donkey kong duo: Sold best in the west compared to japan.

 

Next level games for nintendo:

 

  • Mario strikers duo for the GC and Wii sold best in the west
  • Punch-out sold best in the west
  • luigi's mansion sold best in the west.

 

It's quite obvious why he did not provide any example of these Japanese IP's or even defined what a "Japanese Nintendo IP" is. There is so much reaching in the OP, i just can't take it seriously. Then again, I am not surprise one bit at all.


Virtually every Nintendo game sells better in the West than Japan. There's only a few exceptions. Nintendo can barely even sell mainline Zelda games in Japan anymore. 

Which actually doesn't do much to dissuade my point ... if the majority of software sales (and hardware sales for that matter) are in the West, why is Nintendo going backwards and becoming even less Western-development oriented than they were in the 90s? 

It makes literally no sense. 

The Japanese aren't even buying these "Japanese games" that they continue to finance ... Wonderful 101? Bomb. Bayonetta 2? Likely to bomb. Hyrule Warriors? Nothing impressive sales wise. The Last Story? Not a big hit. Devil's Third? Don't expect the Japanese to support this at all. At Western consumers actually by and large bought Western games like GoldenEye, Banjo-Kazooie, many Star Wars titles, NBA Courtside (at least on the N64), Ken Griffey Jr., Killer Instinct, etc. 

Why not finance say a game from the Darksiders developers or something? It's just kind of baffling to me, it's almost like they are greenlighting the above Japanese titles as  favor to the Japanese dev community. 



Yeah. Good points. They're a little too patriotic. To their detriment.



Jumpin said:
Soundwave said:

You need to go back and study what NOA was like in the 90s. They certainly had (sometimes very broad) power to greenlight game projects on their own. 

Most of Arakawa/Lincoln's work in the 90s was quickly undone after Mr. Iwata became president (offically in May 2002, though really he was already operating in that position for some time before that, Yamauchi basically effectively retired from day to day operations in 2000). I attribute much of this to Iwata, but also probably to the general Nintendo seniority (Miyamoto and others at the top are probably responsible for a dramatic shift in Nintendo's strategy to move away from Western devs). 

Iwata and the Nintendo today is biased IMO. If Hideki Kamiya was Henry Kelly, a developer in California or something, IMO Nintendo wouldn't give him the time of day in financing any type of title.

We know studios like Factor 5 and Silicon Knights wanted to continue their relationship with Nintendo. So did Rare. Nintendo is the one that ended those relationships. We also know they haven't been very proactive in replacing much of this lost production either. 

The issue I take is that you are assigning blame to Iwata when he had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. It was Yamauchi who began dismantling relationships and investments with Western studios in the mid-late 1990's. Yamauchi's specific reason for cutting off the partnership with DMA/Rockstar North, was specifically because they were not developing games that would appeal to the Japanese market. It was Yamauchi who turned down the Stamper brothers to purchase Rare, whether or not Rare wanted to continue. It was LucasArts decision for Factor 5 to develop for other Platforms because they felt the GameCube was a weakly performing Platform, and they bet against the Wii. Similarly, Dennis Dyac broke off the relationship between Nintendo and Silicon Knights because he bet against the Wii. Iwata was the one who arranged for Silicon Knights to develop a Metal Gear Solid game on GameCube.

No, Nintendo still had very strong Western relationships up until the early 2000s. NOA probably had its peak autonomy in 2001 or so when they were allowed to market and sell things like Perfect Dark, Starcraft 64, and Conker's Bad Fur Day. 

It takes a nose dive after Iwata takes over as president, and as president the buck stops with him. None of that would've happened if he didn't want it to happen. 

Also Iwata pushing for Silicon Knights to make a Metal Gear remake instead of bringing something new to the table just perfectly illustrates what Nintendo thinks of Western studio development -- they're basically just cattle to work on Japanese IP that the Japanese teams are too busy to do themselves. Eternal Darkness was greenlit under Lincoln/Arakawa, but it never would have been under Iwata. 

It's the same philosphy they basically employ today ... Retro, Next Level Games, Monster Games are basically the only three studios in the West they will work with, and they're only allowed to work on Nintendo IP that Nintendo themselves is too busy to work on over in Japan. And only one game at a time. 

Note too when I say Iwata, I am referring to the general "Iwata-era" which also includes people like Miyamoto and Takeda taking on higher roles on Nintendo's board of directors.



Jumpin said:

 Similarly, Dennis Dyac broke off the relationship between Nintendo and Silicon Knights because he bet against the Wii. Iwata was the one who arranged for Silicon Knights to develop a Metal Gear Solid game on GameCube.

I don't think that Nintendo even sold their +20% stake in Silicon Knights despite them betting against the Wii.  They were still considered an affiliate and Dyack called Nintendo his silent partner.  Silicon Knights filed for bankruptcy on May 16, 2014.