I agree with Iwata-san. I wont deny though that graphics dont matter, but at the same time devs shouldnt be focus on the graphic race epic wants to build. Just how many devs have closed doors this last generation? Are we really trying to make a movie-kind of industry when we only have like 6 big movie studios and eveything else is considered independent? Games are not movies and they should never be, if devs are that interested in creating jaw-dropping graphics they are making a mistake looking at consoles, they should keep thier eyes on pcs only.

I  said a dozen games didn't I?

You forgot Tatsunoku vs Capcom lol

I'm really not sure how much these engines cost to license, but as before - it's worked out for a ton of games this generation, and now with way more engines on the market their prices should be driven down for licensees. As for small companies, I remember reading that with UE3 at least the inital licensing cost is miniscule, just $100 or something, and they don't take a cut of your earnings until you reach a certain threshold. The rest is speculation on my part though, only time will tell. 

Nintendo has a point but it doesn't excuse their excessive cheapness to the point of absurdity.

Going to have to disagree with this, as a 3DS owner the 3d is nothing more than the 3DS' HD. DOes the 3d give the game a little more "oomph"?? Yes, at least some of them. but so does having 720 pixels. if i hook up my PS3 to a standard TV(which i have) the game will lose some detail from not having extra pixels, but lets be real, its still the same game and the game would still look better than most things released on last gen consoles or Wii.

Right, but i'd say the clear cutoff is 2011. 2011 had what: Conduit 2, Return to Dreamland, and Zelda? Wii Play Motion, i guess...

The only engine I know of being $100 is the Torque engine, and that come with restrictions. (You cannot have a game that sells over a certin number of copies) I guess there is a $100 version of it now that I looked it up but that is for a bare bones version of it, and this is for hobbist and indie developers. (Plus you need to give them 25% of your profit) The full version of UE3 are in the ball park of $350,000-to-$1.3million, depending on the target platform and the bell and whistles you want included. (Numbers from Devmaster.net)

And to weigh in on the graphic issue. There was an interesting article posted in one of the offical threads that even if there is a big leap in tech we may not notice because most developers are having trouble getting the increased budgets for the increases they are seeing. So we may be seeing fewer companies going for the uber graphics and just doing good enough and focusing on gameplay and just making sure the framerate is stable.

Thats fine and all but I also want a kick. I have spent way more time on my xbox 360 and even though I have put in time on my Wii. They need to include a achievement system. I know some say, who cares, well I do. I like to go back and run through all the sh-t I have done. It brings up more reasons to play games That I have not touched in a while. Like Dead Space 2, I went throught that game over and over because of this and I enjoyed it because it had a new reason everytime. You can play through games a few times and have fun but when you give it a new reason or view, it makes it more enjoyable. Atleast thats what I think. So they need to also add this to contend in the fun department.

 Also, what about there online? I understand they want to focus on the game but giving more to the customer only adds to the game. Now I will give them graphics can cut into the fun factor sometimes but I don't think this with this gen. I enjoyed more games on my 360. I also used the Wii for older games that I enjoyed in my childhood. The Wii's big success was from the casuals wanting to try the future of gaming. Most don't even touch it anymore. The next gen I don't think they will catch as many people.

So This I think is why they are shipping early, they know this. They need to cut in early to get the people sick of this gen, Me being one of them. I will buy in mainly just because I want something new to play with. The innovation is not my main focus, however HD Mario is. So don't tell me graphics don't play a part because they do. I do agree that there is going to be less and less going forward but lets not forget the causual market is not going to buy like they did in the past. I do think that hitting the market at the right time plays one of the biggest roles and people seem to forget that and nintendo has not.

So I think the market is fluid and has many different reasons to buy in.  Games, First party, Third party, shipping date, Innovation, price, graphics, controls, online, media etc... So to say it's just focusing on one thing or the other is not looking at the full story. Nintendo did the right choice by shipping early and this will be there success. They will win third party with this and will allow there system to be the in the lime light for some time.

I'm referring to this because I know these people exist, here as well as many other places.   Your counter to my point is really missing the idea of what I was saying.  I wasn't talking about the 3DS specifically in terms of graphics but rather using it as an example where the same people I've seen bash something such as the 3D on the 3DS (as a concept since most people aren't even referring to the resolution of the system in the first place and this argument also becomes quite comparative when we delve into it deeper) talk all about how graphics provide the deeper experience and all.  

Let me put it in a way you'll understand exactly what I mean then.   HD 3D vs regular HD in gaming, the idea behind what I said is that people would call the HD 3D a gimmick, yet claim that the HD would  add to the game experience.  It's ironic because 3D effects are more or less in the same area as a boost in graphical quality in many respects.  The argument with better graphics are that you can now see things you couldn't see before with lower quality graphics, but the exact same principle applies to 3D.  

@oniyide

'Going to have to disagree with this, as a 3DS owner the 3d is nothing more than the 3DS' HD. DOes the 3d give the game a little more "oomph"?? Yes, at least some of them. but so does having 720 pixels. if i hook up my PS3 to a standard TV(which i have) the game will lose some detail from not having extra pixels, but lets be real, its still the same game and the game would still look better than most things released on last gen consoles or Wii.'

^--- The part you bolded was just to make a point.  I personally don't use the 3D very much, and I do not think a graphics update on a game adds much to a game.  It may be easier to look at, and seem neater and lets you immerse yourself easier, but the same can be said about 3D.  The 3DS' 3D is only one form of utilizing 3D, and it could be taken further when technology advances, and THIS is what I'm trying to say.  3D is a form of graphics improvement.

i personally wouldnt call 3d a graphics improvment, as someone has said before, some games actually take a hit in resolution with the 3d on. THere are some games i would argue that make it look a bit worst, Nintendogs comes to mind.