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

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

Hedra42 on 25 August 2014
Zod95 said:
Soundwave said:

It is kind of odd that Nintendo has pretty much disengaged from the West, whereas in the 90s they were much more of an East + West company. Why the change and is it warranted? Especially when the West now is basically the entire console market? It seems to basically all trace back to Iwata and even Miyamoto moving up the ranks on Nintendo's Board of Directors.

Congrats for your outstanding article. It has well researched info I was not aware of and found it very interesting and clarifying. I had already the impression that japanese companies, as a rule, are very closed and only focused on themselves but the situation with Nintendo seems to be fatally dangerous.

The japanese market is much less significant nowadays and Nintedo has been disinvesting from the West?! That's suicide! Besides, Iwata and Miyamoto not understanding the western market is no excuse at all. If they understand money, they should realize that Nintendo in America and Europe should have more power and resources, not less. And, if they don't understand the West, they should give those regions more independence, not less. This is common sense.

Regarding the Minecraft thing (and eventually many other cases that may follow the same paradigm), that's not understanding the West, that's being xenophobic. Minecraft is an arcade game that has nothing to do with any culture. They ignore it because they find it to be developed by people from the West. How sad...

You weren't aware of it, because much of it doesn't exist and is conjecture - I'm still waiting for Soundwave to come up with the sources info.

I found it a fascinating, well set out and convincing OP also, until I actually tried to do the research myself.



Around the Network
Purple on 25 August 2014
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.

Miigamer is this what you're talking about?


1) Nintendo owned 49% of Rare and had the first option to buy the remaining stock when the Stamper's wished to retire. Microsoft took up ownership of Rare in September 2002 (Iwata was CEO from June 2002). It may have been Yamauchi who refused the initial offer, but Iwata still had time to purchase the remaining stock before Microsoft took ownership. He didn't and never bothered to find a replacement for one of their biggest studios.

2) Retro was initially set up as a Nintendo second party dev. Miyamoto gave them the chance to work on Metroid well before Iwata's time (2000). Nintendo have not invested much in the company at all. There's no evidence their staff count has increased much at all, and we know they have an ongoing issue of staff leaving. They seem to have lost their creative independence and only work under Japanese directors recently.

3) Factor 5 were independent but Iwata made no attempt to keep them working primarily for Nintendo. A CEO who took Western support seriously would have managed this relationship a lot better.

4) Yeah Yamauchi wasn't great either, fair point. That doesn't excuse Iwata from being hopeless at dealing with Western developers though. Especially now the Japanese market is a joke.

5) NOA did actually used to make games and worked with third parties to bring games to Nintendo systems. It's only under Iwata it has become a localisation joke of an organisation. And it's CEO is actually Iwata who admits he has no idea about the West and can barely speak English. Fantastic choice.



Multishanks on 25 August 2014

I think people are confusing Nintendo overly conservative nature with being oppressive. They only work with devs who have shown an interest in their platform.

Honestly I think they should (and probably are) investing more in their western studios.



Soundwave on 25 August 2014

Retro was set up by Howard Lincoln and the HQ was built to house 5 different dev teams or so.

There were supposed to work on several games simultaneously, generally to be aimed at 'older gamers'. An NFL sim, Car Combat, Raven Blade were among the initial games in development.

What they are today is nothing like what they were intended to be. They were basically supposed to be another Rare-style studio that made multiple games for Western gamers.

Unfortunately they had some management issues with Jeff Spanenberg early on. Then Lincoln/Arakawa retire in 2000, and Retro is fairly dramatically restructued around this time to focus soley on Metroid Prime. 



Soundwave on 25 August 2014
Multishanks said:
I think people are confusing Nintendo overly conservative nature with being oppressive. They only work with devs who have shown an interest in their platform.

Honestly I think they should (and probably are) investing more in their western studios.


I doubt they are investing in Western studios. They haven't really done any of that in the last 12 years. Why would it suddenly change now? 

Maybe the absolute failure of the Wii U and the watching their handheld market get gradually chewed away by Apple/Android might be iepatues for real change, but people have been saying Nintendo needs more Western studio support ever since 2002 when Rare was sold. 

So this isn't exactly a new conundrum in Nintendo land. 



Around the Network
mii-gamer on 25 August 2014
Purple 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.

Miigamer is this what you're talking about?


1) Nintendo owned 49% of Rare and had the first option to buy the remaining stock when the Stamper's wished to retire. Microsoft took up ownership of Rare in September 2002 (Iwata was CEO from June 2002). It may have been Yamauchi who refused the initial offer, but Iwata still had time to purchase the remaining stock before Microsoft took ownership. He didn't and never bothered to find a replacement for one of their biggest studios.

2) Retro was initially set up as a Nintendo second party dev. Miyamoto gave them the chance to work on Metroid well before Iwata's time (2000). Nintendo have not invested much in the company at all. There's no evidence their staff count has increased much at all, and we know they have an ongoing issue of staff leaving. They seem to have lost their creative independence and only work under Japanese directors recently.

3) Factor 5 were independent but Iwata made no attempt to keep them working primarily for Nintendo. A CEO who took Western support seriously would have managed this relationship a lot better.

4) Yeah Yamauchi wasn't great either, fair point. That doesn't excuse Iwata from being hopeless at dealing with Western developers though. Especially now the Japanese market is a joke.

5) NOA did actually used to make games and worked with third parties to bring games to Nintendo systems. It's only under Iwata it has become a localisation joke of an organisation. And it's CEO is actually Iwata who admits he has no idea about the West and can barely speak English. Fantastic choice.


1. Yamuachi decision giving, Iwata two month to negotiate a deal isn't fair

2. Nintendo have'nt invested in retro?

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/retro-studios-hiring-several-new-positions/

3. "There were some discussions about working with Miyamoto"

http://www.gonintendo.com/s/183256-former-factor-5-employee-talks-nintendo-relationship-virtual-console-and-3ds-interest

4. your last point doesn't counter jumpins at all. It has very little relevance in fact 



Soundwave on 25 August 2014

Even if Rare had to be sold ... I'm not married to idea of Rare/Factor 5/Silicon Knights/whatever.

What I find troubling is that Nintendo has had multiple oppurtunities over the years to bring in a "new" Rare. A "new" Silicon Knights. To really expand Retro into a company that can legitimately make multiple games and is encouraged the freedom to make original IP.

But none of these materialize at all. Instead Nintendo becomes more insular and more Japanese. It's hard to deny that fact.

It's a ridiculous way to run a business when 80+% of the market is now in the West.

Why wasn't Rare properly replaced? They had plenty of $$$ to do so after the Wii ... how much would a studio like that have eased some of terrible droughts the 3DS and Wii U had?

Sony has been proactive in replacing/updating Western devs, when they first brought the Playstation to the West, 2nd parties like Psygnosis (WipeOut) and the NFL GameDay studio were integral to them. So was Naughty Dog. Sony has kept the best studio there (Naughty Dog), expanded them tremendously, but the rest of their Western developers are different today, they let some of those Western studios go, but replaced them with teams like Sony Santa Monica ... for the better.

Nintendo has gone in the opposite direction. Not shockingly, Playstation consoles have performed fairly rock steady in the West. With Nintendo they've up/down all over the place in the West. 



Never on 25 August 2014
Soundwave said:
Never said:
Soundwave said:
Never said:
Nintendo doesn't need more boring western devs. They need even more awesome Japanese devs.


What's wrong with having both? 


Nothing. But what they need is japanesey games because that's what Nintendo are famous for. Nintendo should focus on games that make them speical. 

I'm sure some western devs are capable of making great Nintendo games too, given the chance, but the suggestion people make, that Nintendo needs more western devs, indicated that they think Nintendo should be making games that are more like xbox games. Games like that won't sell that well on a Nintendo console and they won't win over xbox gamers who already have lots of games like that. Nintendo does need a range of games, but they do need to be Nintendoy.


Those games don't sell well on Nintendo platforms because in large part due to Iwata's mishandling of Nintendo's Western studios. 

Instead of keeping the FPS audience that Nintendo basically owned coming out of the N64-era, they basically just let Microsoft have it without much of a fight at all. If you gotta sell Rare, ok fine, but why not invest in something a little more ambitious than freaking Geist? 

Western games used to sell just fine on the SNES and N64 ... GameCube and Wii U (the Wii is a bit of outlier being a hot craze for a few years which then fizzled out almost as quickly as it built up) is where we see pronunced problems with Western content selling on Nintendo consoles. 

Which isn't really surprising ... if you're trying to sell to Western gamers, shouldn't you have (I dunno) like some actual Western content in terms of exclusives? 


Maybe have my own biased because of my personal taste. I have an xbox 360 and a wii u. I spend a lot more time wishing my xbox had more Nintendoy content than do the other way around. That said, I simply can't see much profit for Nintendo in trying to be a second rate xbox. If they go to the expence of making a fps it's best they try and do something very diffrent and very Nintendoy.

"Which isn't really surprising ... if you're trying to sell to Western gamers, shouldn't you have (I dunno) like some actual Western content in terms of exclusives? "

Plenty of Japanese games are hugly succsssful in the west. Many more so than in Japan. And, of course, vice versa. The location the game is made isn't the only factor in wherether it's going to sell well.

Would say the PC owned the FPS genre back in the N64 era. The N64 had comparativly very little and it never had the spectaular linear intereactive movies or online battles that typify the average western fps today.

Goldeneye was an amasing game. But it was also a very diffrent game. It didn't follow the crowd. It was also primarily a game and not an interactive expiriance. That's something I miss amoungst many of my xbox single player campaignes. Wouldn't Bioshock infinate have been so much better if underneath the awesome set pecies and grippng plot there was some really inventive and interesting gameplay to back it up? Actually, that's something the portal games delivered, but I honestly can't think of any recent others.

I'd actually love to see Nintendo make a fps that's a cross between goldeneye and trackmainia. Learn levels well. Know all the guard placements. Then try to speed run though to get the best time (Just like goldeneye) But have a button to instant reset the level when you mess up (Ok, only 1% trackmainia).



NickK on 25 August 2014

I myself am a huge Nintendo fan and I have supported lots. But all of your points are correct.
Iwata has done lots (DS/Wii) but honestly I feel that he has done more harm than good.
He has killed Nintendo strong points and made it a Japanese thing.
I like all Nintendo games but I am pretty sure there is more that needs to be does.
BIGGEST mistake was to sell RARE. WTF? And 2nd BIG was to reject Activision with Skylanders.
Iwata does not even try to get western support, he does not care at all.
Because if did, he would do something. Lots of amazing games coming to WiiU but way to go!
I am sure everything will go to its place.

BUT Iwate needs to leave Nintendo completely.



Purple on 25 August 2014
mii-gamer said:


1. Yamuachi decision giving, Iwata two month to negotiate a deal isn't fair

2. Nintendo have'nt invested in retro?

http://nintendoenthusiast.com/news/retro-studios-hiring-several-new-positions/

3. "There were some discussions about working with Miyamoto"

http://www.gonintendo.com/s/183256-former-factor-5-employee-talks-nintendo-relationship-virtual-console-and-3ds-interest

4. your last point doesn't counter jumpins at all. It has very little relevance in fact 

1. Fine, but he's had 12 years to invest in a replacement. He hasn't created or heavily invested in one Western studio. It is an absolute joke.

2. I can't see anything to suggest that isn't just usual staff turnover. This is the studio that had four years between DKCR and their next 2D platfomer. Tropical Freeze was great, but if it takes a studio 4 years to create a linear 2D platformer, it's fair to assume the studio isn't exactly bursting at the seems with staff.

3. I don't really get what your point is for number 3. Metroid Prime was released in 2002 only months after Iwata became CEO. If you think it was Iwata who gave Metroid to Retro you're incorrect.

(That article about Factor 5 makes my point by the way. Nintendo wouldn't financially support the company as well as Sony could.)

4. Jumpins point is Yamauchi lost Rockstar support. Which is true. But in no way argues against Iwata's poor record with Western support.