Nintendo Opens Door to Smartphone Games | Hacker News Reader

Nintendo Opens Door to Smartphone Games

wsj.com

85 pointsantr87 comments

I recently bought a New 3DS on a whim and have been amazed by the experience developers can create on hardware that's probably somewhere in the league of the first iPhone. I've been rooting mobile gaming on and trying out the most critically acclaimed iOS games for going on 6 years but I feel confident saying that nothing's been remotely in the league of Mario Land 3D or Monster Hunter 4. Purpose-built hardware (specifically, the nicely calibrated buttons and the new eye-tracking 3D) is a wonderful thing.

---

I looked up DeNa and they look like nothing more than a competent freemium game factory. So I'm pretty much reading this as a play at spreading N's IP far and wide on the hottest mediums. It would be interesting if Nintendo found a way to actually extend gameplay to when you're not on the system, but I'm not getting my hopes up and expect more along the lines of Candy Crush clones dressed as Dr. Mario.

I read John Carmack say that you could DOUBLE the performance of a game (or engine), if you had a KNOWN hardware configuration.

It's always interesting to compare games from when a console was first launched to when it's old. They can take incredible shortcuts and push things very hard when they are not just straight up porting a game.

Just as interesting to me is how well everything is optimized for power consumption. I can't imagine playing anything as simple as match 3 puzzle game on my iPhone for more than 10 minutes without taking hours of standby time off of my phone. You can really get several multi-hour play sessions out of one full charge on the N3DS. The shoddy battery life (for gaming, at least) of phones really precludes the ability to immerse yourself in an experience for an hour or two.

It's amazing the difference real buttons make. I feel like mobile gaming will always be seriously limited by that.

I'd say there's more to it than that. WarioWare Twisted, Phoenix Wright, FF Tactics, Elite Beat Agents, and many other games could have easily been developed for mobile. The problem is that nobody has the confidence to put a year into making truly standout mobile games.

FFT and Phoenix Wright are at least available as ports. I think you can make money with fixed price games, it's just not so visible because they are not played by everyone.

Square-Enix actually have a bunch of games on the iOS App Store. Most of them are ports, but a while back there was the Chaos Rings series which was original IP (I haven't checked if they have any other original IP for iOS). And they're not just straightforward ports either, for example the Dragon Quest games have all been adapted to play in a portrait layout (because their target customers are Japanese people playing while standing up on subway cars, where they can't do two-handed landscape gaming).

I also find it notable that Square-Enix is maintaining relatively high price points for these games (such as $15), and have done so for years, despite the iOS game market still being primarily aimed at the $1-$3 level. Of course, the fact that the games are being published by a well-known name like Square-Enix lets them do things other companies couldn't get away with, but it must be profitable enough because they keep adding more games to their iOS lineup.

There are plenty of mobile games that measure up to that stuff, they're just not at the top of the App Stores because they don't move volume as fast as mini-games and F2P... and most of them are ports of classic titles.

For example, I played the heck out of Civilization Revolutions, Z Origins, Swords and Soldiers, and Bard's Tale on various mobile devices. Those all measure up in fun and complexity vs Nintendo's titles, although most of them are ports of older PC and console games.

Well, I'm referring more to original IP. Yes, there are ports, but ports just aren't all that interesting in the grand scheme of things. There are basically zero studios on mobile making games on Nintendo's level as first-class platform citizens.

Swords and Soldiers impressed the hell out of me, although it lacks online multiplayer. It's a very complete experience, as hand-held RTS games go. Also, I feel like "port from handheld device" isn't really too much of a port to complain about in the case of Civ Revolutions - a touch DS/PSP game is hardly a big jump to Android / iOS. That's more of a cross-platform release than a port.

Well sure, you can do those on mobile, but you can do those and alot more on the ds with buttons. I'm not saying good games are impossible on mobile, just that their scope is limited by a lack of buttons.

Last year, a friend of mine who worked for DeNA in Vancouver asked me if they were hiring for her position, which we were. And then if we were hiring from her boyfriend's position. And she was competing for the position against another of her DeNA coworkers/teammates. When I mentioned all that to one of our founders in passing, he said 'You know, we've been seeing a lot of resumes from them lately.'

I don't know much about the inner workings or much about what people hated (though I've heard some crappy stories), but, at least as far as their Vancouver office goes, it's run by idiots and can't retain talent.

How about an article not behind a paywall?

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2015/03/17/nintendo-open...

" Nintendo Co. said Tuesday that it had agreed to a broad alliance with DeNA Co., a Japanese mobile video game provider, under which the companies will take stakes in each other and jointly develop "gaming applications" for smartphones."

http://www.4-traders.com/NINTENDO-CO-LTD-6491906/news/Ninten...

"Partnering with Japanese mobile gaming powerhouse DeNA, the two companies will jointly develop games for smartphones and tablets using Nintendo's portfolio of iconic gaming IP."

As long as they don't follow the Final Fantasy route - releasing the same game on 10 different platforms - I'm on board.

edit: or a post to the source

http://dena.com/intl/press/2015/03/nintendo-and-dena-form-bu...

Alternatively, search for the title on Google and it lets you past the paywall.

If WSJ does not want to have their content read by non-subscribers, these links are pointless (or spam) on HN.

Can HN do something to convert WSJ links to paywall-bypassing links? Like substitute the google search URL for the original article URL. Or just ban the domain automatically.

Just putting a paywall warning in the link text would suffice. Let people decide whether they want to pay.

The status quo does suck, but banning all paywalls would be worse, because sometimes the most substantive article on a story is behind a paywall with a workaround. That seems to be the case here.

I don't know of a robust way to replace paywalled links with open ones to the same story. Sometimes people post Google search links to WSJ articles, but those don't work for everyone, and presumably there would be legal questions even if it did work technically.

It's also not as simple as the publications not wanting anybody other than subscribers to read their content, since they choose how high to make their paywall, and most have well-known workarounds. WSJ is one, though theirs is a step more annoying than NYT et al.

Previous comments on this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8777971

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634076

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647853

If the point of HN is sharing information, and having substantive dialog, then these links are counter-productive. If really think we should ban non-traversable links; if there are alternative links to submit that are the next best available summary or secondary source, I think that would be far preferable (and we can always relegate the primary paywall-ed source into the comment page).

Should I continue to "flag" paywall-only links as I see them, or just continue to gripe in the comments?

I'd rather skip the paywall and deny WSJ the advert money. Just my 2c (taken elsewhere).

>As long as they don't follow the Final Fantasy route - releasing the same game on 10 different platforms

Something in the style of Steam's multiple-platforms-with-one-purchase support would be interesting, though I imagine putting together a system for it that reliably works across both Android and iOS would be unpleasant.

I assuem this is for F2P games. How does iOS handle F2P cross-platform games? Can I buy assets on the Android version of a game and have them appear on the iOS version, or does that violate Apple's TOC?

If they go traditional pay-up-front, Android/PC has been done by Humble Bundle - they have their own app-downloader-app on Android, and use Steam keys on the PC.

If Nintendo targets PC they would probably go webapp since this smartphone-Nintendo thing is likely about Pokemon Shuffle (and possibly other Facebooky games). Webapp makes distribution simple. So they could do Webapp/DS/Wii/Android.

> I assuem this is for F2P games. How does iOS handle F2P cross-platform games? Can I buy assets on the Android version of a game and have them appear on the iOS version, or does that violate Apple's TOC?

Yes, you can. For example, Kindle books you buy on Amazon appear on the iOS app, and Hearthstone packs you buy on Battle.net appear on the iPad app. Apple takes a share of IAPs bought in iOS apps, but that doesn't mean it disallows content bought somewhere else.

Can you buy kindle books in the app on iOS? I thought Amazon didn't want Apple taking a bite out of their (already low) ebook profits?

You still buy the books through Amazon, and download them from Amazon. Technically they're not an IAP, since with "traditional" IAPs the app store/play store would keep track of what purchases a user has made; with Kindle, Amazon is keeping track of what you buy and they link it to your account so you can access it anywhere.

The main problem here is properly paying your dues on monetization. If Nintendo sells you a $10 IAP on your Android, Apple is going to want its $3 to provide that content on your iPhone.

If all purchases are kept track of on Nintendo's server, then Apple only gets $3 on purchases through an iOS device. Purchases elsewhere (Nintendo's website, Android app, etc) wouldn't be subject, but the tradeoff is Nintendo has to track those purchases themselves.

Google also takes 30% for purchases, so you're talking about $6.

No, just $3 for the Android purchases. Since it was made on another platform, Apple doesn't get a cut.

So you say, but that's not how it would work (or how it works) in the real world.

I'm confused, could you elaborate?

I thought the way it worked is: - User buys game on 3DS, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Nintendo gets $10. - User buys game on iOS, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Apple gets $3, Nintendo gets $7 - User buys game on Android, links to their Nintendo account, can play on 3DS, iOS, and Android. Google gets $3, Nintendo gets $7

I can see this being potentially very fruitful and helping to drive the sales of Nintendo hardware. I'm actually very surprised it took this long.

Nintendo games have long had ancillary hardware devices that are essentially meant to be "more mobile than the console", in that the console is intended for longer periods of interaction, whereas ancillary devices are meant for shorter use. An example is the PokeWalker[0], which itself had many predecessors as far back as the second generation of Pokemon games (late 90s).

Now that kids already have smartphones, they don't need to be carrying around a cheap piece of plastic clipped to their belt in order to get this sort of experience. If Nintendo integrates the console games with smartphone apps that supplement (but do not replace) the main games, this could be a real boost for them.

Also, look at existing game mechanics such as StreetPass[1]. It's almost laughable that people are still using devices that aren't smartphones to measure steps or handle near-field communication. This is long overdue, but better late than never!

I use Pokemon as an example because it's the most successful game franchise they have, so they tend to take advantage of Nintendo's full range of game mechanics much more than other series. It's also about 20 years old at this point, so it's possible to use the series to track how the Nintendo platforms have evolved over the years.

Interestingly, one of the Pokemon creators mentioned recently (last year or two) in an interview that they've consciously made the most recent generation of games much easier, because kids are interacting with games for much shorter periods of time, and they have to compete with games like Angry Birds for kids' attention.

[0] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9walker

[1] http://www.ign.com/wikis/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire/S...

The thing about the Pokewalker and other Nintendo accessories is that they are cool, collectible, and recognizable. Having a Pokewalker app on your phone isn't fashionable in the same way having a Poke Ball clipped to your belt is.

That's very interesting commentary and thanks for the links! I had a poke-walker,dreamcast vmu,playstation pocket/pocketstation when I was growing up. Moving those style of apps onto a smartphone is GENIUS!

One key point:

"During the joint press conference with DeNA, Iwata clarified that Nintendo will not port videogames created for dedicated consoles to smart devices."

http://www.siliconera.com/2015/03/17/nintendos-next-dedicate...

This is rather surprising. Nintendo's IP is basically the main selling point of their hardware. Without that, they'd just be SEGA. Their hardware sells very well, too - the Wii U didn't, maybe, but the 3DS is doing great and previous generations have done great.

I don't see this going anywhere good for the company. There's a risk of this cannibalising their hardware business. Why buy a DS if I can get Mario and Zelda on my phone?

>This is rather surprising. Nintendo's IP is basically the main selling point of their hardware.

It's not that surprising. There is precedent. Nintendo has licensed their characters to other platforms before("Mario teaches typing" anyone?). It's just that those games were never really the same type of games, and of the same quality. I can see Nintendo having free-to-play offshoots of Mario, Zelda and whatever else.

I don't see them releasing first-party AAA titles on smartphones.

Yeah, this strategy would make sense. Could be a great marketing tool, too. Try out F2P Mario on your iPhone, like it? Get a Nintendo console to play their full games.

>Why buy a DS if I can get Mario and Zelda on my phone?

The article states that the titles on the mobile devices will not be ports of existing games, so it looks like it will be accessory applications like the PokeWalker

Ah! If that's the case, it makes sense then. Actually, I think Nintendo have done similar things before.

There's a risk of this cannibalising their hardware business.

Yes, but there's also a risk of them not having a business.

Considered the install base of Android + iOS vs. Nintendo portables (or even consoles)?

There's only one rule in Cannibal Club: Cannibalise yourself.

The smartphone game business is not an especially profitable or stable one. That's not where their stockholders want the future of the company to be.

> That's not where their stockholders want the future of the company to be.

Unfortunately, they might not have a choice in the matter—hardware development is becoming more and more expensive, and I'm not sure Nintendo has deep enough pockets to keep up. Their common tactic of underpowered hardware that's cheaper to manufacture and develop for hasn't really worked out with the WiiU. So it might be, no profits, or smaller profits.

I wouldn't worry too much about "stable", though. Nintendo knows how to sell their software.

It is very, very profitable, just not for everyone. So you might want to rephrase that. However, I can see an established brand like Nintendo getting foothold without a problem.

> Yes, but there's also a risk of them not having a business.

How? The 3DS is doing pretty well...

So was Blackberry.

(Risk is not about now, it's about next.)

There's no risk of cannabilizing their hardware business, mobile still hasn't figured out controllers. A modern Zelda port to iOS would be a horrible experience.

My 5 year old just got into Mario, and I was surprised I couldn't buy a copy of the original Super Mario Bros for her iPad. So I bought it on the Wii (not a great experience btw), and she loves it.

They'd get my money either way. Nostalgia is a great marketing tool.

FWIW the typical flow is to just run to the store and pick up a disc :) Digital downloads on Nintendo consoles are pretty... terrible.

Why do you say that? Digital downloads on Nintendo devices have been just fine for me.

The experience is pretty smooth:

1) Open the eShop

2) Find a game (tons of features sections, look by category/rating/genre, or search)

3) Tap purchase

4) Add funds if necessary, just a tap or two to use your existing credit card details

5) Purchase

6) Download immediately, or put your 3DS into sleep mode and it'll download hands-free

The only real problem is Nintendo's system for transferring to new devices.

This is exactly what I meant.

It is my understanding that Kodak invented the core technology digital camera but didn't really do much with them because they didn't want to cannibalize their film business.

What are they up to now? Certainly not leading photography market.

Nintendo is, in fact always has been, leader of the portable console market. The 3DS isn't dead, quite the opposite.

Kodak seems a poor comparison.

This is just another instance of Nintendo's ancient management being demolished by what they think consumers "don't really want".

Another instance would be their refusal to embrace internet multiplayer. A final instance, which they are still guilty of, is piss-poor hardware in their consoles. Nobody can port a game to Nintendo because they have to make a subpar product compared to what they can make on the other consoles.

That's why you only really see first party games on Nintendo consoles. There are some third party releases, but you'd be much, much better off buying the same game on an xbox/playstation.

Watch them figure out the free to play revolution somewhere around 2022, when everyone else is extremely tired of the idea.

> free to play

They're a little more ahead on that one: http://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-video-games/pokemon-shuffl...

I'd argue that the weak hardware on their consoles is exactly what the consumers want. Weak hardware lets them focus on making the equipment rugged while still cheap, keeping them in the lead with younger gamers.

I bought my son a 2DS. He's 7, I would never trust him with a more expensive and fragile piece of equipment. The 2DS has anemic hardware and a resistive touch-screen (admittedly the best resistive touch-screen I've ever used). Do you think he gives a crap that it doesn't have as many gigaflops or shader channels as the next guy? No, he just freaking loves playing Mario Kart.

I'm actually worried about Nintendo's modernization. They are figuring out free-to-play. Their embracing of Amiibos and their launch of Pokemon Shuffle (a Candy Crush-style free-to-play cash-sucking skinner box) is very worrying as it shows they're moving to the modern approach of "suck money from players any way you can" instead of the traditional "sell really really good games at a high-ish price that never goes down because the game is so good it retains its value".

> ... it shows they're moving to the modern approach of "suck money from players any way you can" instead of the traditional "sell really really good games at a high-ish price that never goes down because the game is so good it retains its value".

I worry about this too, but I think the recent success of Majora's Mask 3D (a remastered version of a 15 year old game that sold over 1 million in the first two weeks) should solidify the importance to Nintendo of creating really good classic iconic games that retain their value.

A final instance, which they are still guilty of, is piss-poor hardware in their consoles.

I actually think that's a good move. Aside from anything else, it keeps the hardware cheap. It does mean less ports, but Nintendo has done a pretty good job of trying to appeal to a different demographic than the Xbox and Playstation.

refusal to embrace internet multiplayer

This has its advantages; internet multiplayer is very much at risk from griefers and behaviour unsuitable for kids. And Nintendo are staying firmly pre-teen focused while leaving 'mature' gaming to the other two.

And while Nintendo doesn't embrace it, they do support it. Nintendo provides free multiplayer online in many of their games. What they don't provide is online community in those games. You either play with your friends or you just join a game with random folks, and everybody is mute in the latter. It's minimalist, but it works.

People always complain when Nintendo doesn't behave just like their rivals. Their hardware is cheap because they are aiming for a lower price point, and it worked like a charm with the Wii. And personally I'm ok with them having poor internet multiplayer, because it's just not for kids. They don't know who they're interacting with, and their parents are often too ignorant to know better. Why do you want Nintendo to make something exactly like an xbox? Just buy an Xbox.

I'm pretty tired of the 'free to play' revolution. I can't really wrap my head around why this is something consumers want.

"Your imaginary software racecar needs repairs! Wait 45 minutes or pay $2.99 and we'll set the 'repaired' variable to true."

People really do this?

Some do. Unfortunately quite a lot of those are either spending other people's money or have a poor grasp on their own finances. In some ways it's going back to the arcade model where a small currency unit buys you a few minutes of entertainment, rather than a big upfront investment buying you hours.

The money is earned on whales. I think on average, about 3% of F2P players pay, but those who do spend a large ammount of money on the game. The others simply wait. What I find more worrying is that so many play the bad free games instead of paying 3 bucks and get a "real" game.

I'm not altogether certain that the paradigm of the video game console has shifted properly to keep up with the shifting intelligence of our screens.

When Nintendo was first getting started in consoles, all screens were dumb. To make your Zenith or RCA CRT TV do something interactive, you had to hook a console up to it.

This is unnecessary now, because cheap computing and the ubiquity of LCDs have made screens much smarter.

That said, I think it's wrong for Nintendo or Sony (Computer Entertainment) or Microsoft (XBox division) to look at Apple and Google like competitors, when they should be looking at them like screen makers.

A gaming platform should work seamlessly across Android, iOS, mobile Windows, and the various smart TV platforms the same way that gaming platforms used to work seamlessly across RCA, Zenith, Magnavox, and JVC.

I'd like to see a world where I order a blue-tooth Nintendo controller from Amazon and download the Nintendo app to my various devices. The controller links with any device that has the App. I buy Nintendo games for the Nintendo platform by doing in-app purchases, and my games are stored in the cloud and streamed when I want to play them. The controller could also be used as an authentication device, so I could play my games on my friend's iPad simply by linking the controller.

Proper distributed graphics processing may still be a few years away, but getting it right in the cloud is the key to normalizing the graphics experience across all devices. Add the controller into the mix, and any device that can handle web video instantly becomes capable of a AAA games experience.

Steam seems to be the one who's getting closest to this, and Nvidia and Sony have certainly done some interesting things with distributed graphics processing, but I don't think anyone's quite figured it out yet.

Is YC looking for distributed graphics processing startups?

I'm honestly surprised they took this long. I assume they'll still resist porting their core games - the Pokemon and Mario flagship games will still stay exclusive, but I'm betting Pokemon Shuffle is what they're eying up to port to consoles.

Personally, I'm a bit disappointed. I know the F2P thing is where the money is, but I've always liked that Nintendo kept the traditional approach of "just sell really good games".

They've been driving towards this for a little while now. There are a few F2P games on the 3DS already.

I'm guessing those games did fairly well (some were fun, and fairly priced) and Nintendo is realizing the potential of using their IP on a massive audience.

Didn't Nintendo have a javascript game engine for web based games?

Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Web_Framework

Given both iOS and Android support hardware controllers... and given how closely Nintendo ties in their games with their controllers... and given that you can get good margins off of hardware, a Nintendo-branded controller for mobile devices, that is required (or highly recommended) might give them the best of both worlds; they could continue selling hardware, continue controlling how the games get played, and still release them for mobile devices.

And given how consoles generally (start) selling at small margins, they might be able to make more money off of selling controllers at a higher markup—especially if they sell people a new one every two years (when they upgrade their phone), rather than every 6+ years (when a new console comes out).

I know nintendo probably won't be developing anything in house for this since it seems like they're giving out their ip, but if they made an mmo android/iphone pokemon game i would shut up and let them take my money.

I seem to recall an interview with someone on the Pokemon team who said that he didn't want to make a Pokemon MMO because he honestly thought it would ruin too many lives, although that story could just be apocraphyl.

Wow that's sensible and I really didn't expect that reasoning! If you look at IndieDB you can see that he's probably right because there are numerous unofficial Pokemon MMOs in the top lists. People crave for this!

I already have a ton of awesome old Nintendo games on my phone and tablet.

Anyway my tablet is what I use for games and coding and everything so good for Nintendo on joining the 2010s.

What would be really interesting is if Nintendo created a Gameboy/3ds/Whatever-branded phone.

I loved the sony experia play, except for the lack of sticks, and I really loved the form factor of the psp go. I would love to see nintendo attempt it, with their great first party titles, or even just ports.

I think it would be funny too since nintendo has been taking a page from apple lately.

This is great news. I'm particularly excited because the founders of RARE - arguably the key players in Nintendo 64 golden age of gaming - opened up a studio for mobile games recently.

http://www.p4rgaming.com/exclusive-interview-with-tim-and-ch...

XKCD extension changing smartphone to Pokédex is super relevant now.

there's a huge gaping whole in the market for a phone with real controls.

also the gameboy brand hasn't been used for a while, I predict a gameboy nx "phone".

Remember the Nokia N-gage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Gage_(device)

Sometimes I miss my N-Gage. Not in comparison to modern phones, but mostly for what it let you do at the time.

In a market where people buy a $600 iphone, i'm sure something of the ngage's price point would break the bank.

The N-Gage comes to mind... Urgh.

the games sucked, but it was a good idea. if only someone like, nintendo for example could do it right.

Remember the Sony Xperia Play?

remember that, it had no good 1st party games.

Certain bluetooth controllers work with some Android games or emulators, and sometimes they can be attached to the phone so that it feels like a normal handheld. It just needs to be adopted more.

Can we just not link to wsj.com? We can't read the articles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com