Nintendo May Use “Shorter Development Periods” On Some Games To Offset High Costs
Nintendo May Use “Shorter Development Periods” On Some Games To Offset High Costs
by Turbostrider27
28 Comments
wavnebee
“We also believe it is possible to develop game software with shorter development periods that still offer consumers a sense of novelty.”
idk. I’d rather have a few games with novelty+polish than dozens of games that are just novel.
Locoman7
I don’t need 4K, just give me 60 frames and I’m happy.
MyMouthisCancerous
I hope this means more niche/experimental AA experiences at budget prices and not “Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour taught us very valuable lessons about what our consumers want” lol
accel__
Well, they don’t have to deal with VO, highly complex graphical structures, they dont make “movie-esque” cutscenes etc.. When all you focus on is tight gameplay foundamentals, than yeah, you can get away with shorter dev time.
Hydroponic_Donut
Good. Not every game has to be 100+ hours. Metroid Dread was what, 8-12 hours, depending on completion? And it was just fine being that length. If those games take less time to make, then good. Reusing assets is and should be just fine, idk why it’s become such a negative thing lately.
wicktus
If you raise the cost of your games, you are already offsetting the higher cost…
Because if it’s going to get worse quality wise and more expensive…no thank you
That mario striker on switch 1 for instance, I don’t want to see half-baked games like that
Nathanyal
Didn’t they just get a lot of hype by having unlimited development time in Mario Wonder, making it a good game?
AbstrackCL
This is while other companies are right now cancelling projects and laying off employees.
At the end of the day, they are looking for solutions. This week’s Microsoft layoff (9,000 employees) mainly affected Xbox and game-related teams.
CKwi88
I know it’s misattributed to Miyamoto, but “A delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad” does bear scrutiny.
Sure, nowadays you can patch and update and release DLC, but I’m fine with waiting for Nintendo’s big IPs if it means quality games.
PoopyMcFartButt
Gamers when long development cycles: 😡
Gamers when shorter development cycles: 😡
KittyAgi11
So many comments have decided that NINTENDO BAD and so they will perceive everything they do as negative.
Gregasy
Honestly, I’m more of an indie-games fan, so lower cost games sound good to me. Also, not every game needs to be 50+ hours epic. On contrary. Being older, I realise I often prefer shorter 10-12 hour games, to those huge epics that just go on and on. Not in all cases, of course, but in general I approve a bit shorter playing time.
hyperforms9988
It’s okay to iterate. Using Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker as an example… do you really need that much development time to make a sequel? You can use the same engine, touch up the assets, create new levels, and throw in a new mechanic or two couldn’t you? I don’t see that as a gargantuan task. Same thing for something like Super Mario Wonder. That’s much newer, but your framework is already mostly there. Use it for a sequel. Tropical Freeze is years old, but again… you already have that shit mostly done. If you want to make a 2D Donkey Kong game, you have one that you can use. I think that’s an easy approach for smaller games. Price them appropriately too if that’s the approach.
ARTHUR_FISTING_MEME
This could obviously be taken as “we’re gonna crunch our developers to make a Zelda game in 2/3 years”, but I think this means “we’re gonna be putting out some more mid-sized games”, which I’m fine with.
I’ve kinda been hoping that without the Wii U library to re-release and bolster the Switch 2 library, Nintendo would pick back up on some of the more obscure series. Like Rhythm Heaven and Tomodachi Life are great examples of games that probably don’t need 5 years of dev time. A new Wario Land could fit that mold too.
TheGruenTransfer
I just wish they’d do more Ocarina / Majora’s Mask type situations. Sure, spend 5 years crafting a huge game, but then recoup the expense by making a 2nd game by reusing the assets.
Also they need to embrace the phenomenon of randomizers and sell randomizer DLC to a ton of their old games. That would be fun as hell.
JoshuaJSlone
I know this qualifies as “news” since it was something recently stated… but they’ve been saying and doing this for decades. Games of different size and scope. Back in N64 days even they talked about Majora’s Mask as an example of a game with a shorter development period. There was even talk of games with 6-month development, though I don’t think they ever went that far. At least not with anything beyond minigame level.
Proud-Obligation9479
I’ll take a small Wario Land game, thanks.
Deceptiveideas
Shorter development scale doesn’t necessarily mean shorter games, a lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand that.
I’m pretty sure Nintendo has been employing shorter development scale starting with the Wii U. We saw a lot of the sports titles feeling shallow in comparison to the originals on the GC/GBA. Mario Party was another good example of a game that felt massively stripped down compared to its predecessors. Even the long awaited Strikers Charged sequel felt underwhelming.
I’ve also noticed Nintendo has been launching light on content with various games and updating them with time. Animal Crossing is a notable one and even after all the updates it feels like a step back in several ways compared to the original titles.
I’m worried about the future of their sub franchises given the shallowness in gameplay we’ve been seeing.
Dr_Kappa
I don’t think this will impact their big name games, but I have concerns for anything else. Mario Strikers and Breath of the Wild cost the same at $60 and it’s very rare to see some kind of discount.
To a reasonable consumer the value proposition is just not there. Sure some people will buy it, but if they are just banking on those people buying half assed games at full price to subsidize development costs for other games, a lot of people will be pissed off and those games will suffer from it
Parhelion2261
Not every game needs to have a $200M budget on it
No-Proof2099
But I thought the $80 price tag was to offset costs.
AnavelGato2020
Good. It took so long for Prime 4 to drop that the Switch had time to be retired in favor of its successor. It still doesn’t have a concrete date yet and we’re halfway through 2025.
wt_anonymous
>”Recent game software development has become larger in scale and longer in duration, resulting in higher development costs,” Furukawa explained. “The game business has always been a high-risk business, and we recognize that rising development costs are increasing that risk. Our development teams are devising various ways to maintain our traditional approach to creating games amidst the increasing scale and length of development. “We believe it is important to make the necessary investments for more efficient development. We also believe it is possible to develop game software with shorter development periods that still offer consumers a sense of novelty.”
Nintendo has already been doing this. They publish tons of AA games to stay afloat. Games like BOTW/TOTK that take years and years are exceptions
Luciano99lp
Fuck no, we finally got gamefreak to spend more than a year on their games, we cant go back to that shit
Jonny_Icon
Shorter development time? Fine. Cheaper games. Seriously… as good as some of these games are… $115 CAD is too much money for new titles.
One with less development time? I have no interest in half baked games needing oodles of patches to get some basic function. If I recall Mario Party had fallen in to that bucket.
BallerBettas
Stop developing new engines with new graphics. Fucking just use the old assets. I literally do not care at this point, just fucking release games.
henryuuk
If that means not turning everything into open worlds, then that might just be the best news in about 8 years or so
Cardamander
Nintendo really doesn’t have an issue. Their profits margins dwarf PlayStation and Xbox. They have a sustainable business model. I just wish they would buy a controlling interest of Game Freak and completely take control of the Pokémon games.
28 Comments
“We also believe it is possible to develop game software with shorter development periods that still offer consumers a sense of novelty.”
idk. I’d rather have a few games with novelty+polish than dozens of games that are just novel.
I don’t need 4K, just give me 60 frames and I’m happy.
I hope this means more niche/experimental AA experiences at budget prices and not “Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour taught us very valuable lessons about what our consumers want” lol
Well, they don’t have to deal with VO, highly complex graphical structures, they dont make “movie-esque” cutscenes etc.. When all you focus on is tight gameplay foundamentals, than yeah, you can get away with shorter dev time.
Good. Not every game has to be 100+ hours. Metroid Dread was what, 8-12 hours, depending on completion? And it was just fine being that length. If those games take less time to make, then good. Reusing assets is and should be just fine, idk why it’s become such a negative thing lately.
If you raise the cost of your games, you are already offsetting the higher cost…
Because if it’s going to get worse quality wise and more expensive…no thank you
That mario striker on switch 1 for instance, I don’t want to see half-baked games like that
Didn’t they just get a lot of hype by having unlimited development time in Mario Wonder, making it a good game?
This is while other companies are right now cancelling projects and laying off employees.
At the end of the day, they are looking for solutions. This week’s Microsoft layoff (9,000 employees) mainly affected Xbox and game-related teams.
I know it’s misattributed to Miyamoto, but “A delayed game is eventually good, a rushed game is forever bad” does bear scrutiny.
Sure, nowadays you can patch and update and release DLC, but I’m fine with waiting for Nintendo’s big IPs if it means quality games.
Gamers when long development cycles: 😡
Gamers when shorter development cycles: 😡
So many comments have decided that NINTENDO BAD and so they will perceive everything they do as negative.
Honestly, I’m more of an indie-games fan, so lower cost games sound good to me. Also, not every game needs to be 50+ hours epic. On contrary. Being older, I realise I often prefer shorter 10-12 hour games, to those huge epics that just go on and on. Not in all cases, of course, but in general I approve a bit shorter playing time.
It’s okay to iterate. Using Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker as an example… do you really need that much development time to make a sequel? You can use the same engine, touch up the assets, create new levels, and throw in a new mechanic or two couldn’t you? I don’t see that as a gargantuan task. Same thing for something like Super Mario Wonder. That’s much newer, but your framework is already mostly there. Use it for a sequel. Tropical Freeze is years old, but again… you already have that shit mostly done. If you want to make a 2D Donkey Kong game, you have one that you can use. I think that’s an easy approach for smaller games. Price them appropriately too if that’s the approach.
This could obviously be taken as “we’re gonna crunch our developers to make a Zelda game in 2/3 years”, but I think this means “we’re gonna be putting out some more mid-sized games”, which I’m fine with.
I’ve kinda been hoping that without the Wii U library to re-release and bolster the Switch 2 library, Nintendo would pick back up on some of the more obscure series. Like Rhythm Heaven and Tomodachi Life are great examples of games that probably don’t need 5 years of dev time. A new Wario Land could fit that mold too.
I just wish they’d do more Ocarina / Majora’s Mask type situations. Sure, spend 5 years crafting a huge game, but then recoup the expense by making a 2nd game by reusing the assets.
Also they need to embrace the phenomenon of randomizers and sell randomizer DLC to a ton of their old games. That would be fun as hell.
I know this qualifies as “news” since it was something recently stated… but they’ve been saying and doing this for decades. Games of different size and scope. Back in N64 days even they talked about Majora’s Mask as an example of a game with a shorter development period. There was even talk of games with 6-month development, though I don’t think they ever went that far. At least not with anything beyond minigame level.
I’ll take a small Wario Land game, thanks.
Shorter development scale doesn’t necessarily mean shorter games, a lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand that.
I’m pretty sure Nintendo has been employing shorter development scale starting with the Wii U. We saw a lot of the sports titles feeling shallow in comparison to the originals on the GC/GBA. Mario Party was another good example of a game that felt massively stripped down compared to its predecessors. Even the long awaited Strikers Charged sequel felt underwhelming.
I’ve also noticed Nintendo has been launching light on content with various games and updating them with time. Animal Crossing is a notable one and even after all the updates it feels like a step back in several ways compared to the original titles.
I’m worried about the future of their sub franchises given the shallowness in gameplay we’ve been seeing.
I don’t think this will impact their big name games, but I have concerns for anything else. Mario Strikers and Breath of the Wild cost the same at $60 and it’s very rare to see some kind of discount.
To a reasonable consumer the value proposition is just not there. Sure some people will buy it, but if they are just banking on those people buying half assed games at full price to subsidize development costs for other games, a lot of people will be pissed off and those games will suffer from it
Not every game needs to have a $200M budget on it
But I thought the $80 price tag was to offset costs.
Good. It took so long for Prime 4 to drop that the Switch had time to be retired in favor of its successor. It still doesn’t have a concrete date yet and we’re halfway through 2025.
>”Recent game software development has become larger in scale and longer in duration, resulting in higher development costs,” Furukawa explained. “The game business has always been a high-risk business, and we recognize that rising development costs are increasing that risk. Our development teams are devising various ways to maintain our traditional approach to creating games amidst the increasing scale and length of development. “We believe it is important to make the necessary investments for more efficient development. We also believe it is possible to develop game software with shorter development periods that still offer consumers a sense of novelty.”
Nintendo has already been doing this. They publish tons of AA games to stay afloat. Games like BOTW/TOTK that take years and years are exceptions
Fuck no, we finally got gamefreak to spend more than a year on their games, we cant go back to that shit
Shorter development time? Fine. Cheaper games. Seriously… as good as some of these games are… $115 CAD is too much money for new titles.
One with less development time? I have no interest in half baked games needing oodles of patches to get some basic function. If I recall Mario Party had fallen in to that bucket.
Stop developing new engines with new graphics. Fucking just use the old assets. I literally do not care at this point, just fucking release games.
If that means not turning everything into open worlds, then that might just be the best news in about 8 years or so
Nintendo really doesn’t have an issue. Their profits margins dwarf PlayStation and Xbox. They have a sustainable business model. I just wish they would buy a controlling interest of Game Freak and completely take control of the Pokémon games.