Miyamoto on PS3: We're not competing
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Mar 20th 2006 at 8:33PM }
In a recent interview with the Guardian Gamesblog, esteemed game designer Shigeru Miyamoto was
questioned about Sony's recent announcement of a PS3 delay. Rather than respond with an assortment of boomerang jokes,
Mr. Miyamoto calmly stated that he simply doesn't view Sony's machine as competition. "It depends on what expectations people have of the PS3 and Revolution. Sony has taken a long time to create their machine but it is obvious that the direction we are taking is different to the PS3."
It may seem like an arrogant stance, but when your machine literally eschews traditional controller design and the current trend of cramming more technological power into a box, it's a fair statement to make. He goes on to say that rather than taking on the other two corporate giants in terms of graphical power, Nintendo would rather stick with what they do best and create appealing games that strike a balance between technology and playability.
On the other hand, it would perhaps be unwise to think that the PS3 (or Xbox 360) and Revolution aren't competitive in a traditional sense. After all, the end goals of providing a gamer with his entertainment are the same. The execution and mindset may differ, but it still boils down to giving you the games you want to play. Nintendo may very well be going after the untapped casual market but hardcore gamers, who fall under Sony and Microsoft's marketing umbrellas, are sure to be just as interested in the Revolution.
What say you?
[Via Eurogamer]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jim N @ Mar 20th 2006 9:13PM
I think that the Revolution may not be competing with the PS3 as much as the PS3 may be competing with the Revolution. The people who have a 360 and plan on buying a second console will probably have to make a choice between buying one or the other. I think it will be very interesting to see what the Japanese market does. They seem very loyal to their local products. But now they are going to have to decide between two of them. Because Sony decided to release their console the same month as the Revolution, I think it will be hard for allot of people to lay down a total of $600 to $700 in just consoles in one month plus the extra cost of games and accessories. If Sony had keep their original release date I am sure it would not be hard to lay down the $425 - $500 that the PS3 is going to cost and then lay down the $200 in November.
Josh @ Mar 20th 2006 9:50PM
Of course Sony, MS, and Nintendo are all competing for the same market share, but Nintendo is also aiming at new markets, which are currently completely ignored by both Sony and MS. This is what he means when he says Nintendo is not competing with Sony and MS, and that's fine by me. More gamers = more variety in games and more innovation. Personally, I am getting a Revolution, but not a 360 or PS3. I don't want to play Quake 7, I don't want to play UT 2009, I don't want to play Splinter Cell 6, etc. I'm much more excited about Revolution and its prospects of new ways of playing games than the next multi-million dollar semi-sequel to some standard FPS.
TME @ Mar 20th 2006 9:58PM
I think what he's getting at is that people know what to expect from the Revolution vs. the other Consoles, while the PS3 and 360 are simular enough to have people choosing between the two the Revolution is different enough that people can decide based on their personal tastes, rather than which does the same job better.
jorge @ Mar 21st 2006 1:31AM
Of course they are competing. The thing is that N is just scared, and doesn't want people to know that only graphics matters. They say that gamers are getting tired of the same old thing, but if you can make a fps look better, then it will obviously play better than some "innovative" tv controller. I will continue to play grand theft autos as long as they keep making them look better and better, because that is the only thing I care about. Just kidding...
rhombus @ Mar 21st 2006 4:08AM
Miyamoto's statement seems to reflect what Iwata's been saying for months now, and I fully support their combined attitude for the Revolution. The way that MS and Sony have positioned their consoles makes me think they intend them to be for people who won't/can't get a PC. My source for high technology gaming is my dual core, dual graphics PC. My source for innovative mold breaking unique games will be the Revolution. I just hope The Big N changes the name before launch.
ajprice @ Mar 21st 2006 7:04AM
If the Revolution is inventive enough and cheap enough, it will have a big market as a second console alongside a 360 or PS3.
DS v PSP. The DS is an inventive and cheaper system that is a games machine as its No 1 purpose, against the PSP which is a media playing, internet browsing multi purpose system.
Revolution v PS3 & Xbox 360. See above.
DkNy2kX @ Mar 21st 2006 8:42PM
Nintendo is competing with Sony, and MS in North America
BECAUSE
When a parent goes to buy a console, and they see three choices, the mere fact that the three are part of a parents decision will cause competition. However, Nintendo is trying to broaden its market, but i would say 80% of the market is in competition with the other 3 consoles.
You know what would be sick if Nintendo can market the revolution as a package with living room furnature.
You know have it displayed in IKEA or something, because its suppose to be for the family. You know?
nonjagged @ Mar 22nd 2006 4:30AM
In the photo of Miyamoto, it appears someone from behind him is either sticking a carrot against his buttocks or someone (photographer) is pointing a Revmote at him and saying "stick em up"?
Dan @ Mar 22nd 2006 9:03AM
Agreed - there is a separation of the camps it seems, at least where Nintendo is considered against its rivals which are becoming somewhat less threatening to Nintendo as they remain uninterested in the uber hardware melee wars.
Nintendo maintaining their stance as the innovator that wants to take risks - some good [DS], some, well, the market perhaps wasn't ready [Virtual Boy], to be optimistic, but they're sticking true to what they know & do best, and that's being creative in the gaming world whereas others are only trying to capitalize on ultra shiny graphics on tired formulas.
I own probably >80% of all consoles made in gaming's history, 'cept for Xbox offerings [I have a great PC, thanks!], but I can easily see that Nintendo has always had the brightest minds out there, and therefore will still be around long after the dust settles. Much to the chagrin of MS & Sony fanboys, of course.
bryan @ Mar 22nd 2006 10:42AM
After being a "hardcore" gamer since the NES was introduced, I'm quite tired of incremental graphical improvements to games that still play and feel the same as they did 5 or 10 years ago. This goes for angsty teen saving the world JRPGs just as much as xtreme-gritty-urban GTA clones. Even though I never had a N64 or more than 3 games for the Gamecube, I am very very interested in seeing what the revolution can do for me, even though I still plan on getting a PS3 because I want a high def movie player. So both consoles get my support and don't really compete with each other.