Oddworld creator Lorne Lanning: "Nintendo is going to be here in 100 years" - Polidicks

[quote="gamesindustry"] Oddworld Inhabitants is most closely associated with Sony, but the outfit's outspoken founder Lorne Lanning isn't shy doling out cheers and jeers for the rest of the industry. In an interview with VentureBeat, Lanning talked about Microsoft's recent reversals on Xbox One policies that had been pursued by former Xbox head Don Mattrick, now CEO with Zynga. [B] "I looked at that and I thought, 'How does that whole [Microsoft Xbox One] team feel, knowing that the guy who led them to that train wreck just jumped out with maybe a $5 million parachute?'" Lanning said. "That's an issue we don't talk about today, because it's not cool in capitalism to talk about that." He contrasted Microsoft's approach to Nintendo's, where CEO Satoru Iwata was recently asked if the company would be restructuring and laying off employees to cope with its recent struggles. Iwata answered that such a move could damage employee morale, and said developers in fear of layoffs would likely produce worse games. "When he said that, in my opinion, he was immortalized in the creative community," Lanning said. "I would work with him in a second. When a man in that type of position, in a world where the golden rule is the rule and that's what's expected at public companies, he stood up and said, 'That's not what we're about. We're about building great stuff. We have great people to build great stuff. We're gonna do that. When I look at the history of Nintendo, I say, 'Nintendo is going to be here in 100 years.' I have no doubt. I doubt Microsoft will be here in 100 years. I know Zynga won't be here in 100 years."[/B] As for Oddworld, Lanning has said the company's future plan is to grow the business alongside the fan base. While he expressed an interest in returning to AAA game development, he seemed happy to take his time getting Oddworld up to the scale where it could tackle such a project. "We're able to grow in a very micro way," Lanning said. "It's not something that has investors that need to be appeased and that are really bringing no value beyond their cash. Usually that cash is what drives most of the pressure and most of the distractions. Being self-published and self-financed... It's really crowd financing, because it's revenue financing. The crowd is paying for it. They're just not pre-paying for it. As a result, we're able to do something different."[/quote] [url="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-07-26-lanning-nintendo-is-going-to-be-here-in-100-years"]Source[/url]. He does make a very good point in his arguements.

Nintendo's been around a hundred years, they'll be here a hundred more. It's something about the way Japanese companies are managed, they're built for long-term growth and development. Look at Panasonic, Mitsubishi, or any of the Japanese tech giants... They've got roots that go back one, two hundred years. Nintendo's largely the same.

Nintendo just needs to stop with being a generation behind in specs with their consoles. Take the hardcore audience seriously. Yeah, some of us that turned 20-30 still like Zelda and Mario and Pikmin but we need more than that.

nvm

If we had to compare Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, and then guess which one wouldn't be here in 100 years I would put my money on Nintendo, because: a) Sony and Microsoft are both massive corporations that have many different arms apart from video games, and b) Nintendo has always ignored the successes of their competition to absent-mindedly push their own thing. The only good games on Nintendo's consoles are either in-house or made by Sega, and it seems like they are making giant leaps forward in making sure that publishers are as restricted as possible. They've already alienated EA, the company that is probably the biggest publisher in the industry. Instead of working towards making their systems compatible with the current generation in terms of power, they focus on making cute little things like motion controls and touch screens. (Which for some reason still isn't capacitive in 20-freaking-13.) Their online functionality is still incredibly draconian, with at least the 3DS still using friend codes. That said Nintendo is still dominating the mobile handheld market but phones are rapidly changing the landscape and Nintendo seems to be deathly afraid of change (friend codes fucking really) so I suspect that Nintendo won't be holding the mobile market throne for much longer. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] Unless they made a Nintendo phone that was made for gaming that didn't suck and had [I]actual[/I] social networking features.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167]They've already alienated EA,[/QUOTE] EA alienated themselves from the Nintendo when they told EA to FUCK OFF when they tried to get Nintendo to use origin. It's like a crybaby who couldn't get his way from an someone who knew better. Nintendo has always been behind from the start...but [I]you gotta admit we all come back to their games now and then.[/I] They survived a industry crash and then managed to revive it. I believe they will be around for a long time.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167]If we had to compare Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, and then guess which one wouldn't be here in 100 years I would put my money on Nintendo, because: a) Sony and Microsoft are both massive corporations that have many different arms apart from video games, and b) Nintendo has always ignored the successes of their competition to absent-mindedly push their own thing. The only good games on Nintendo's consoles are either in-house or made by Sega, and it seems like they are making giant leaps forward in making sure that publishers are as restricted as possible. They've already alienated EA, the company that is probably the biggest publisher in the industry. Instead of working towards making their systems compatible with the current generation in terms of power, they focus on making cute little things like motion controls and touch screens. (Which for some reason still isn't capacitive in 20-freaking-13.) Their online functionality is still incredibly draconian, with at least the 3DS still using friend codes. That said Nintendo is still dominating the mobile handheld market but phones are rapidly changing the landscape and Nintendo seems to be deathly afraid of change (friend codes fucking really) so I suspect that Nintendo won't be holding the mobile market throne for much longer. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] Unless they made a Nintendo phone that was made for gaming that didn't suck and had [I]actual[/I] social networking features.[/QUOTE] Nintendo is the only one that tries something new. Sure they don't make the most easiest things to use sometimes like friendcodes but they make great software. Everything is friendly and comfy looking, it also works perfectly from my experiences. In fact my favourite quote from Regie was "Nintendo likes to do different things and you can see what that does in the industry, we put a touch screen on a hand held gaming device and now you see that with competitors". I'm paraphrasing a bit but it still holds true. Look at the WiiU, Sony's PS4 is taking cues from it with the controller a bit. Hell Nintendo is still making fresh games today. You could argue that they have no new IP's but what they've done with existing ones is insane! Kid Icarus is amazingly fun, and Zelda is always great.

[QUOTE=timothy80;41609235]EA alienated themselves from the Nintendo when they told EA to FUCK OFF when they tried to get Nintendo to use origin. It's like a crybaby who couldn't get his way. Nintendo has always been behind from the start...but [I]you gotta admit we all come back to their games now and then.[/I][/QUOTE] Yahtzee's video basically spells it out perfectly for me. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUAeYL7eAdI[/media]

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167] Nintendo has always ignored the successes of their competition to absent-mindedly push their own thing. The only good games on Nintendo's consoles are either in-house or made by Sega, and it seems like they are making giant leaps forward in making sure that publishers are as restricted as possible. [/QUOTE] Nintendo hasn't restricted publishers since the SNES/NES days. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167] They've already alienated EA, the company that is probably the biggest publisher in the industry. [/QUOTE] EA is about money first, PR later. Once good first party titles come out on the Wii U, EA will come crawling back. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167] Instead of working towards making their systems compatible with the current generation in terms of power, they focus on making cute little things like motion controls and touch screens. [/QUOTE] The fact they are being innovative instead of pumping out first party greyscaled shooters is a good thing, not bad. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167] Their online functionality is still incredibly draconian, with at least the 3DS still using friend codes.[/QUOTE] friend codes are being phased out in the October update in favor of the Wii U's NN/Miiverse internet system. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609167] That said Nintendo is still dominating the mobile handheld market but phones are rapidly changing the landscape and Nintendo seems to be deathly afraid of change (friend codes fucking really) so I suspect that Nintendo won't be holding the mobile market throne for much longer. [/QUOTE] Until the day phones can have proper controls for games that are not farm clickers and endless runners, and Apple actually puts some quality control on the App store, I don't see the handheld gaming market going completely dying out. You seem like you want Nintendo to fail, to be truthfully honest.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609266]Nintendo is the only one that tries something new. Sure they don't make the most easiest things to use like friendcodes but they make great software. Everything is friendly and comfy looking, it also works perfectly from my experiences. In fact my favourite quote from Regie was "Nintendo likes to do different things and you can see what that does in the industry, we put a touch screen on a hand held gaming device and now you see that with competitors". I'm paraphrasing a bit but it still holds true. Look at the WiiU, Sony's PS4 is taking cues from it with the controller a bit. Hell Nintendo is still making fresh games today. You could argue that they have no new IP's but what they've done with existing ones is insane! Kid Icarus is amazingly fun, and Zelda is always great.[/QUOTE] This is me talking personally now but I don't care about Nintendo's IPs. I bought a Wii last time and regretted it immensely because none of the games on it interested me after I bought the damned thing and I only used it to play Gamecube games I already owned. I will almost certainly not be buying the WiiU because I couldn't imagine playing only one game on it like last time. (Bayonetta 2 is just about the only game that looks interesting to me.) I don't care about Zelda anymore. I don't care about Mario anymore. And any other game that does look worth while (Watch Dogs fuck yes) will undoubtedly be a superior experience on literally any other of the platforms, especially PC. So there's no reason for me to buy the thing.

[QUOTE=Lost Hybrid;41609146]Nintendo just needs to stop with being a generation behind in specs with their consoles. Take the hardcore audience seriously. Yeah, some of us that turned 20-30 still like Zelda and Mario and Pikmin but we need more than that.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting that Nintendo is offering new games like Bayonetta 2, X, Wonderful 101, Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem, Sonic Lost World, Zombi U, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Lego City Undercover, Tank! Tank! Tank!, and Nintendo Land. They cover many genres, cater to both casual and/or hardcore audiences, and are all exclusive to Nintendo consoles. This time around they are definitely offering us more than just the usual Mario and Zelda games.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609323]This is me talking personally now but I don't care about Nintendo's IPs. I bought a Wii last time and regretted it immensely because none of the games on it interested me after I bought the damned thing and I only used it to play Gamecube games I already owned. I will almost certainly not be buying the WiiU because I couldn't imagine playing only one game on it like last time. (Bayonetta 2 is just about the only game that looks interesting to me.) I don't care about Zelda anymore. I don't care about Mario anymore. And any other game that does look worth while (Watch Dogs fuck yes) will undoubtedly be a superior experience on literally any other of the platforms, especially PC. So there's no reason for me to buy the thing.[/QUOTE] Well that's fine that you don't like Nintendo's IPs. That doesn't mean they make bad games or are a bad company. This might shock you but Nintendo is still leading the market and has been seen the Wii.

While I'd like to think Nintendo will still be around in a hundred years, what I'm wondering is will video games still be a [I]thing [/I]a hundred years from now? In 1913 the hot shit was radios. As far as entertainment went, you couldn't beat your favorite radio program. A hundred years later, radios are peripheral things, something you listen to in your car or while you do something else, and then usually for music rather than radio programs. They [I]have [/I]left a legacy in the form of television and the internet- which both descend from the same concepts as radio. But radios themselves are much less of 'a thing', now. In 2113, who knows what people will do to entertain themselves? If you told someone in 1913 that in a hundred years, there'd be a magic box in the living room that you could use to make a digitized space soldier shoot another space soldier, controlled by someone across the planet, they'd look at you like you were crazy. Maybe video games will continue to be a thing a hundred years from now. It's possible. But maybe a hundred years from now they'll be amusing themselves in ways that seem completely inconcievable to us today.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609347]This might shock you but Nintendo is still leading the market and has been seen the Wii.[/QUOTE] It helps that they're the newest console out right now, even if their sales pale in comparison to PS4/Xbone preorders probably. Still think they jumped the gun far too early, but at least they know how to make good games and not focus on aggressively marketing the annoying social aspects Sony and Microsoft are trying to shove into the industry.

[QUOTE=TMBGFan;41609358]While I'd like to think Nintendo will still be around in a hundred years, what I'm wondering is will video games still be a [I]thing [/I]a hundred years from now? In 1913 the hot shit was radios. As far as entertainment went, you couldn't beat your favorite radio program. A hundred years later, radios are peripheral things, something you listen to in your car or while you do something else, and then usually for music rather than radio programs. They [I]have [/I]left a legacy in the form of television and the internet- which both descend from the same concepts as radio. But radios themselves are much less of 'a thing', now. In 2113, who knows what people will do to entertain themselves? If you told someone in 1913 that in a hundred years, there'd be a magic box in the living room that you could use to make a digitized space soldier shoot another space soldier, controlled by someone across the planet, they'd look at you like you were crazy. Maybe video games will continue to be a thing a hundred years from now. It's possible. But maybe a hundred years from now they'll be amusing themselves in ways that seem completely inconcievable to us today.[/QUOTE] There is so much we can come up with before it gets stale. That's what I worry about. Hell, I know most of us will be dead in 100 years or before then. So we may never know. Technology will be far advanced by then and maybe there will be some amazing things

[QUOTE=TMBGFan;41609358]While I'd like to think Nintendo will still be around in a hundred years, what I'm wondering is will video games still be a [I]thing [/I]a hundred years from now? In 1913 the hot shit was radios. As far as entertainment went, you couldn't beat your favorite radio program. A hundred years later, radios are peripheral things, something you listen to in your car or while you do something else, and then usually for music rather than radio programs. They [I]have [/I]left a legacy in the form of television and the internet- which both descend from the same concepts as radio. But radios themselves are much less of 'a thing', now. In 2113, who knows what people will do to entertain themselves? If you told someone in 1913 that in a hundred years, there'd be a magic box in the living room that you could use to make a digitized space soldier shoot another space soldier, controlled by someone across the planet, they'd look at you like you were crazy. Maybe video games will continue to be a thing a hundred years from now. It's possible. But maybe a hundred years from now they'll be amusing themselves in ways that seem completely inconcievable to us today.[/QUOTE] The future: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1293324[/url]

[QUOTE=Fangz;41609300]Nintendo hasn't restricted publishers since the SNES/NES days. EA is about money first, PR later. Once good first party titles come out on the Wii U, EA will come crawling back. The fact they are being innovative instead of pumping out first party greyscaled shooters is a good thing, not bad. friend codes are being phased out in the October update in favor of the Wii U's NN/Miiverse internet system. Until the day phones can have proper controls for games that are not farm clickers and endless runners, and Apple actually puts some quality control on the App store, I don't see the handheld gaming market going completely dying out. You seem like you want Nintendo to fail, to be truthfully honest.[/QUOTE] Nintendo has restricted developers by being a generation behind for the past eight years. Why must "innovative" mean "touch screens and motion controls and neat things?" What are you talking about with greyscaled shooters? Are you pretending that games like Watch Dogs, Just Cause 2, Saints Row 4, Grand Theft Auto 5, Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim, Serious Sam (seriously this list could go on for hours) don't exist? These are all amazingly fun and different games that Nintendo will never see. Just because Call of Duty exists doesn't mean that the ONLY OTHER OPTION is to make Call of Duty. And I'm sure that there will always be a niche of people who want to get a handheld and sit down and play a full game, but I feel like the majority of people prefer the flexibility of a smartphone. [url=http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250915/nintendo-profits-half-of-forecast-weak-3ds-and-wii-u-sales/#]3DS sales are weak,[/url] and I feel that the rise of mobile phones are part of the reason why this is happening. More and more people are buying smartphones. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_3DS#Sales_2]As of March, 31 million people bought a 3ds in total[/url], [url=https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2482816]where 425 million people bought a smartphone in Q1 2013 alone.[/url] More and more people are looking at smartphones as their daily carry device. Just because they aren't designed for games doesn't mean that they don't have market dominance in the mobile space. I will grant you the EA and Friendcode remarks. I was also wrong about Nintendo dominating the mobile market, I apologize for that. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609347]Well that's fine that you don't like Nintendo's IPs. That doesn't mean they make bad games or are a bad company. This might shock you but Nintendo is still leading the market and has been seen the Wii.[/QUOTE] I never said that because I personally don't play Nintendo games that they should die. I think Nintendo is most likely to fail out of the big three (most likely, not 100% certain,) because of the reasons I've listed above, aside from the fact that I don't personally play Nintendo consoles. Please stop putting words in my mouth. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=timothy80;41609421]There is so much we can come up with before it gets stale. That's what I worry about. Hell, I know most of us will be dead in 100 years or before then. So we may never know. Technology will be far advanced by then and maybe there will be some amazing things[/QUOTE] We haven't run out of Music or Books to write since the beginning of recorded history, what makes you think gaming will be any different?

[QUOTE=Lost Hybrid;41609146]Nintendo just needs to stop with being a generation behind in specs with their consoles. Take the hardcore audience seriously. Yeah, some of us that turned 20-30 still like Zelda and Mario and Pikmin but we need more than that.[/QUOTE] look up lateral thinking with withered technology they apply the same principle to their games

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609449] I never said that because I personally don't play Nintendo games that they should die. I think Nintendo is most likely to fail out of the big three (most likely, not 100% certain,) because of the reasons I've listed above, aside from the fact that I don't personally play Nintendo consoles. Please stop putting words in my mouth. [/QUOTE] Why would Nintendo fail out of the Big three? They're the only ones actually making a profit since they sell their consoles at a very small loss. Sony and Microsoft are losing money with the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609568]Why would Nintendo fail out of the Big three? They're the only ones actually making a profit since they sell their consoles at a very small loss. Sony and Microsoft are losing money with the Xbox 360 and the PS3.[/QUOTE] I've already explained why I thought that Nintendo would be the one least likely to survive, and Sony and Microsoft make that money right back with software sales and also have the profitability of their other ventures (Blu-Ray and Windows, respectively, for example.) The Nexus 7 was sold at a loss too; if it wasn't profitable, they bloody well wouldn't be making a second one.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609582]I've already explained why I thought that Nintendo would be the one least likely to survive, and Sony and Microsoft make that money right back with software sales. The Nexus 7 was sold at a loss too; if it wasn't profitable, they bloody well wouldn't be making a second one.[/QUOTE] The Nexus 7 was an extremely peculiar situation where they sold it at a loss [b]in addition to giving $25 Play Store credit[/b] which can be used for music, movies, games, apps, books, magazines, all sorts of stuff.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609582]I've already explained why I thought that Nintendo would be the one least likely to survive, and Sony and Microsoft make that money right back with software sales. The Nexus 7 was sold at a loss too; if it wasn't profitable, they bloody well wouldn't be making a second one.[/QUOTE] Actually Microsoft and Sony have currently not made back the money they spent making their consoles. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609582]I've already explained why I thought that Nintendo would be the one least likely to survive, and Sony and Microsoft make that money right back with software sales and also have the profitability of their other ventures (Blu-Ray and Windows, respectively, for example.) The Nexus 7 was sold at a loss too; if it wasn't profitable, they bloody well wouldn't be making a second one. To reword my primary argument, if the gaming industry for some reason collapses like it did back in the 80s, Sony can continue to make money selling TVs and Blu-Ray movies and other stuff, and Microsoft can continue being the biggest software giant in the business world. Nintendo has nothing to fall back on. If a massive depression were to hit, they have less options to turn to. Atari used to be one of the biggest players, then the crash happened, and then they weren't. I could see this happening to Nintendo, god forbid.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand how these Companies work.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609611]Actually Microsoft and Sony have currently not made back the money they spent making their consoles.[/QUOTE] I did not know this. Source please, I would like to read up on this. Also to reword my primary argument, if the gaming industry for some reason collapses like it did back in the 80s, Sony can continue to make money selling TVs and Blu-Ray movies and other stuff, and Microsoft can continue being the biggest software giant in the business world. Nintendo has nothing to fall back on. If a massive depression were to hit, they have less options to turn to. Atari used to be one of the biggest players, then the crash happened, and then they weren't. I could see this happening to Nintendo, god forbid. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lost Hybrid;41609606]The Nexus 7 was an extremely peculiar situation where they sold it at a loss [b]in addition to giving $25 Play Store credit[/b] which can be used for music, movies, games, apps, books, magazines, all sorts of stuff.[/QUOTE] Well the $25 Play Store credit was different in that they probably didn't lose any money apart from the server costs associated with sharing the content. They don't really lose any money there. I think. [editline]26th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609611]I don't think you understand how these Companies work.[/QUOTE] Explain it to me. Tell me exactly where I'm wrong in thinking that Sony and Microsoft have other revenue options that allow them to weather another video game crash.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609623] Well the $25 Play Store credit was different in that they probably didn't lose any money apart from the server costs associated with sharing the content. They don't really lose any money there. I think. [/QUOTE] They couldn't just tell the studios/record labels/publishers/developers that it was credit. They still paid them.

[QUOTE=Lost Hybrid;41609667]They couldn't just tell the studios/record labels/publishers/developers that it was credit. They still paid them.[/QUOTE] See I'm not sure if that's the case though. There might be something somewhere when content creators added the content on the store that says Google didn't have to do that. I wouldn't know, I'm not a lawyer.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609623] Explain it to me.[/QUOTE] Companies such as Microsoft and Sony have divisions that get their own budget and their own profit. Sony's Playstation division was leaking money with the PS3 and the same goes for Micosofts Xbox division with the 360 for awhile. If they ran out of money they'd be shut down and if it affected Microsoft/Sony as a whole the yes they would use sales of other products to make up for the loss but that hasn't happened yet.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;41609680]Companies such as Microsoft and Sony have divisions that get their own budget and their own profit. Sony's Playstation division was leaking money with the PS3 and the same goes for Micosofts Xbox division with the 360 for awhile. If they ran out of money they'd be shut down and if it affected Microsoft/Sony as a whole the yes they would use sales of other products to make up for the loss but that hasn't happened yet.[/QUOTE] Worst case scenario is that they close down the video game division and continue to operate as a company. Nintendo can't shut down their video game division in an economic crisis. They are a video game company.

Nintendo has more innovation in their pinky finger than EA and Microsoft have in their entire beings.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41609695]Worst case scenario is that they close down the video game division and continue to operate as a company. Nintendo can't shut down their video game division in an economic crisis. They are a video game company.[/QUOTE] Do you even know Nintendo's history? They have adapted several times, heck they were in the hotel business in the 50s.

[QUOTE=Fangz;41609725]Do you even know Nintendo's history? They have adapted several times, heck they were in the hotel business in the 50s.[/QUOTE] And I hope they do survive. However, I fear it might not be so easy the next time around. All of their eggs are in the video game basket now. I wonder if Nintendo has the ability to restructure itself on such short notice. Then again IBM restructures itself about every femtosecond so who the fuck knows. [editline]27th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Keychain;41609702]Nintendo has more innovation in their pinky finger than EA and Microsoft have in their entire beings.[/QUOTE] It's strange too, because they are so backwards in other areas. You get games like Super Mario Galaxy which is unlike anything I've seen before it and then you have DRM even more draconian than Sony and Microsoft where the shit you buy is tied to the console, not an account, and then they go ahead and arbitrarily take out Gamecube backwards compatibility on later models. I don't even know what to think about Nintendo anymore.