Iwata:

The term "cloud gaming" is one of the words we have lately heard so often, but I would like people to understand that there are certain things that cloud gaming cannot achieve. A cloud is an attempt to process information online on a server, as opposed to doing so on individual machines in the hands of the users. What this implies is, since the time to transmit data over an Internet connection is never negligible, there is always some latency before you receive the result of your input. Of course, there are types of games on which delays have no effect. In such instances, it may perhaps make sense to have an input means as well as the ability to display images at hand and let all the information be processed on a server. On the other hand, for some highly interactive games, action games in particular, the time required to reflect the push of a button on the screen is critical and the frame rate (the number of times a screen can be updated in a given second) determines the fluidity of the movements. This means that there are some types of games that can be put on the Internet and others that cannot. By the laws of physics, it always takes some time to transmit data, and given the current level of Internet technology, there is bound to be some latency during the processes of a server receiving data, producing images instantly and sending them back. There are many things that cloud gaming cannot do by design, but this fact has not been communicated well to the public, and I find it strange that many people claim that cloud gaming is the future.

In this sense, what we should be discussing is not cloud gaming but whether dedicated gaming platforms will eventually die out and whether handheld gaming devices and home consoles will one day be unified. Naturally, our stance is that dedicated gaming platforms will not die out and we are determined to create a future where they will not. In terms of our platform integration, as I explained to you a short while ago, we are not saying that we are planning to integrate our platforms into one. What we are saying is that we would like to integrate software development methods, operating systems, and built-in software and software assets for each platform so that we can use them across different machines. This means that if we manage to integrate our platforms successfully, we may in fact be able to make more platforms. At the moment, we only have our current handheld devices and home consoles because if we tried to make more platforms, our development resources would be spread too thinly. The more we can share software across different platforms, the more development resources will be left for something else. Platform integration does not mean creating one type of platform, but the point is that the united method of software development will enable us to share our most precious software assets across different hardware. It is natural that there will be more things that battery-run devices can do thanks to technological advances and game consoles will become more powerful. However, if we try to linearly pursue this direction, software development will become so complicated that we will eventually face a situation where cost recovery becomes a serious issue. Therefore we feel that we are nearing a saturation point in terms of simply improving performance or enhancing graphics. What is far more important for the future of video games is whether we can make new propositions in other aspects and create games out of something that people never expected to see in the form of a game.

Miyamoto:

As Mr. Iwata just explained, in addition to video game software developers who create actual gameplay, we have staff members who, for example, create development environments, prepare libraries for licensees and make preparations to successfully implement a new CPU. Our platforms after Nintendo DS and Wii have various standard applications with which you can do a lot of things once you buy them. Recently we have found ourselves having more work in development of such preinstalled applications, in addition to the fact that we need more time to develop video game applications. As Wii’s design concept was similar to that of Nintendo GameCube, software developers were able to focus on creating new types of game software applications. On the other hand, when we use a new CPU or a new development environment as we did for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, it takes a certain amount of time before we can start actual development of games. The integration of our hardware divisions is for the purpose of getting our core developers to work on creating actual entertainment applications, and we are not trying to develop a unified platform. Speaking of hardware, we started making various efforts to expand our user base mainly with Nintendo DS several years ago. Around that time mobile phones were considered as our competitors, but the gameplay with them was not so comfortable and their architecture was very complicated and too varied. We tried various approaches with Nintendo DS to get people who didn’t play video games to understand and enjoy interactive technologies. In the end, it was a variety of software titles that we offered for Nintendo DS which increased the number of people who got accustomed to something interactive. The fact of the matter is that the technologies included in smartphones have progressed so much that they can now do what mobile phones couldn’t do in that arena previously. Therefore, what Nintendo should do this time is create something that is more fun to play on our devices. The sales of "Animal Crossing: New Leaf" we released last year in Japan have already assured us that, as long as we create software that meets certain demands from the consumers, such as a game title they really want to play by any means and they want to do so without worrying about the battery life of their handheld devices, they will be willing to purchase it. We think that this title has sales potential for the overseas markets and we are now investigating how best to promote it.

Moving on to our home console business, I think there are only a handful of machines on the market that really try to answer the question of how best to use the TV screen in the living room. It seems that, in developing powerful video game consoles, the TV screen in the living room is just considered as an output device which could be replaced by a computer monitor. We, on the other hand, believe that our mission with Wii U is to make the TV sets in the living rooms more convenient and diverse in people’s daily lives. In this sense, we feel that we managed to create a very cost-efficient machine. I believe that handheld devices and home consoles will continue to coexist for the time being because they have different goals.