Discussion Miyamoto: If we have a game that sells 30 million units every few years we'll be fine (Interview with Itoi)

[Secu]

It is obvious that he said this because the recent game sales have exceeded 30 million. Otherwise, his number would be 20 million. This interview is a conversation between friends, and this statement may be driven by a desire to show off.

There are two basic common-sense points in his words.

Firstly, one million copies are not hit. I don't know why many people still believe this. Unlike before, the cost of games has significantly increased today. If a game's sales cannot recoup its costs, why is it still called hit.

Secondly, a game that only achieves a balance of income and expenses cannot be considered successful.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Miyamoto: A big hit is 30 million sales, but we only need that every 3~5 years

What you understood: we only care if the game sells as much as possible, fuck the art

Let's not jump to conclusions please

First of all I think there is a very natural conflict on this issue, developers do not think about whether the thing is likely to be a hit or not when they do what they want to do. However, Shigeru Miyamoto's view is that you should be tapping into products that are likely to be successful, still from a business perspective, just in a smarter way, so I don't think I'm wrong.

 

[LinkURL]

I would really like to understand why people are so reluctant to understand simple things.
Hit Does not mean good sales, Hit, at least from what I understand, is a game that becomes extremely popular.
Miyamoto isn't advocating going after those numbers at any cost. And yes, from what I understand, games like this every couple of years keep the business sustainable so that they have the freedom to invest in games that are not that profitable.
We're talking about the company that continues creating Metroids and Pikmins even though they know they could invest that time and money in more profitable IPs at the moment.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

It is obvious that he said this because the recent game sales have exceeded 30 million. Otherwise, his number would be 20 million. This interview is a conversation between friends, and this statement may be driven by a desire to show off.

There are two basic common-sense points in his words.

Firstly, one million copies are not hit. I don't know why many people still believe this. Unlike before, the cost of games has significantly increased today. If a game's sales cannot recoup its costs, why is it still called hit.

Secondly, a game that only achieves a balance of income and expenses cannot be considered successful.

A prime example, Alan Wake2 struggled to reach 1 million sales, but still couldn't pay for itself.

 

[Koti]

This interview is actually really good and shows so many good parts about Miyamoto and Nintendo indirectly. But threads like this with poor translation and misunderstanding causes negativity and hate in the community. Put a better translation or close this thread mate.

 

[LinkURL]

However, Shigeru Miyamoto's view is that you should be tapping into products that are likely to be successful, still from a business perspective, just in a smarter way,

The guy who continues banking Pikmin to this day? No, that's not him

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

The guy who continues banking Pikmin to this day? No, that's not him

So I clearly showed that Shigeru Miyamoto has an ambivalent orientation as a developer and manager, and that Shigeru Miyamoto still believes that pikmin should be more successful than it is, and this passage just shows that he's trying to find a reasonable relationship between the management of a company that needs to make a profit, and the development of a game.

 

[Vall]

I even just checked the sales charts and I'm surprised Splatoon is still in the 10 million copy class, that does seem to have upside and I think it deserves to be in the 20 million copy class.

I think to push that boundary, the Splatoon games will need to offer something more attention grabbing in the single player campaign.
The multiplayer's exceptional, but doesn't necessarily correlate strongly with the audience Nintendo cultivated.

I think its similar reasoning to why 3D world is one of the least popular 3D marios. Game enjoyment is fun, but without ambitious, interactable set pieces, there's a limit to the appeal.

Like, 90% of the reason Octo Expansion's final boss is as well regarded as it is is because it's a giant statue that you spend 3 minutes running around.

 

[Bayonutter]

Youtube: Miyamoto shits on [insert your favorite series here]; needs to sell 30M to be considered a hit

 

[Leo]

That's crazy lol by those metrics, Nintendo had almost no big hits in its entire history before the Switch.

The Super Nintendo had 0 big hits, imagine that lol

 

[daybreak]

I think people are misinterpreting his comments as cold and business-centric, whereas to me it's quite clear that he is saying if you're only making games to break even instead of trying to make big hits that bring people joy, it's a drain on your creativity and career.

"If a book that was difficult or painful sells well and becomes a hot topic, everyone will be happy."

And later:

"Suppose we just barely exceed the break-even point, and we end up with no loss, what will be left is just 'I'm tired.' We worked hard, but we only made money...I think everyone is working hard day in and day out to make it a big hit, and to say, 'I can't stop laughing.'"

It's very clear that he's speaking to the importance of creativity, always giving 100%, and being observant in order to look for creative, new ideas and framing these observations from a business perspective to fit the seminar he's speaking at.

 

[franzen23]

This interview is actually really good and shows so many good parts about Miyamoto and Nintendo indirectly. But threads like this with poor translation and misunderstanding causes negativity and hate in the community. Put a better translation or close this thread mate.

I'd like to read the full translated interview but that doesn't seem to be available anywhere. If there's something in the OP that isn't true, let me know and i'll fix it.
Honestly thought it was more interesting than anything, and don't think it's that surprising. People are just misreading it as him saying every game has to be a huge hit as opposed to striving to get huge or make big swings is important for the company

 

[Twohearts]

What he's saying is that they don't make any game they think will flop and that they hope every game is a success but also know not every game can be but they always try to make money. It's always about making the new best version of the game

 

[WestEgg]

Assuming the translation is good, I don’t really see much wrong here. He said a game that sells 1 million units is not a hit for Nintendo, which is probably true for every major publisher assuming the game is of significant scope and not an intentionally smaller project. Just look at sales threads on any forum when a game has low sales, heck the Stellar Blade thread here was mostly mocking the game for just selling over one million.

He’s also not saying a game has to sell 30 million to be successful, but that games that sell 30 million are “big hits” that can keep the company afloat for 5 years. And that he uses that logic to motivate employees to work on their games in hopes that some day they will make that 30 million seller that can single-handedly sustain the company. Series like Zelda and Animal Crossing were not a part of that group until the Switch, so a breakout hit could also come from a previously less successful series. It’s an intentionally lofty goal, not a minimum measure of success.

 

[Twohearts]

What he's saying is that they don't make any game they think will flop and that they hope every game is a success but also know not every game can be but they always try to make money. It's always about making the new best version of the game

I guess what this also means is that the reason series like F-Zero and Star Fox haven't come back is because Nintendo doesn't see a way to grow the series without an innovation they haven't thought of yet, which is why they haven't come back.
It does leave me worried for the future of princess Peach games though since it sold just over 1.2 Million in 3 months. Guess we'll have to wait for the next quarterly

 

[shoptroll]

That's crazy lol by those metrics, Nintendo had almost no big hits in its entire history before the Switch.

The Super Nintendo had 0 big hits, imagine that lol

I'm assuming this is a fairly recent interview, so SNES probably would've had different expectations considering the final hardware sales total was like 60 million. Plus games were developed with fewer people (but also cost more due to ROM, batteries, and special chips).

---

Heck, even at 30 million units being a "big hit" is incredibly lofty like @WestEgg says. Pokemon and a number of Switch games have yet to hit that metric.

The excerpt that was machine translated sounds very conversational and 30 million units would be a "big hit" to any company, and I think at that point yea you undeniably have a certified banger on your hands. That seems to me what Miyamoto is trying to say.

It's probably also wise to not treat this in absolutes. Like there's varying levels of "hit" here. While 30 million is really really freaking good, I'm sure Nintendo is also happy with titles that do less than that.

But this also speaks to how Nintendo does their development budgets. If a "big hit" every few years is enough to carry the company that says a lot about how little they're spending on making their games.

 

[Imitatio]

Tomorrow’s headlines: Miyamoto says Tears of the Kingdom flopped! What’s next for the struggling video game giant?

 

[joveroy]

I guess what this also means is that the reason series like F-Zero and Star Fox haven't come back is because Nintendo doesn't see a way to grow the series without an innovation they haven't thought of yet, which is why they haven't come back.
It does leave me worried for the future of princess Peach games though since it sold just over 1.2 Million in 3 months. Guess we'll have to wait for the next quarterly

F-zero came back last year.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

That's crazy lol by those metrics, Nintendo had almost no big hits in its entire history before the Switch.

The Super Nintendo had 0 big hits, imagine that lol

Because the videogame market has expanded massively since the super Nintendo. The super Nintendo first party million sellers total isn't that much ahead of the Wii U! (88m vs 60m) Despite the SNES selling more than 3 times as many hardware units

 

[Lugia667]

I guess what this also means is that the reason series like F-Zero and Star Fox haven't come back is because Nintendo doesn't see a way to grow the series without an innovation they haven't thought of yet, which is why they haven't come back.
It does leave me worried for the future of princess Peach games though since it sold just over 1.2 Million in 3 months. Guess we'll have to wait for the next quarterly

I mean Endless Ocean of all franchises came back

 

[kvetcha]

A game hitting 30, 40, 50 million sold is what allows them to release a Pikmin 4 or a Metroid Prime 4 without sweating bullets.

 

[Superfirebros447]

With all due respect OP, the title of this thread and the passage quoted is misleading, as it doesn't have a proper translation yet, and I do think this could lead to some very unhealthy discourse, so I think locking the thread would be for the best until we get a better translation.

 

[WonderLuigi]

Nvm

 

[Twohearts]

I mean Endless Ocean of all franchises came back

And they gave it online function and randomised environments, two clear innovations

 

[franzen23]

With all due respect OP, the title of this thread and the passage quoted is misleading, as it doesn't have a proper translation yet, and I do think this could lead to some very unhealthy discourse, so I think locking the thread would be for the best until we get a better translation.

I mean people have yet to say if the translation is wrong, and people should read the full interview for more context of course, i can't post the whole thing.

And I don't really see why it would lead to unhealthy discourse, i mean Miyamoto says he tells new recruits for the last 10 years the importance of creating a big hit is, and the title of the interview page is literally "30 million". Doesn't mean every Nintendo game has to be this huge success, but when you're a company like Nintendo which employees thousands of people, them trying to make games that breakthrough like that shouldn't be surprising.

Honestly didn't think people would read it as every game needs to be this big, or if we don't sell x amount of copies it's unsuccessful. Just thought it was an interesting look in how Nintendo operates

 

[Heron]

I mean people have yet to say if the translation is wrong, and people should read the full interview for more context of course, i can't post the whole thing.

And I don't really see why it would lead to unhealthy discourse, i mean Miyamoto says he tells new recruits for the last 10 years the importance of creating a big hit is, and the title of the interview page is literally "30 million". Doesn't mean every Nintendo game has to be this huge success, but when you're a company like Nintendo which employees thousands of people, them trying to make games that breakthrough like that shouldn't be surprising.

Honestly didn't think people would read it as every game needs to be this big, or if we don't sell x amount of copies it's unsuccessful. Just thought it was an interesting look in how Nintendo operates

I thought it was fascinating, thanks for sharing. But it shows Nintendo and St. Miyamoto in a slightly unflattering capitalistic light, thus all the pushback you're seeing. That's all.

The amount of "oh no, people are going to use this in internet arguments in ways I don't like" pearl clutching is almost as if some people here are paid Nintendo PR looking at tomorrow's workload in frustration.

To move on from that meta-discussion... Personally, I think it's interesting that he says that they need a mega-hit of 30+ mil ever 3-5 years rather than, say a 10+ million seller every year, which is what I would have expected. Perhaps it's because it's the 30+ million sellers that generate the value of the "billion-dollar IP" that is Nintendo's real value. If they sold the same amount of software, but never made those mega-hits, perhaps their IP wouldn't be as strong among casuals. Selling 30+ million implies a break-out hit that touches the mass market far beyond core gamers. Think "Animal Crossing showing up on late night TV during the pandemic" type stuff.

I'm just glad to see him say the obvious regarding the bottom limit of sales - due to opportunity cost alone, any internally developed new Nintendo title that only sells 1 million is surely a failure. Look at the circumstances - Nintendo can hire the very best developers of all Japan, they have the best and most experienced game design directors, the best management, the best tech teams, they have first-party privilege when it comes to advertising on the console and in the e-shop. 1 million is just the barest of minimums. I feel like a lot of fans haven't adjusted for the increase in player population over the past two decades (we have way, way more gamers now) or the huge install base of the switch. The sales standards have to be updated.

 

[RochHoch]

Before people go crazy with this, just think about how many games Nintendo regularly greenlights that sell like 2-3 million or less, and they just keep making more of them

In the age of rising dev costs, Nintendo having a handful of mega-hits is the reason they don't mind funding stuff like Xenoblade and Fire Emblem

 

[Aether]

Yeah... The translation seem to be...meh?

Trying to parse what's in there it seems to be:
They are always aiming to have Big Hits (30m), but are aware that those are rare. A game is not a failure if it doesn't reach that goal, but he doesn't see a point if you already set your goal as low as "Break Even". From a business perspective that makes sense, break even should (usually!) be the lower end what you expect so that even if it's selling less then expected you're not loosing money.

Effectively: we aim high, but even if we don't reach that it's fine as long as there is profit. Imho that's reasonable from the company's perspective.

 

[Aether]

I thought it was fascinating, thanks for sharing. But it shows Nintendo and St. Miyamoto in a slightly unflattering capitalistic light, thus all the pushback you're seeing. That's all.

Nah, in this case just realistic. We all would do projects just out of fashion, but they have thousands of employees to pay.

The amount of "oh no, people are going to use this in internet arguments in ways I don't like" pearl clutching is almost as if some people here are paid Nintendo PR looking at tomorrow's workload in frustration.

Yeah

To move on from that meta-discussion... Personally, I think it's interesting that he says that they need a mega-hit of 30+ mil ever 3-5 years rather than, say a 10+ million seller every year, which is what I would have expected. Perhaps it's because it's the 30+ million sellers that generate the value of the "billion-dollar IP" that is Nintendo's real value. If they sold the same amount of software, but never made those mega-hits, perhaps their IP wouldn't be as strong among casuals. Selling 30+ million implies a break-out hit that touches the mass market far beyond core gamers. Think "Animal Crossing showing up on late night TV during the pandemic" type stuff.

You mentioned it. But having "go to" evergreens helps to, if you have a platform. More obvious "ok if I want to play this game, might as well pick one of these, so I would not only buy a console for 1 game" kinda deal. It also helps to recognize which ones have that potential. If you need more games with 10m you have 3 times more games where you have to take a firm look how to reach that mass appeal, 10m is not easy. So having milestone titles that provide such a broad appeal can
a) get core pillars for mass appeal in the broader culture
B) those don't sell instant, so they lead to a constant cash flow
C) Helps smoothen the losses of many other projects that stay under expectations.

In sum: they give the company long-term stability.

I'm just glad to see him say the obvious regarding the bottom limit of sales - due to opportunity cost alone, any internally developed new Nintendo title that only sells 1 million is surely a failure. Look at the circumstances - Nintendo can hire the very best developers of all Japan, they have the best and most experienced game design directors, the best management, the best tech teams, they have first-party privilege when it comes to advertising on the console and in the e-shop. 1 million is just the barest of minimums. I feel like a lot of fans haven't adjusted for the increase in player population over the past two decades (we have way, way more gamers now) or the huge install base of the switch. The sales standards have to be updated.

Yeah, that to. They are to big to work on projects that won't even sell a million except if it's a "low effort" fair. (In the sense that it doesn't need long Dev times / a lot of resources, not in a "lazy dev" way)

Examples would be the 2 wario ware games, both for sure did not need 3 years and hundreds of Devs to make, but nobody would call them lazy. (I assume)

 

[Lugia667]

he said 1 million isn't a "huge hit". He never said it's a failure

Anyways I think one of the reasons this got so many reactions is because it on it's face seems similar to Square's infamous Tomb Raider Failure comments. However it's very different from that

 

[Tentacle-tropes]

I even just checked the sales charts and I'm surprised Splatoon is still in the 10 million copy class, that does seem to have upside and I think it deserves to be in the 20 million copy class.

To get to the 20mil bracket they’ll have to improve on a lot of areas for the game. It would also help if they didn’t make a sequel in the same generation.

 

[rick_C]

I’m curious how many people actually read the article.

after reading what I got was ,,Anything can become huge, only if you try and reach for the star’’.

I read this interview few months ago, with japanese version. At that time, i already thought some people will quote Miyamoto's words out of his context.

 

[Ab]

Why is 30 million being a big hit surprising to people? Yes 10+ mill are probably hits. But not the ones he's talking about that sustain much more developers.

 

[Sin & Punishment]

I just think it's cute that Miyamoto and Itoi are hanging out

 

[Aether]

I think this is where Shigeru Miyamoto contradicts himself, the fact that there are no potential rumors suggesting that Shigeru Miyamoto is forcing his subordinates to make bestsellers, and considering that Shigeru Miyamoto is both a pioneer and a genius when it comes to game design, he's well aware of the fact that companies and developers have different tendencies.

That's the thing where I expect the translation to be at fault and miss nuances. It's obvious that they also greenlight a ton of games that will never reach those numbers. To me it reads:
Aim high, don't just target bare minimum (break even), and if we as a company reach those 30M every couple of years, then we're fine.

I prefere that then the hire and fire mentality of western Devs. You can't keep the stability when your games don't make enough profit to keep the paychecks rolling in weak years.

 

[winstein]

My first thought is on how they consider certain types of games that reached a million. So for example, would the lens of a new IP (e.g.: ARMS), a new entry of a existing IP (e.g.: WarioWare: Get It Together!), and a remake/remaster (e.g.: Mario vs. Donkey Kong) have a similar expectation as merely selling a million copies? (Note that ARMS did sell like 2M+ but I can't quite think of a new IP on Switch this time that only got 1M+ so far.)

I personally want to see certain games get new entries because I kind of miss them, like Mario vs. Donkey Kong where they take Mario's platforming roots (the arcade one) and expand on it. That is a series I am sort of worried might get left behind because it wasn't successful enough (not helped by how significantly successful the Super Mario platformers are). And there are certain series like WarioWare where it's never in danger of being dormant despite not being hits going by those words, because I suspect it has a huge developer interest to sustain it.

On the successful front, there's Mario Party. As a series that gets a 20 million entry for the first time, I get the impression that this series is a sleeper hit in this community and many other enthusiast ones because it's hardly acknowledge as a hit series. At least, not in the same way the "ol' reliables" list would typically include. If there is a series that I would like to see being wildly successful, it's Mario Party. But I suppose it being not appealing enough to the hardcore might be a huge barrier for it...

Now with that said, I sometimes wonder: in the case the Switch's successor's games doesn't sell as many copies in the series as the predecessor, would they be considered a failure even if they reached a million? So hypothetically, if Animal Crossing's successor were to have, say, 29.9 million in the end, would that be a failure because it didn't reach the heights of the Switch? Logically it should still be a success but you never know.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Mbolibombo]

As a platform holder Nintendo has said multiple times they want a diverse lineup with games for everyone. They're well aware that all games arent going to become massive sellers but they still put them out, so basically - if they spawn a massive hit every now and then they can continue to fund by Nintendo standards - niche games like Bayonetta and Astral Chain, new IP like Arms, RFA and Sushi Striker, massive scope games with limited sales potential like the Xeno franchise just to have a very broad and diverse lineup "and they will be fine"

I'm sure no one at Nintendo would look at a Kirby game selling 5M, a Mario Party game selling 20M, a Luigis Mansion game selling 15M, a clubhouse game selling 5M and think.. yeah these are not hits.

 

[jariw]

First of all I think there is a very natural conflict on this issue, developers do not think about whether the thing is likely to be a hit or not when they do what they want to do. However, Shigeru Miyamoto's view is that you should be tapping into products that are likely to be successful, still from a business perspective, just in a smarter way, so I don't think I'm wrong.

The only conflict is that Nintendo will never know what sells and what doesn't in advance, which has always been the case - and which Iwata addressed even during the Wii U period. Their work ethic seems to be based on creating new entertaining experiences that might or might not stick with the audience. That's why they tests unorthodox things like Labo. The big hits that will sell a lot will carry the experiments that sell less. That's also the reason why Nintendo save most of their profits instead of reinvesting them - they never know when the next big hit will come.

And FWIW, I don't believe Miyamoto ever made Star Fox Zero with the aim of selling a lot of copies, but it might have been a useful experience on some other level anyway.

 

[Zemya]

I think the issue with reaching 30m is that, with some exceptions, you don't just need a masterpiece of a game but the brand recognition to carry it a bit.

The games around 30m, if I remember correctly, are Mario and Zelda games, with Animal Crossing being the outlier.

Dunno if they are counting Pokémon in this since while it's a surefire seller their part of the cake is smaller

Oh and yeah, articles headers will be funny

 

[Bonejack]

Miyamoto: "Hey, Aonuma and Fujibayashi ... no pressure. No ... pressure."

^^

 

[placenta]

Switch has 4 Pikmin games, 3 Xenoblade games, it will have 4 Mario RPGs, Metroid games, SMTV published by Nintendo in Europe, and many more examples of games that have not the largest sales potential.
But one single google translate quote suffices to question decades of company philosophy by its strongest fanbase... The only thing missing here is people assuming Nintendo will focus on GaaS from this interview.

 

[Wockio]

You would think Miyamoto is this whimsical free spirit based on what he creates, but the truth couldn't be farther from that. He's as pragmatic as they come.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Some very weird interpretations of Miyamoto's words itt, especially since they don't really line up with reality. Former toy company and mainstream game developer that mostly makes games for all-ages audiences thinks about making games that appeal to many people. I cannot contain my surprise.

 

[boodream]

Switch has 4 Pikmin games, 3 Xenoblade games, it will have 4 Mario RPGs, Metroid games, SMTV published by Nintendo in Europe, and many more examples of games that have not the largest sales potential.
But one single google translate quote suffices to question decades of company philosophy by its strongest fanbase... The only thing missing here is people assuming Nintendo will focus on GaaS from this interview.

Yes. I honestly don’t think it’s a translation problem here at all. The comments are extremely clear, and in reality they are extremely Nintendo.

What he says, by making it clear, is that a developer should set no limits in terms of ambition. In other words, someone who makes a game for Nintendo must not be parasitized by anything other than the will to get the best possible result. He is so explicit that he makes it very clear that he is talking about ambition and not greed and that it is not the same thing.

People will always try to make believe that this discourse which is fundamentally very pro-developer is equivalent to the management methods at Embracer while it is strictly the opposite. But that doesn’t mean that the translation is bad, it just means that these people are acting in bad faith.

It’s not like we only have a punchline with 1 million or 30 million. Just read. But I do not doubt that some creators of content on the Internet will hurry to explain that Miyamoto has lost their respect.

 

[volcsia]

Yes. I honestly don’t think it’s a translation problem here at all. The comments are extremely clear, and in reality they are extremely Nintendo.

What he says, by making it clear, is that a developer should set no limits in terms of ambition. In other words, someone who makes a game for Nintendo must not be parasitized by anything other than the will to get the best possible result. He is so explicit that he makes it very clear that he is talking about ambition and not greed and that it is not the same thing.

People will always try to make believe that this discourse which is fundamentally very pro-developer is equivalent to the management methods at Embracer while it is strictly the opposite. But that doesn’t mean that the translation is bad, it just means that these people are acting in bad faith.

It’s not like we only have a punchline with 1 million or 30 million. Just read. But I do not doubt that some creators of content on the Internet will hurry to explain that Miyamoto has lost their respect.

Yup, in his interview, he clearly stated that it's not about profit.
It's just a pure ambition to develop a game that can sell 30 million copies.

 

[Aufhebung RPG]

Miyamoto: "Hey, Aonuma and Fujibayashi ... no pressure. No ... pressure."

^^

To be fair, Aonuma is a lot less stressed now, since his task now is just to play the game and give feedback, the real pressure is all on Fujibayashi that lmao.

 

[Kartina]

I guess we can add “games that don’t sell more than 30mil copies” to the list of things that miyamoto hates together with stories, original character designs, exp and partners.

 

[Yavga]

Tomorrow’s headlines: Miyamoto says Tears of the Kingdom flopped! What’s next for the struggling video game giant?

You joke but I can remember reading some rumour where the poster stated Nintendo had expected more sales and was kinda dissapointed in the figure so far, I'll look for it.

 

[Beanstar40]

oh god… the amount of clickbait is about to go insane.

Gamexplain already has 10 videos ready to go I'm sure

 

[PixelKnight]

A lot of this is going to be individual sentences taken out of context. But really what he’s saying isn’t so different from Iwata’s ‘developers scared of losing their jobs don’t make good games’. He’s saying ‘don’t aim to break even’, to focus on ideas that will take off and that people love, that creatives need to spot and nurture these ideas early on. Rather than just aim to please and do the bare minimum to hit an ‘acceptable’ profit line.