EA Announces Miyamoto Is A Failure


Richard Hilleman, Chief Creative Officer of Electronic Arts, has recently shared his disapprovement of Shigeru Miyamoto’s role at Nintendo.  In response to Miyamoto’s one time grandeur, he believes that he has not kept up with the times, and should have gone mobile quite a while ago.

“I thank Miyamoto for that,” he said of the Nintendo designers historical contribution to games. “But he’s falling down on the job. And for the past five years that job has been taken over by a dead guy from Cupertino.”

Hilleman believes that te gaming industry is asking for too much of the consumers time, money, and skill.  Although he admits that the average gamer will sit down for about two hours to play a console, finding that two hours has become increasingly difficult.  He compares it to the 90 minute average of a PC gamer, and the 90 second average of a mobile gamer.  Although, he is defending the mobile platforms, he also stated that he believes the future of gaming means no longer means launching on multiple platforms.

“Once I get your butt on a couch, I can get two hours for sure. That granularity means I cannot build the same game on every platform. I cannot build Battlefield on every platform.”

How do you feel about Hilleman’s observations?  Is he right, wrong, talking out of his…?

16 Responses to EA Announces Miyamoto Is A Failure

  1. Ben says:

    Sure sounds like he has his head up his ass

  2. Dave says:

    No such word as ‘disapprovement.’ You’re looking for ‘disapproval.’

  3. Esselpratt says:

    Dave, as a published writer/author, I now down to your observation. I can only blame the early morning and lack of coffee for the mistake!

  4. Lou says:

    I’m not a big EA fan, but he does make an interesting point on time. Finding that 2 hour window has become more difficult, and mobile games don’t need that kind of window. So as a console fan, that is disturbing.

    I’m also a Miyamoto fan, but if I’m being honest it’s more for his past work. Maybe things have passed him by? It’s seems heretical to even suggest, but maybe he’s not in the right role with the company anymore.

  5. MikeIsaPoet says:

    Every ounce of BS has some truth to it.

    But I think it’s funny how EA is trying to pretend they’re in the place to call anyone bad for the industry.

    “That granularity means I cannot build the same game on every platform. I cannot build Battlefield on every platform.” And yet you drop the same garbage every year or so.

  6. EsselPratt says:

    Mike, you bring up a good point, one that I was wondering if it would be brought, up or not. The market seems to be flooded with a lot of the “same” games. How many Battlefields, Call of Duty, Madden, etc, do we need. I am one that would love to see titles become exclusives for various consoles. Let the big three “bid” for a new IP and keep it exclusive to the console/company. Releasing the game on all three consoles does not necessarily benefit a certain console unless that game has a large fan base for that console. However, it is pretty big money for the developer. But, when we are constantly flooded with the same game, in various sequels, it gets old fast.

    However, there are some games that have the following to remain successful, but the developers need to know when to quite, or at least an extended break. As an example, GTA V is obviously (as evident by sales) a blockbuster hit. What if it was exclusive to one console? This is completely hypothetical, but what if that console was the Wii U, and the games sales were the exact same as they are now? We would have seen an explosive number of Wii Us sold just to have the opportunity to play that game. Now, I don’t see Nintendo welcoming GTA with open arms, but just imagine?

    So, he is correct, let’s stop releasing the same game for every platform, instead, let’s bring back console exclusives. But let’s also look at the games we are releasing. Instead of releasing the same game, with minor changes (such as maps) and HD graphics, let’s bring something new to light. It can be done with familiar titles, look at Mario and Zelda. Both have the same characters, but have been able to change the gameplay enough to fit with the new storylines and make the game feel new and refreshed. When I play a battlefield, or CoD, I do not get that feeling. Instead, I feel like I am playing the same game with minor upgrades.

  7. J.O.R.D.A.N. says:

    Miyamoto needs to be put down. He did some incredible things but that was quite a long time ago. Now he only holds the company back and is no longer allowing the company to evolve and grow. I can’t wait until he’s gone.

  8. MikeIsaPoet says:

    Exactly…you’d be surprised how much easier it is to get 2 hours out of people when they’re excited to try something different. When we get the same games over and over, and this goes for everyone in the industry, we become psychologically hesitant to do the same repetitive actions. We work, go to school, we repeat our schedules enough as it is. We need new.
    Meanwhile, here’s EA whining about how Shiggy is lacking innovation. Laughable.

  9. raindog469 says:

    There are a number of flaws in Hilleman’s analysis, if you can call it that.

    First, the notion that console gamers are suddenly more interested in 90 second experiences than 2 hour experiences seems farfetched. EA got their start by releasing, in a time of arcade ports, thoughtful and rather slow games like Archon and M.U.L.E. They’ve abandoned that market in the 30 years since then, but that doesn’t make it the same market as people who just want to play Temple Run while waiting in line somewhere.

    Second, unlike EA, Nintendo hasn’t completely abandoned their roots (in Nintendo’s case, arcade games and LCD handhelds). Nothing demonstrates this better than Game & Wario. They’re capable of making both shallow but addictive games and deep, immersive games. Yes, the shallow ones are cheaper to make, but because they’re cheaper, you face orders of magnitude more competition. EA’s response to that has been to buy some of their indie competitors. The results of that strategy have been… well, mixed, to put it nicely. Nintendo’s advantage has been that they controlled the hardware, going all the way back to Radar Scope and Game & Watch. As a pure third-party player, whose one venture into hardware was a total flop (3DO), EA’s model couldn’t be more different. Even as the 800-pound gorilla, breaking systems like Dreamcast by declining to support them, they need to be everywhere to reach a big enough audience. They can’t see from the perspective of a company who makes money anytime anyone releases anything on their hardware.

    Third, two out of the three soon-to-be consoles have, apart from gimmicks included just for differentiation like Kinect, nearly identical hardware. For that matter, at least at the flagship level, all smartphones have similar capabilities. EA can abandon their cross-platform heritage too, since they’ve abandoned everything else that made them great, but others will be waiting to take their place. Meanwhile, Nintendo will continue to do their own thing, and if this fall doesn’t give the Wii U the breakthrough it needs, they’ll iterate sooner rather than later, just like they did when the N64 and Gamecube lost out to Sony.

    Fourth, Nintendo has existed as a company about four times longer than EA. Long after EA has been sliced up and sold, Nintendo will likely still be around.

    He’s not completely wrong — Nintendo has gone from “intuitive, groundbreaking gameplay without regard for horsepower” to “expensive gimmicks that few console gamers want and that aren’t enough to entice non-gamers anymore” — but I don’t know how much of that is on Miyamoto. The “beat ’em with horsepower” approach failed with the Gamecube, so it’s not hard to understand why they’d think they’re better off pursuing the Wii/DS approach, even as the rest of the gaming world catches up with or outright imitates them. Microsoft seems more sure of Nintendo’s approach than their own, essentially betting the next console generation on the market’s supposed love of motion control and leaving the bread-and-butter horsepower gaming to Sony.

  10. MikeIsaPoet says:

    ^ DAMN, bodied. Someone send that post to EA and make everyone there read it.

  11. Lord Lemmy says:

    He’s definitely not 100% correct, but of course, there is some truth to what he says. For example, Pikmin 3 is sure to get hours of game play at the couch, and Miyamoto made that. Then again, we’ve got an onslaught of NSMB games and they’re almost the same thing every time. There’s a couple of Miyamoto’s franchises that have been either on the back burner for a LONG time, or just not really even considered for a new game, which would make fantastic games: Starfox and F-Zero. All in all, though, Miyamoto hasn’t been doing bad lately. Worse than his past records? Yeah. But not bad as Richard implies.

  12. Dave says:

    Miyamoto a failure? This coming from a guy currently working at a company that’s regarded by most gamers as a complete failure? If it weren’t for titles like Dead Space, EA would’ve gone the way of the dodo already…or to use a more recent example the way of THQ.

    So yeah, it’s cute this guy thinks his opinions hold any water in this industry, it’s downright adorable! Kinda like still believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

    To say Miyamoto is a failure is not a ballsy move, it’s just plain childish.

  13. Esselpratt says:

    Wait…Santa isn’t real?

  14. Josh Warren says:

    Sorry to hear that. Im Nintendo for life. I think the developers are genius’s. Nintendo is the best! I will never stop playing.

  15. Remo Williams says:

    He’s right. Nintendo will be putting out games on the iPhone by years end.

  16. Stuart says:

    I posted a chart on an earlier article that showed Nintendo’s best sellers for the Wii. Their latest best seller was in 2009 (New Super Mario Bros. Wii), and that was a rehash of a rehashed, rehashed hash.

    That’s consistent with this guy’s timeframe.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: