Iwata:

  Facebook functionality on Nintendo DSi Camera originated from a proposal from NOA (Nintendo of America), that we should integrate Facebook in order to deliver the value of Nintendo DSi Camera.

  Years ago, MySpace had the largest share on SNS market. In the earliest days of Facebook, some people recognized that it was a student-oriented service. After they started opening up the Facebook platform, it rapidly increased users and changed people's understandings, to become a leader among other SNSes. It was such a time when NOA gave us that proposal. We in Japan did not fully recognize that story of Facebook, which nowadays everyone knows.

  That's how we started the integration with Facebook. Through such experiences, I am really trying to figure out what is really required for our (network-related) activities; and I found one of the things we are missing is "speed." Historically Nintendo's business has been on a cycle where we first launch our platform with our own first-party software in order to build up a market valuable enough for third parties to join in. Thus our basic understanding is that we have to do nearly everything by ourselves at first.

  But I wonder if we really have to do so when launching various online services. For example, we introduced the Weather Channel and News Channel at the launch of the Wii platform. We actually did them on ourselves. But nowadays I think that we could have lessened our own workload by cooperating with some outside services. If we try to make our activities faster, we should clearly distinguish what we really have to do on our own from what we can finish more speedily through partnerships with other companies or services. I remember someone asked us at one of our past financial briefings if we are short of our internal development resources for speedy deployment. Since those days we have been wondering about that and now we know that we don't need to do everything by ourselves.

  On the other hand, another important thing is that we have a strong feeling that Nintendo platforms should remain safe for any kind of consumers. Majority of people online are acting upon their goodwill, but that is not the case all the time. We do not want our customers to have uncomfortable experiences when they play with the others through the net. So I believe we have to figure out how our consumers can experience an online environment without having uncomfortable experiences, or how we can maintain our consumers' safety. To wrap it up, we do not think we have to do everything by ourselves for a new service, especially for online-related ones; and our fundamental thought on integrating them is that we want to make sure that it's safe and protected from wrong doings as possible. When we have this figured out, our delivery speed can change.

Iwata:

  Years ago, Nintendo released a video game console called "Virtual Boy" (launched in 1995), when people were discussing "virtual reality," a buzz word of those days which have become nearly a dead word today. I understand that the company challenged to release this product, thinking that a 3D environment can deliver immersive and valuable video game experiences. As for the reason of its bad sales result, some people blame its graphical ability which could only display red during the days full-colored gameplay was common-sense. Or other people might say that for people surrounding the player he or she can hardly look favorably.

  Personally, I am really excited to see more and more movies getting 3D functionality, and feel no hurdle in using 3D glasses for two hours in order to watch a movie. But when we consider the possibility of 3D video game for a household, we also have to consider if everyone needs eyeglasses in order to start playing, or how would the graphic and players look like to spectators without 3D glasses? If it is played by one person or without any family member on the spot, I think 3D technology will be suitable for a video game experience. As Nintendo has been and is going to be focusing upon the number of users per household, I have some doubt that current 3D technology which requires eyeglasses will be suitable for our products. In fact there have already been discussions for a possibility of a 3D video game for a long time. To tell you the truth, GameCube is secretly designed to load graphical circuits which display graphics for right and left eyes respectively, for a future possibility of realizing 3D gaming experience. So actually we have had interest on this technology, but I have some doubt about everyone needing glasses to play. Also, we would have to consider the impact on a human body if we develop 3D games as full-scaled as current video games, which takes much longer than 2-hours movies. If we design games that the players can enjoy only for two hours, that would mean less value for the price. To wrap up, we have interests but are also aware that there are so many hurdles to overcome, thus we don't believe every kind of game will become 3D environment in no time.

Iwata:

  From a very broad viewpoint, any kind of entertainment including social gaming or cell-phone games can be our competitor as we have to fight over the limited amount of consumer's interest, time and budget. But do we feel that the smash-hit Avatar is our competitor? We don't think so. Even if a smash-hit like Avatar appears, it will not necessarily deprive the gaming population. We have similar views on other forms of entertainment. What we find to be the greatest threat is repeating what went well, with a notion that consumers would buy in the future just as they did in the past.

  As I have explained before, there was an argument around the year 2001 or 2002 when we had just launched Game Boy Advance (GBA) that cell phones would swallow portable video game consoles. Some people said cell phones would be capable of what GBA could do and no one would dare to buy a portable game-dedicated device any more as everyone will own a cell phone as a necessary commodity. I was asked that same question during every interview with the press, especially foreign ones. If we had decided to run a portable gaming business with GBA-like hardware or GBA with improved hardware specs, the reality would have been similar to their prediction and portable video game console would have a much smaller market than it actually has now. The reality is that we launched Nintendo DS, aiming to realize what was totally different from that. Our situation today is due not only to a special new hardware but also to the continuous proposals of software titles, in addition to the new hardware, with new angles or themes, or that redefined what a video game was or deliver unprecedented kind of play. We often rely on easy ways just to slightly improve the title or product whose previous version was much favored. What is important for us is how we can go beyond that, and if we can figure out how to do so, we will not have to worry about what is emerging.

  What we are always concerned about is not how to win over the competition, but rather we are always preoccupied with making our new proposals feel really fresh or exciting to our consumers. There are lots of recent game titles that are fun to play with, but only a handful of them perform well in the market. Why can a title that is fun not produce positive sales results? Even some of Nintendo titles are in such a predicament. When we analyze what they were lacking, we always come to the conclusion that we didn't motivate and get consumers interested enough to actually try out the products in their own hands. Some forms of entertainment which attracts consumers by offering it free-of-charge have a much lower barrier for consumers to try. In order to not lose our significance against such free entertainment, we need to motivate and get consumers to actually experience ours. And it will be crucial for the future of our business.