> A tangent, but this is one reason Nintendo is so successful; they know the characters sell, while at the same time understanding it’s not the characters but the quality of the game and that really matters and brings customers back for more.
I think you undersell this comment: it’s far more than a tangent.
Nintendo and Bandai the only companies I’ve worked with who I’ve Consistently heard the term “fun” discussed at the executive suite level, or a level below. Back in the Ken Kutaragi days at Playstation (SCEI in those days) this was true as well.
Hasbro seems to value playfulness, but in my more limited experience The higher up the chain the less relevant it was. Could be that the execs took it as a given?
Never came up in any AAA titles I talked with folks about at the companies (but big disclaimer: I never worked on one!)
You don’t have to be Marvin Acme, but “fun” seems like a pretty basic value, while objectives like “engagement” I’d see as a consequence,not a primary goal. I think understanding this is what has made Nintendo so successful for decades, and has allowed them to survive flops.
I think you undersell this comment: it’s far more than a tangent.
Nintendo and Bandai the only companies I’ve worked with who I’ve Consistently heard the term “fun” discussed at the executive suite level, or a level below. Back in the Ken Kutaragi days at Playstation (SCEI in those days) this was true as well.
Hasbro seems to value playfulness, but in my more limited experience The higher up the chain the less relevant it was. Could be that the execs took it as a given?
Never came up in any AAA titles I talked with folks about at the companies (but big disclaimer: I never worked on one!)
You don’t have to be Marvin Acme, but “fun” seems like a pretty basic value, while objectives like “engagement” I’d see as a consequence,not a primary goal. I think understanding this is what has made Nintendo so successful for decades, and has allowed them to survive flops.