GameRevolution: "Former THQ president Jason Rubin recently discussed Nintendo's current state as a hardware maker, saying that the company is essentially "irrelevant" in the console space."
And Jason Rubin should know...
oooh BURN!!!! lol if you watch the episode he was already scared after uttering those comment he had to clarify
Nintendo will be fine 3ds is the hottest handheld right now i have a vita and i'm getting the 3ds to play Zelda when a serious Zelda game drops for the WiiU I'm getting one has well srew the haters they hate on every company that's not Microsoft
""However, that isn't to say that he doesn't believe there is a lot of value at Nintendo, it's just found in the software."" Let's not leave out the rest of the quote. The thing is, Nintendo consoles and Nintendo handhelds are in two entirely different realms. Nintendo handhelds have always been extremely successful no matter what.
and THQ are irrelevant as a publishing company :D
@ Shin So Nintendo is to survive off just 3ds sales. Hmmm. Interestimg
I wonder how this generation would be if Nintendo had made a console with specs on par with PS4 and Xbox One. They have never had problems with first party. Their games are great and have heat quality and great gameplay, but they should've learned that they cannot survive on just first party, and the Wii U lacks almost every third party support. Just look at the 3DS, the reason it is successful is because of the software it has, but most importantly, it has great third party support. Looking back, the SNES was also very successful because it had incredible support. PS1 and PS2 also dominated because of third party support. Third party developers might be right in not wanting to develop for Nintendo because they will need to optimize their engines and games to fit in the Wii U. The same thing happened on the Wii. However, I think this time is worse since both the PS4 and XBO have the same architecture, and now it's the Wii U which is different. In the case of the PS3, the different hardware and the difficulty was something they had to deal with because the PS3 was a console that was selling well. So, Nintendo made a big mistake going for the weakest console again. Had they released a console with specs comparable to XBO and with the controller to have the ability to use it wirelessly (like PS Vita, but without the ability to play own games), at the price of the XBO, it would have been an epic win. You would get a console with comparable specs as the XBO, a controller that you could use to play games with remote play anywhere, for the price of $450-$500, and every third party game available on the Wii U, it would have been awesome.
It simply is not true. The gamecube was the technological equivalent if not superior to the ps2 abd xbox and it still fared poorly. The gamecubes failure was solid proof that the only way nintendo can win is to make a different experience than the power console twins
I didn't say that it has to have great specs to sell well, but need third party support. However, in this time and age, third party publishers want as much money as possible with at least effort as possible. They won't make a modified version of their games in order to make it playable to the weaker Wii U. Maybe if it was selling much, much better, but as it's currently, Nintendo should have been better releasing a console with specs compared to PS4 and Xbox One, so that third party can easily port their games and make them available to Wii U. It didn't happen, so Nintendo will struggle to convince developers to make games for Wii U. They have Bayonetta, and if that sells well, it would be a testament that things can get better with Wii U and third party devs might start considering the Wii U again. So in short, third party developers won't spend more money trying to make a game for a weaker console. So Nintendo either has to sell Wii U much better to convince them. Otherwise, they should have released a more powerful console.
Nintendo had always done what they wanted, and they have done well with their mission statement, whatever it may be. @monkeydluffy GameCube didn't (exactly) fair poorly. It turned a profit. The fact that people cat that system out AND it turned a profit is an interesting thing to say about Nintendo; not good, but not bad.
@colonel179 It would have really suffered IMO. Nintendo needs to market itself as a entry console and price itself at $199 - $299.
Coulda! Woulda! Andddddd Shoulda!
Well, atleast the Wiiu can output 1080p, unlike the Xbox One....
@dbjj1208 I know right? THQ went bankrupt, but now all of a sudden I keep seeing his name pop up on here when I never really heard about him before that. Now he's got all kinds of things to say.
Did you know he was the co-founder of naughty dog.
All the nice things people generally credit Mark Cerny for, they actually mean Jason Rubin. Jason was the creator of Crash which also turned out to be the mascot for Playstation for some time.
Oh, right on, I stand corrected. Guess people didn't give his words much credit in the past then for some reason because I never saw articles about little things he said before. Looks like I'm the one with all kinds of things to say, my bad :p
Well do you have a wiiu?No one has one,he stated "irrelevant" and "console" he meant no one cares or buys the wiiu compared to ps4 and even xbox one.
I have had plenty of arguments about this, If I do get something outside my pc/ps4/ps3/handelds, it will most definitely be a Wii U over an Xbox One, why? Because Nintendo although I think it is absolutely insane to own just that console, as a secondary console Nintendo does have exclusives actually, where as Microsoft has no studio/games for me to get it as a second or first console. So for me Nintendo actually makes more sense as another console then Microsoft. Now if I was not able to get a ps4/ps3 for whatever reason then I would 100% get an Xbox One/360 over a Nintendo console.
says the person who went bankrupt
In my time I would never believe SEGA will fall out of console business, but now I see than any company can fail, Nintendo is a no exception.
Can't say I disagree from a hardware perspective, when looking at the hardware exclusively. But, I'm torn on what would happen if Nintendo would develop games for other platforms. After the Wii-u launched they said they under estimated the labor that was needed for even just a hi-def game let alone developing for multi platforms. They may benefit software wise being able to focus on their own platform, but when that platform isn't selling, than something is better than nothing.
I think a lot of that has to do with Nintendo's insistence on quality over quantity, which is part of their "problem". Going off what people say about the Wii U and Nintendo in general, it seems like they would want Mario, Zelda and Metroid to be yearly series, with a development cycle similar to say Call of Duty. Like, they year 1 we get a 2D Mario, 3D Zelda (like OoT) and FPS Metroid (like Prime), then the next year we had 3D Mario, top down Zelda (like Between Worlds) and classic Metroid (like the originals). However, Nintendo puts a lot of time and effort into their games and it shows by them lacking glitches and such you see in titles like Battlefield 4, plus they don't rely on updates (the only one I've ever seen was to fix the save bug in Pokemon...). Not putting down other games or praising Nintendo, but I am saying that they choose to develop their games that way, which is why you don't see a lot of serious problems and extremely high review scores / consumer praise.
nintendo games which are often single player do not scale to many of the multiplatform, and physics intensive games from other publishers. Nintendo is on a one man boat. They are churning out the quality content, but like you said its just them.
True. I love Nin because of their high standards but I'd love a new handheld Fire Emblem every 18 months, a new 3s and 2d Zelda alternating every year, a 2d and 3d Metroid alternating every year, and a new Kid Icarus every 18 months or two years (all on 3ds mind you). For big console releases every three years for Zelda, Metroid, Fire Emblem, and Xenoblade would be fine. Mario is already annualized and it does fine although the New series has become genric but that's due to using the same sub series and artstyle, not being annualized. They need to maintain quality but I can't wait a whole gen for one great console Zelda, Metroid, and Xenoblade. They need to hire more people and split their best teams into two. I'd also like Myamoto to allow their best devs to create entirely new ip's instead of being stuck on one ip or shuffled around to direct different established ip's. the main Zelda team creating an entirely new action adventure rpg would be ridiculously awesome. Same with retro creating a new scifi shooter rpg or Intelligent Systems creating a jrpg. There's so many generations of the best talent in the industry stuck directing new Kirby, Nintendoland, Wii Sports, and other not too important games. Just my opinion though. A link Between Worlds, Kid Icarus, Metroid Prime, Xenoblade, and Fire Emblem Awakening prove why Nintendo is hands down the best devs in the industry. Sony and MS don't really have a single ip as good as a dozen Nin ip's and most are forgettable. They do get a lot of games out and far more frequently though.
See to me Nintendo plays it completely safe with consoles. If you keep 1 or 2 Mario and Zelda games per console gen you preserve the franchise over a longer period of time. Also, Nintendo has done nothing to innovate. Zelda/Mario games have not changed almost at all since the 64 days, why not innovate them for once? Better yet, if those games are soo good(not just getting a free pass because of the name) why not have those talented devs actually make something new. Also, why has there not been a full on Pokemon game on a console. Nintendo has no interest in actually doing something new, EVER! They literally play it safe 100% of the time. When in fact a full fledged Pokemon game or a Pokemon MMO could almost single handedly save their failing console.
@ itBourne 1) Please, don't use innovate. This is quickly becoming my least favorite word used in an argument / debate / discussion (almost as bad as entitled), because people say innovate, when they actually mean something more like revision or restructuring. For those wondering, this is what innovate actually means... "make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products." Speaking literally, adding the cat suit in Mario, dog to CoD, owl to Killzone and many such things are, in fact, innovating. So while it might not be the drastic change you want, don't blame a game for not doing something that it's actually doing. 2) "Also, Nintendo has done nothing to innovate. Zelda/Mario games have not changed almost at all since the 64 days, why not innovate them for once? Better yet, if those games are soo good(not just getting a free pass because of the name) why not have those talented devs actually make something new." I don't know what kind of drastic changes you want, nor do I know what other games have made these drastic changes (I mean, on a fundamental level, Killzone 1 and Killzone SF are about the same as Mario 64 and Super Mario 3D World using your logic), but Nintendo has changed these games up. Since the 64 days, they created Paper Mario, which is a completely different approach to the standard Mario formula. They also spun Luigi off in his own adventure called Luigi's Mansion, which has almost nothing to do with Mario and is fairly unique next to other games. They also made a portable series called Mario and Luigi, which is an RPG and plays completely different than the standard Mario Bros. games. Sure, Super Mario Bros. plays like Super Mario Bros., but the second you change it from a platformer (which lets be fair here, how different can the game get before it changes genre?), it starts to become one of the various spin offs Nintendo has done in later years. 3) "Also, why has there not been a full on Pokemon game on a console. " I forget where I read this or when I read this, but Pokemon is a game they feel is right on portable consoles and is a social game, which is how they justify releasing 2 versions like X and Y. While some people would love an HD Pokemon game, I can understand where they're coming from. A lot of RPG fans have noted they prefer games on the PSP / 3DS / DS / PSV (hence why so many of them release on portable systems when compared to consoles), because it gives them a pick up and play feeling. I understand this to a degree, since I can pick up Pokemon for 5 - 20 minutes, do a few battles while waiting for someone or to pass the time at my desk.
i love nintendo. I grew up on thier consoles. But I have to say i agree. Playstation and xbox just have so much more for us since the third parties don't support the wiiU. Although it would be wierd to see, i wouldn't mind seeing mario and zelda on playstation and xbox.
I hope Nintendo's sales improve. Mario 3D World is great.
It is. It feels a little derivative, but it is still so much fun to play in co-op.
agreed. seen everything before in the mario game. slap on a different paint. really fun with friends though.
I'd say the jury is out...
Nintendo= Biggest Video Game company in the world. rubin= Jobless Tool.
What makes him a tool? Nintendo isn't really giving developers any motivation for putting games on WiiU. Now that the PS4 and Xbox One are out I can only see the WiiU selling less as time goes on.
He is even worse than a tool, the guy's sinked a big name 3rd party publisher for goodness sake and still has the audacity to dismiss an essential pillar of this industry like this. You liked what he said despite the success of 3DS and the innovation in the Wii U and the level of quality in its games that use the features of Wii U to conduct the full experience. Wii U is on the comeback whether you and mr. rubin like it or not, and that's the best time for useless reports like this one, convenient isn't it?!
@for we are many THQ was sunk before Jason stepped in. Paying attention to the timeline, he actually nearly saved a company that should have already went bankrupt a year before he stepped in. If he would have come sooner and had the chance to stop UDraw, I believe THQ still fights today.
He co-founded Naughty Dog and inherited a company that was already on a downward spiral. THQ was a mess when he took over and despite trimming a lot of fat that was killing THQ, it simply wasn't enough. Meanwhile, that little developer he started with friends has become one of the top devs in the business if not THE top. So you might disagree with his opinion, he's most certainly not a fool. Only a fool would blame a man for ruining a company that was ruined years prior to his arrival... edit: Most of you are just mad he said something you don't like about your favorite console maker and are spouting nonsense about Jason and THQ when you really don't know what you're talking about so here....I've done the work for you... http://www.mcvuk.com/news/r...
@ inthelab: Tool is different from Fool, good sir. Nintendo is successful through generations upon generations of gamers, young and old, and their franchises never faltered in quality and their hardware never cease to introduce new ideas and innovations that get adopted by the the ever changing competition almost every time and in every generation. It is really "corny" to say that Nintendo is irrelevant when they seem to be on the comeback in sales for their Wii U and achieving milestone after milestone with their 3DS and software quality while the 1st party exclusives introduced by their competitors are shrouded in mediocrity. @Blacktric: Thank you my friend. This same effect happens sometimes in sports where fans of a newer team hate on the older and more historically established team, or sometimes more conservative team, than they love their own. It's an intriguing part of human psychology.
I am so happy he is not apart of Naughty Dog. I personally would like to see him go to Activision or EA and send them bankrupt too.
THQ was in a downward spiral long before he arrived. If anything, he slowed down their descent into bankruptcy. So many people here are disappointingly uninformed concerning this subject.
Nintendo has always had great family oriented games with a focus on mulit-player couch games. I'm sure there will always be a market for whatever console they produce.
I understand he created one of the best video game companies in the world, but I rarely agree with anything he says. Like when he said Darksiders is a crappy franchise.
THq lol you're irrelevant so much for Nintendo being irrelevant making Darksiders your Zelda
Good job with THQ Jason....
Yeah, coming from a guy who's company is dead. I'm sorry but.. just because Wii U isn't doing all that hot, doesn't mean they should quit the hardware business. :)
Most of their consoles aren't really a success. The wii was the milestone for them which says a lot. If thinking that the wii u will follow that success I'll just assume your just delusional. Software wise Nintendo shines because they're all about the games and the point of them which is gameplay.
Not really a success, eh? Then how come they were even able to make a profit off of the Gamecube, despite it being one of their lowest-selling consoles? Oh wait, I forgot. In dudebroland, a console's only a success if it's got huuuuuuuuuges sales for everything about it, hardware and software alike, and everyone has to love and defend it. /s
I never said that the Wii U would follow the Wii's success. So I'll just assume you can't properly read. Nintendo consoles up to now have been pretty successful, having earned profits for Nintendo which is the point. As long as Nintendo makes money off of them, they're a success. And my point was, that just because one console they made out of many is doing horribly, doesn't mean they should quit the hardware business.
"He then went on to say how the company is a "worldwide treasure," adding that "it is a crime that we do not play those games on the systems that we have." Based on the performance of N's latest, I'd say he's right about that. Many won't like it but many also forgot about the Gamecube that flopped and the N64 that flopped. The Wii found success in a market that has moved on but hardcore N fans pretend like N has been hitting Wii sized homeruns for the last 4 gens and that's simply not the case. Nintendo is and has been basically about handhelds as that is really the only success they've consistently had.
Nintendo 64 and GC made a profit.
Actually, that's true.
And had very little support from 3rd party and no one bought them. Also, making a profit and being in the red are two different things. N has a board like all public companies and the members of that board have expectations. You can't tell me anyone was happy with 2 failures in a row. Lastly, N made a profit on each sold but were at a loss every year of the Gamecube's existance. As a matter of fact, the first recorded yearly loss for Nintendo since the company started in the 60's were due to the failure of the Gamecube. So while they sold the thing for more than the cost to manufacture, they still were unable to recoup losses for other aspects of business like RnD, shipping, Manufacturing, etc. So all of you talking about how much money N made of the Gamecube are lying. The Gamecube was an embarrassment for Nintendo.....the first of it's kind. Sure the N64 was a tough one for them but the GC was a Disaster. Thank god for the Gameboy Advance and Pokemon. That's the only reason why there is still a Nintendo. And here we are again in the exact same situation with the WiiU. The games are here but no one wants it but hey...some day they'll make a few bucks off another failed console.... Edit: How do you disagree with facts? Google it if you're not old enough to remember. Everything I wrote is true. Or at the very least tell me why I'm wrong...
@ InTheLabhit Research is a valuable tool you should do more before you analyze things and create your own fantasy world of facts. Yes, most of the money Nintendo made in that time period was based on the GBA, but the GameCube was sold for a significant profit - about $6 per unit, on average. Over 22 million units, that averages to $132 million in profit just on one product over a five-year period. Sony did not make $132 million on just the PS2 in its first five years. It actually made less than $100 million due to the losses it had procured initially, compounded over the massive sales it got in the beginning. Then, when you figure in the amount Sony paid to deal with the rash of worn-out PS2's, you get the idea.
The reason the games are as desirable as they are, are because they were made in-house at Nintendo, for their own system. Not for unfamiliar architecture by teams who the creators of the games would feel could not do the games proper justice. It would be just as disastrous as moving Halo to a Sony platform; no one makes a Halo like Bungie. No one could do Mario justice like Nintendo's teams on a Nintendo system. To me, it just sounds like he's salty about having to get another system, despite how much of a value it is. That, or he's defensive about how "mature" he is viewed if he were to ever publicly say he likes the Wii U. I dunno, this just sounds like a load of bull from someone who's grown to hate Nintendo, that's all.
@realplaya You have no clue what you're talking about so you misdirect with this Sony talk. You talk about doing research which is funny because you've clearly done none. A simple google search won't cut it here because most of the related articles are from a decade ago....but for those of us old enough to remember, we know what went down. So you say N made a profit of $132m. You have no idea what the cost of creating a console is. You don't know what N did with the millions of Gamecubes that sat around in warehouses for years after production. You don't know how businesses work...clearly. I acknowledged the fact that N sold the GC for more than it cost to build but that does not mean they made a profit. They sold through well under projected goals and relied on the GBA to pull them through to make a profit most of the years the GC was a thing. That's what's confusing you and the 11 disagree'rs. You probably googled N making a profit in that era and because they count GBA numbers, you believe the gamecube was a success. That's what those 11 disagrees really mean. You think N made a profit on a failed console and you're wrong.
I echo the statements that a man who ran a company into bankruptcy and then oblivion has no right to call anyone irrelevant. The core gaming audience may not necessarily agree with Nintendo's family centric approach, but the tens of millions of sales of some of their biggest franchises due in large part to the unique experiences offered by the hardware show that Nintendo is far from irrelevant.
I think you're right. If you want to play all the good Nintendo games (and there are a lot) then you buy the hardware. It speaks to how much people like Nintendo software that they usually buy Xbox and Wii or PlayStation and Wii. At least that's what I did last gen.
And I echo that people really should stop repeating false information as if it was the truth. THQ was in trouble BEFORE Rubin took the helm. If you had been paying attention at the time, or had bothered to look it up yourself, you'd have known that. But, of course, you did neither of these things. You and a dozen others just saw some partial bit of info you thought you could use as a way to discredit this claim against a company you love, and you ran with it.
Is he your dad or something? Would it have been extremely difficult to say "Hey, just so you know, Rubin took over after THQ was already struggling" instead of that tangent?
Only speaking for myself, but thats how I've felt about Nintendo since the first year of the Wii. I'm not a Nintendo hater, I grew up on them like everyone and it was probably Game&Watch more than anything that made me a gamer. I also predicted maybe in the 2nd year of Wii that Nintendo would be the first to abandon their console and first to release the next one, and that it would be underpowered, forever setting a pattern and forever relegating them to being behind Microsoft and Sony in hardware. They will also be the first to drop this new gen and the next Wii will probably only be a slight increase on Xbone and PS4. They seem to have fixed themselves on a downward slope as far as progressing hardware is concerned by not making machines advanced enough to see out the extended life cycles consoles have now. WiiU is already outpowered and soon outsold. How dated is it going to look in 2 years when XB and PS are starting really to shine?
Nintendo releases new system every 5-6 years for console and 8-10 for handhelds