Rubin: "Nintendo Is Irrelevant As A Hardware Manufacturer In The Console Business”

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."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
dbjj120881606d ago

And Jason Rubin should know...

Mikelarry1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

oooh BURN!!!!

lol if you watch the episode he was already scared after uttering those comment he had to clarify

nosferatuzodd1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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

ShinMaster1605d ago

""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.

minimur121605d ago

and THQ are irrelevant as a publishing company :D

Cuzzo631605d ago

@ Shin
So Nintendo is to survive off just 3ds sales. Hmmm. Interestimg

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1605d ago
3-4-51606d ago Show
colonel1791606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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.

MONKEYDLUFFY1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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

colonel1791606d ago

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.

Prime1571606d ago

Nintendo had always done what they wanted, and they have done well with their mission statement, whatever it may be.


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.

ABizzel11606d ago


It would have really suffered IMO. Nintendo needs to market itself as a entry console and price itself at $199 - $299.

Wni01606d ago

Coulda! Woulda! Andddddd Shoulda!

lizard812881605d ago

Well, atleast the Wiiu can output 1080p, unlike the Xbox One....

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1605d ago
fenome1606d ago


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.

Monolith1606d ago

Did you know he was the co-founder of naughty dog.

Death1606d ago

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.

fenome1605d ago

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

Muffins12231606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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.

itBourne1605d ago

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.

Ol_G1605d ago

says the person who went bankrupt

Magicite1605d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1605d ago
n1kki61606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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.

admiralvic1606d ago

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.

spektical1606d ago

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.

TheDivine1606d ago

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.

itBourne1605d ago

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.

admiralvic1605d ago

@ 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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1605d ago
Ausbo1605d ago

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.

knifefight1606d ago

I hope Nintendo's sales improve. Mario 3D World is great.

dbjj120881606d ago

It is. It feels a little derivative, but it is still so much fun to play in co-op.

spektical1606d ago

agreed. seen everything before in the mario game. slap on a different paint.

really fun with friends though.

for we are many1606d ago

Nintendo= Biggest Video Game company in the world.

rubin= Jobless Tool.

theDECAY1606d ago

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.

Metallox1606d ago Show
for we are many1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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?!

Soldierone1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

@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.

PlayGamesNotConsoles1606d ago ShowReplies(2)
InTheLab1606d ago (Edited 1606d ago )

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...


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...

PlayGamesNotConsoles1606d ago

@ 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.

Back-to-Back1605d ago

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.

KillrateOmega1605d ago (Edited 1605d ago )

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1605d ago