Boy did that ever translate into a flood of thirdparty support and consumer demand.Originally Posted by Uncle Rupee
Except that they were the clear winner last generation?
I recently went to my friends house to check out his wii. I was generally impressed. It was larger than I expected though.
(12-02-2013, 02:18 AM)
I really want to know what some of you think is going to be Nintendo's next step after the Wii U.
Will Nintendo release another home console on par with whatever Sony and Microsoft will be pushing out? How will Nintendo compete in the new streams of online gaming, social media gaming, and digital transactions?
Will the Wii U be Nintendo's last home console? What if the one after the Wii U fails?
Nintendo is an old-school company. They're good at making games. They're good at making gaming hardware. But not necessarily good at coping with rapid change.
Nintendo is not going into insolvency any time soon. But how can Nintendo keep afloat?
Will Nintendo release another home console on par with whatever Sony and Microsoft will be pushing out? How will Nintendo compete in the new streams of online gaming, social media gaming, and digital transactions?
Will the Wii U be Nintendo's last home console? What if the one after the Wii U fails?
Nintendo is an old-school company. They're good at making games. They're good at making gaming hardware. But not necessarily good at coping with rapid change.
Nintendo is not going into insolvency any time soon. But how can Nintendo keep afloat?
He is right. If Nintendo was losing the same money out of the gate 1 year ago with the hardware they brought vs what Sony is losing with PS4 they need to get out of the Hardware game and fast. If Sony would have released last year they still would have had a console orders of magnitude stronger than WiiU for that price. Nintendo are out of their depths and always make a bonehead hardware choice to draw the ire of 3rd party or end users. NA NES slot loader, slow SNES CPU, N64 Carts, GC mini disc, Wii=GC2.0 DVD edition, WiiU slow CPU. Being different is not always a good thing. Stick to software, it is the thing they do well.
The fact they did it without much third party support just proves my point even more. The Wii U doesn't need third parties, it just needs to hook players with that one game.Originally Posted by Log4Girlz
Boy did that ever translate into a flood of thirdparty support and consumer demand.
Obviously they're not going to have another Wii Sports-level success, but that doesn't mean they should be labelled irrelevant.
Last edited by Uncle Rupee; 12-02-2013 at 02:22 AM.
The price issue is largely due to them including the 3-D screen that nobody wanted. Nothing else in the system was expensive. The 3-D also made the battery life be shit, scared off consumers worried about eyestrain, and took the focus away from the touchscreen aspect that had made some of the DS software unique in the first place. The 3-D was a disaster.Originally Posted by Principate
No that was price and lack of software (hence why it did well during it's first Christmas), also proper backwards compatibility meant it wasn't directly competing with it's predecessor unlike the Vita (I still don't understand why Sony chose to do that).
So much anger in this thread.
From my personal preferences, I agree with some of his sentiments....and I don't think the WiiU will be able to stage a recovery, but I wouldn't call them irrelevant on the hardware level.
From my personal preferences, I agree with some of his sentiments....and I don't think the WiiU will be able to stage a recovery, but I wouldn't call them irrelevant on the hardware level.
Hmm they will not jump out of hardware entirelyOriginally Posted by -Plasma Reus-
I really want to know what some of you guys think is going to be Nintendo's next step after the Wii U.
Will Nintendo release another home console on par with whatever Sony and Microsoft will be pushing out? How will Nintendo compete in the new streams of online gaming, social media gaming, and digital transactions?
Nintendo is an old-school company. They're good at making games. They're good at making gaming hardware. But not necessarily good at coping with rapid change.
I do feel their best move might be the weird handheld/docking station to tv hybrid thing that gets tossed around on here. Not sure they'd do that though
I feel if they make a straight home console again it will have to be way out of left field
Wii U will be left behind along with PS3/360 with no more 3rd party support within 2 years. I hope Nintendo releases a more powerful, traditional, console in the next 3-4 years. That would makes things very interesting indeed.
Hell hath no fury like a Nintendo fanboy scorned. Hopefully we have a quote every week by someone in the industry wanting Nintendo to go third party. These posts are too awesomeOriginally Posted by Al Gore's Thermostat
Who the fuck is this guy kidding?
The dude was part of a bankruptcy. He has no room to speak about any company's way of doing things, especially a company that's the most profitable videogame hardware company in the entire world.
Nintendo games play best on Nintendo consoles, period.
Now that he's a nobody (I dare say the dude is a never-was), he wants to regain fame by hopping on bandwagons and talking shit for clicks. Maybe some kind of vindication for his failed publisher. Dude's off his rocker.
Nintendo is going nowhere, folks, get over it.
Except what is always missed in this dumb conversation Rubin keeps bringing up is that nobody's pushing $40 Android games. He's always like "look at Angry Birds, wow!" as if Rovio were able to float multiple franchises at that kind of a price year after year.Sure there is from an economical standpoint. He's representing the demand/supply curve perfectly. He and many others might be willing to shell out $50-60 for a Nintendo game, because they're great, but they're not ready to pay the $300 entry fee for the hardware.
I think that's a pretty sensible and widespread viewpoint. Just because port-begging is a banned topic on GAF (due to derailing thread conversation) doesn't mean it doesn't have validity as a business analysis.
And if Nintendo went 3rd party, they'd lose a metric fuckton of media exposure. They get a lot of focus by being a 1st party. If they go 3rd party, suddenly they lose that 1st party halo and vanish to the middle of the pack unless they're willing to play the EA/Activision dump-mountains-of-money-on-everything game. It's exactly what happened to Sega, who stopped being so special in a hurry.
That's why this 3rd party talk is moronic. They need to hold on to their platforms as long as they can, not chase phantom phone game profits or think up ways to pay licensing fees to Microsoft.
Well, they at least make hardware that other developers want to work on, so there's that value.What value is found in the hardware offerings of Sony and MS?
There's nothing interesting going on at the hardware level of any of these systems.
People weren't doing that. This is GAF; they just wanted their coveted trash-talk "first post" quote and sought to discredit the person rather than the argument. Which is a shitty rebuttal argument but internet websites love it.I think people are pointing out Rubin's role at THQ because it helps show the flaws of just being an AAA 3rd party publisher. They got boxed in from the other large AAA publishers such as EA, Activision, Take Two, etc. and got caught in the rat race that is AAA publishing.
Ironically, it was their push to make the dumb as uDraw tablet because they felt THQ needed to diversify because they weren't making enough on simply software that helped drive their bankruptcy.
Rubin is asking Nintendo to shrink as a company, and Nintendo or any other company won't intentionally do that.
ND took off right after he left. He also founded Flektor, which failed pretty quickly. When he joined THQ he delayed any products that could have kept the company afloat and tried to arrange a sweetheart buyout deal brokered by a friend of his, until a judge forced them to auction assets individually for better value.Originally Posted by Log4Girlz
He's the Naughty Dog co-founder who was given a life preserver and thrown into the maelstrom that was THQ's death throws.
His record certainly doesn't indicate that he's any sort of business genius. Out of his three business ventures two failed and the third took off immediately after he left.
I suppose...there' very little value in the hardware Sony and MS offer though. The value MS brings to gamers is largely their relationships with key AAA third-party players and a variety of software features, and the value Sony brings is largely in the diverse, high quality first and second party library. The hardware really isn't the differentiating factor.Originally Posted by Tookay
Well, they at least make hardware that other developers want to work on, so there's that value.
Last edited by Margalis; 12-02-2013 at 02:27 AM.
You could argue that the choices made behind Wii U are at fault here, not their entire business model. Would they still be in the same position if it was called the Nintendo U and didn't resemble a Wii? What if the hardware was more up to par with the PS4 and Xbone and the tablet was not the main area of interest? Or, if the tablet was designed in a post iPad world?
Originally Posted by WraithBringer
Technically speaking they're very similar but it's a tad far to say something like that, so I can kind of agree with you here..
Technically speaking, they are very similar with one console clearly being inferior on all counts. That makes that console irrevelent in my mind.
Last edited by DragonSworne; 12-02-2013 at 02:26 AM.
IMO the problem with Nintendo is that they relied for way too long on their few but really strong IP's and didn't built new ones.Strong exclusive IPs is what brings people to buy these systems.
Sony would have faced the same situation during the PS3's time if they relied mostly to 3rd party support and the few strong exclusive IPs they had from before.
I think if Nintendo wants to remain competitive in this market they should try focusing on strengthening their first party studios and start making more new IPs.They have extremelly talented people working for them but they need to give them more creative space and let them work on new IPs.
Sony would have faced the same situation during the PS3's time if they relied mostly to 3rd party support and the few strong exclusive IPs they had from before.
I think if Nintendo wants to remain competitive in this market they should try focusing on strengthening their first party studios and start making more new IPs.They have extremelly talented people working for them but they need to give them more creative space and let them work on new IPs.
There wasn't any console that could have released back then that could compete successfully with the PlayStation, and despite having only expensive cartridges, the N64 still sold a significant amount. Before that, the SNES outsold the Mega Drive, and the NES outsold everything else. One console out of three was a huge success, another put up a brave fight and in a similar situation, the GameCube - like the XBox - could not compete with the PS2. It only sold a million or so less than that console, so they're pretty even.Originally Posted by Derrick01
That was 1 console. They've failed in the other three 3D generations.
Two successes out of three 3D consoles, three out of six a huge success, another having put up a great fight and the last came out even with Microsoft. There's very little failure here - even the GameCube made them a fuckton of money.
Nintendo stated they increased the price due to positive e3 support so the 3d didn't make the system that expensive[. It's still a major selling point why the 3DS XL is selling well, and it's a good differentiator.Originally Posted by Giant Panda
The price issue is largely due to them including the 3-D screen that nobody wanted. Nothing else in the system was expensive. The 3-D also made the battery life be shit, scared off consumers worried about eyestrain, and took the focus away from the touchscreen aspect that had made some of the DS software unique in the first place. The 3-D was a disaster.
They couldn't have for example pulled a 2DS at launch and not have much worse branding confusion than they did.
Awe, why did you change the embarrassing post about Rubin probably trying to get a job at Nintendo and being turned down so now he's trying to earn brownie points with Sony and Microsoft?Originally Posted by Uncle Rupee
The fact they did it without much third party support just proves my point even more.
I don't entirely disagree with Jason here.
To be completely honest, I think they've already lost of a fuckton of media exposure. The enthusiast press made a pretty conscious decision the last 4-5 years to start placing Nintendo in the corner, while the big boys took center stage in coverage.Originally Posted by LiveFromKyoto
Except what is always missed in this dumb conversation Rubin keeps bringing up is that nobody's pushing $40 Android games. He's always like "look at Angry Birds, wow!" as if Rovio were able to float multiple franchises at that kind of a price.
And if Nintendo went 3rd party, they'd lose a metric fuckton of media exposure. They get a lot of focus by being a 1st party. If they go 3rd party, suddenly they lose that 1st party halo and vanish to the middle of the pack unless they're willing to play the EA/Activision dump-mountains-of-money-on-everything game. It's exactly what happened to Sega, who stopped being so special in a hurry.
That's why this 3rd party talk is moronic. They need to hold on to their platforms as long as they can, not chase phantom phone game profits or think up ways to pay licensing fees to Microsoft.
Also, I didn't meant to imply that Nintendo should go third-party; I don't think that's a solution per se, but to just dismiss this guy's opinion as "port-begging" is a little disingenuous.
Nintendo has consolidated their handheld and console R&D sectors. The Wii U seems to be designed with some future proofing flexibility to its hardware. My guess is that Nintendo will be using a similar set up hardware wise for their next handheld as the Wii U and continue building off of and bulking up their PPC architecture for the next generation console. A lot of people like to speculate that the next handheld and console will be one and the same for Nintendo, but they've confirmed they won't be doing that (though plans do change). I imagine both will focus on attractive price points and less cumbersome gimmicks than the GamePad (if they have any at all -- I think their handheld will be largely frills free and maybe one big or small gimmick for the next Nintendo console). In the case that a user buys both they can enjoy functionality similar to that of the Wii U now but perhaps with more flair, and I do think that Nintendo will price them both not break the bank as a package like the Vita/PS4 does or the PS3/PSP did.Originally Posted by -Plasma Reus-
I really want to know what some of you guys think is going to be Nintendo's next step after the Wii U.
Will Nintendo release another home console on par with whatever Sony and Microsoft will be pushing out? How will Nintendo compete in the new streams of online gaming, social media gaming, and digital transactions?
Nintendo is an old-school company. They're good at making games. They're good at making gaming hardware. But not necessarily good at coping with rapid change.
I also believe they're grooming certain indie parties and the indie market in general to be a potential stopgap replacement/permanent replacement for their flagging third party support. They've got a good reputation in that area now and they've only been improving. Nintendo just has to get around to marketing that part of their business, but they've been shit at marketing anything they have to offer for years now so who knows how that'll go.
For those thinking Rubin went to THQ to fix it ... ha! He was there to clean up and dismantle and that he did.
Regarding his comments, I agree to an extent. Can Nintendo be Disney-like? I think with the right moves, sure. Tranform Nintendo from a card to toy to game to an "all of the above" company like Disney!
Regarding his comments, I agree to an extent. Can Nintendo be Disney-like? I think with the right moves, sure. Tranform Nintendo from a card to toy to game to an "all of the above" company like Disney!
Back when Rubin was at Naughty Dog and interviewed about Crash Bandicoot he spluttered constant praise for Miyamoto.Originally Posted by Officerrob
Awe, why did you change the embarrassing post about Rubin probably trying to get a job at Nintendo and being turned down so now he's trying to earn brownie points with Sony and Microsoft?
Without the 3-D, Nintendo could have gone with a much lower price while still getting the profit on the hardware that they wanted. There's a reason why they were losing money after the price cut. Sorry but I can't believe you're serious if you think its 3-D is a good differentiator.Originally Posted by Principate
Nintendo stated they increased the price due to positive e3 support so the 3d didn't make the system that expensive[. It's still a major selling point why the 3DS XL is selling well, and it's a good differentiator.
They couldn't have for example pulled a 2DS at launch and not have much worse branding confusion than they did.
What people knew as Sega was basically dead once they exited hardware and took one last shot at finding an audience on the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube. The risk-taking and experimental games to push hardware sales collapsed (Seaman, Samba de Amigo, Segagaga, Shenmue, etc.). They just started pumping out Sonic games and later stumbled into some success with Yakuza and a few PC games here and there which they acquired, but other than that have done pretty much nothing. Up until early this year Sammy wanted Sega to dump their console publishing business. It's probably because Sammy didn't want to get saddled with a write down and admit a failed merger that they have kept them around and Sega has somewhat recovered - but hardly in any recognizable form.Originally Posted by Justagamer80
This doesn't make sense to me. Why would you prefer to never have access to Nintendo software than to do so on another console?
If Nintendo ever went third party - you can pretty much kiss good bye to games that don't sell at least 2 million units - meaning Metroid, Star Fox, FZero, Kid Icarus, anything by Monolithsoft, WarioWare, probably Pikmin, Fire Emblem on consoles, and other IPs that Nintendo has historically supported to diversify their base of titles as a hardware maker would likely be shelved permanently - why should Nintendo release experimental/diverse games on other peoples' hardware? They would become like any other publisher since there are no intangibles to releasing these types of games - every game would be a pure profit and loss calculation.
The same is true with Sony - they wouldn't bother funding sales failures like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus if they didn't have their own hardware platform - there is zero reason to do it since winning Game of the Year awards and such have no empirical link to long-term publisher loyalty for third parties.
What I find strange about people like Rubin is their complete lack of understanding about how a company like Nintendo thinks about their own resources - if Wii U fails to gain momentum by Jan of 2015 and Nintendo is forced to abandon it that year - then Nintendo will probably just focus 100% on 3DS and might exit the dedicated console hardware altogether (which is already in terminal decline in Japan despite how hard Nintendo tried with the Wii so this will probably push them over the edge). Next gen they might just opt to release a variety of handhelds with the same architecture and double down on the movie/content streaming business as they've hinted at (and now made investments in) to attract a new set of users.
That means no console games for anyone. Nintendo would reallocate those resources to whatever tablet/handheld they come up with in the future and it would likely be weaker than an X1. Good for those of you who just want to buy one piece of Nintendo hardware, bad for those of you wanting Nintendo to keep releasing games that push the graphical envelope.
As much as I despise the Wii U and Nintendo's third party support outside of handhelds, having low sales =/= failure when the company is still around making consoles and they've been profitable all the way through.Originally Posted by Derrick01
That was 1 console. They've failed in the other three 3D generations.
Not when the Wii outsold its competition not so long ago.
I don't think the logic follows there.Originally Posted by Principate
Nintendo stated they increased the price due to positive e3 support so the 3d didn't make the system that expensive[. It's still a major selling point why the 3DS XL is selling well, and it's a good differentiator.
They couldn't have for example pulled a 2DS at launch and not have much worse branding confusion than they did.
Nor do I think the 3DS XL selling well means that 3D is a selling point either. There could be plenty of reasons for that, from price to a decent library finally coalescing around the system.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that 3D isn't the kind of word-of-mouth gamechanger Nintendo was hoping it would be, in contrast to motion controls on the Wii.
the dumbest suggestion is that nintendo should put their games on other consoles, like it's clearly the better alternative. if it was the better alternative- if it mean nintendo would be making more money and keeping everyone employed, wouldn't they already be doing it? do people think nintendo makes their own hardware out of spite?
here's what happens when you're a first-party developer: you have freedom to develop what hardware you want. and you have your teams actually make games for your your own internally-developed hardware. it makes things a lot easier than learning two or more different types of hardware to develop for. moreover, it reduces risk if a new peripheral or idea is introduced and fails. a third-party needs to pay the first-party for printing, they are beholden to their standards of manufacturing, and they are beholden to quality checks as well. for instance, sony gets a final say in what gets put on their machine, even as a psn release. if it doesn't look good, or if it lacks features, then it has to go. a good example would be how working designs was forced to put growlanser ii & iii into the growlansers generation package, losing them two additional revenue streams (they planned on those releases coming out later, separately), which helped lead to working designs's closure.
basically, more red tape, more risk, less freedom, less profit (the first-party publisher takes a chunk off each game sale).
but nintendo wouldn't move their console business to current competitors. they have a handheld system where all their franchises currently sell into the milliions without a problem. i don't see a situation where nintendo keeps a console/handheld divide when they could simply focus everyone on making more software for one device that is far less expensive to develop for.
however if it had to come to developing as a third party, and there was no handheld division anymore, nintendo would be making games for machines with zero markets for their games. 'mature' games and shooters might not sell on nintendo systems, but it's not like kid-friendly games are all the rage on $400 and $500 dedicated gaming devices. those types of games are essentially ignored by the enthusiast crowd and publishers at large. if i were a betting man, i'd imagine nintendo games would be as ignored as they are now, with people pining for the days they used to make good games.
here's what happens when you're a first-party developer: you have freedom to develop what hardware you want. and you have your teams actually make games for your your own internally-developed hardware. it makes things a lot easier than learning two or more different types of hardware to develop for. moreover, it reduces risk if a new peripheral or idea is introduced and fails. a third-party needs to pay the first-party for printing, they are beholden to their standards of manufacturing, and they are beholden to quality checks as well. for instance, sony gets a final say in what gets put on their machine, even as a psn release. if it doesn't look good, or if it lacks features, then it has to go. a good example would be how working designs was forced to put growlanser ii & iii into the growlansers generation package, losing them two additional revenue streams (they planned on those releases coming out later, separately), which helped lead to working designs's closure.
basically, more red tape, more risk, less freedom, less profit (the first-party publisher takes a chunk off each game sale).
but nintendo wouldn't move their console business to current competitors. they have a handheld system where all their franchises currently sell into the milliions without a problem. i don't see a situation where nintendo keeps a console/handheld divide when they could simply focus everyone on making more software for one device that is far less expensive to develop for.
however if it had to come to developing as a third party, and there was no handheld division anymore, nintendo would be making games for machines with zero markets for their games. 'mature' games and shooters might not sell on nintendo systems, but it's not like kid-friendly games are all the rage on $400 and $500 dedicated gaming devices. those types of games are essentially ignored by the enthusiast crowd and publishers at large. if i were a betting man, i'd imagine nintendo games would be as ignored as they are now, with people pining for the days they used to make good games.
I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned tablet.
Sad as it is to say, it's the truth. This isn't really anything new though, as the Gamecube was pretty irrelevant as well. The Wii apparently was only a temporary boost for Nintendo, but now they've clearly returned to the path they were originally on.
That being said, I love my Wii U and its few gems anyway. It'll be sad when Nintendo finally stops making consoles, which I speculate isn't too far off now. :(
That being said, I love my Wii U and its few gems anyway. It'll be sad when Nintendo finally stops making consoles, which I speculate isn't too far off now. :(
Okay I've had a chance to watch the full video and here are my thoughts:
Jason says that Nintendo hardware is irrelevant because of their "financials". This is true in many respects with the WiiU selling at a loss and Nintendo being far behind in the competition with both Microsoft and Sony. I'd be interested in seeing their net income numbers and compare to years past but it doesn't take a hard look to know that Nintendo is lagging behind in their feature set, studios, etc. Although obviously, other systems have sold at losses but Nintendo lacks a corporate backing as diverse of a Sony or Microsoft so this makes their core business a bit problematic and worrisome.
What I found more interesting is that both him and Shaemus mourn that Nintendo hasn't asserted themselves on the global stage. Shaemus echoes Jason's comments and says that "they're (Nintendo) every bit a Disney" which I whole-heartedly agree. Yeah you can say that Jason is port-begging sure but he's representing the voice of the gamer (which is bizarre because he usually represents business/corporate interests) by saying it's criminal that gamers don't have access to great IPs like Mario.
From a business perspective it makes all the sense in the world for Nintendo to keep Mario locked up but a bigger stage Nintendo assumes the role of a Bowser, keeping the Princess locked away in a castle for their own nefarious gain rather than letting her do her... princes sing. Okay, the metaphor isn't perfect but you know what I mean.
Nintendo is irrelevant in a handful of senses, first their console lacks the feature-set of other consoles, second most of it's offerings aren't innovative they're chasing other's innovations, and lastly, they've been losing money for years now which makes them irrelevant from a business perspective.
Of course, almost needless to say, their software is still top-notch. This makes their hardware relevant by extension but on the whole, I would say that Rubin's statement while a bit off-the-cuff and imprecisely made, is still accurate.
Jason says that Nintendo hardware is irrelevant because of their "financials". This is true in many respects with the WiiU selling at a loss and Nintendo being far behind in the competition with both Microsoft and Sony. I'd be interested in seeing their net income numbers and compare to years past but it doesn't take a hard look to know that Nintendo is lagging behind in their feature set, studios, etc. Although obviously, other systems have sold at losses but Nintendo lacks a corporate backing as diverse of a Sony or Microsoft so this makes their core business a bit problematic and worrisome.
What I found more interesting is that both him and Shaemus mourn that Nintendo hasn't asserted themselves on the global stage. Shaemus echoes Jason's comments and says that "they're (Nintendo) every bit a Disney" which I whole-heartedly agree. Yeah you can say that Jason is port-begging sure but he's representing the voice of the gamer (which is bizarre because he usually represents business/corporate interests) by saying it's criminal that gamers don't have access to great IPs like Mario.
From a business perspective it makes all the sense in the world for Nintendo to keep Mario locked up but a bigger stage Nintendo assumes the role of a Bowser, keeping the Princess locked away in a castle for their own nefarious gain rather than letting her do her... princes sing. Okay, the metaphor isn't perfect but you know what I mean.
Nintendo is irrelevant in a handful of senses, first their console lacks the feature-set of other consoles, second most of it's offerings aren't innovative they're chasing other's innovations, and lastly, they've been losing money for years now which makes them irrelevant from a business perspective.
Of course, almost needless to say, their software is still top-notch. This makes their hardware relevant by extension but on the whole, I would say that Rubin's statement while a bit off-the-cuff and imprecisely made, is still accurate.
Last edited by Buckethead; 12-02-2013 at 02:32 AM.
I recently went to my friends house to check out his wii. I was generally impressed. It was larger than I expected though.
(12-02-2013, 02:30 AM)
That's probably exactly what happened. They were probably all like bakka gaijin we don't want the likes of you working with us. We don't need those Uncharted like games on our systems.Originally Posted by Uncle Rupee
Jason Rubin probably tried to get a job at Nintendo and was turned down. Now he's trying to earn brownie points with Sony and Microsoft in the hopes he can get a job at one of them.
Not bad considering they've relied on sales to gamers and not local school districts, senior homes, and all of those nongamers who wanted to see what the Wii fad was about.Originally Posted by Uncle Rupee
By going strong you mean still trailing the Wii by 20 million?
The PSone outlived both the Saturn and the Dreamcast. I could see PS3 outliving both the Wii and Wii U.
Wii U is irrelevant and so was the GC. He is not entirely incorrect.
Something tells me he just doesn't feel like buying a Wii U. Now I agree that Nintendo have done a terrible job on the Wii U so far in its life, but time and time again, Nintendo have made the case that you need their hardware to play their games.
So in a sense, yes the Wii U is irrelevant currently, but once more of those desirable games like X, Smash, Bayo 2, etc are released in addition to a consistent release schedule of games, it's gonna make the Wii U more attractive. Plain and simple.
So in a sense, yes the Wii U is irrelevant currently, but once more of those desirable games like X, Smash, Bayo 2, etc are released in addition to a consistent release schedule of games, it's gonna make the Wii U more attractive. Plain and simple.
OK, so I've sat through that Bonus Round episode. The majority of it talks about what the publishers will do: sequels, new IP, big guys, small guys, stuff like that. Even talks about what THQ did wrong and what Naughty Dog enjoyed with Sony. So there's that.
The discussion that ended up containing the attention grabbing headline was a secondary thing, starting with about 6 minutes left in the episode. They're discussing prospects for the next generation systems for the next year+.
Nothing new, Pachter thinks Sony will have the clear edge on Xbox One until Microsoft either drops the price or makes a convincing argument for Kinect. He thinks Wii U will sell 20% of what Wii sold.
Rubin is more bullish on Xbox One, thinks it could go either way, but PS4 might get too far out front before Microsoft can show people why One is such a good idea. Thinks they'll both do well because "Nintendo has stumbled and is irrelevant in the console hardware business." Before they move to Blackley, he simply repeats his point from last week that Nintendo is a national treasure and "it's a tragedy we can't play their games on the systems we already have." This is just the same thing he said last week. In context, there's nothing particularly controversial here. He thinks Nintendo games should be played by everybody, but he doesn't believe many people are going to buy Nintendo hardware to do it. And looking at Wii U, he's right.
Blackley meanders and doesn't really give much insight here.
There's really not much new here that wasn't discussed in the aftermath of last week's episode. Wii U is irrelevant. Maybe one day, it actually won't be worth Nintendo's time to put out their own platform because royalties on other people's games won't make up for the lost revenue from their own games. It's up to Nintendo to make their business work and for at least the past few years, they haven't been doing it. Good luck with that in the future.
The discussion that ended up containing the attention grabbing headline was a secondary thing, starting with about 6 minutes left in the episode. They're discussing prospects for the next generation systems for the next year+.
Nothing new, Pachter thinks Sony will have the clear edge on Xbox One until Microsoft either drops the price or makes a convincing argument for Kinect. He thinks Wii U will sell 20% of what Wii sold.
Rubin is more bullish on Xbox One, thinks it could go either way, but PS4 might get too far out front before Microsoft can show people why One is such a good idea. Thinks they'll both do well because "Nintendo has stumbled and is irrelevant in the console hardware business." Before they move to Blackley, he simply repeats his point from last week that Nintendo is a national treasure and "it's a tragedy we can't play their games on the systems we already have." This is just the same thing he said last week. In context, there's nothing particularly controversial here. He thinks Nintendo games should be played by everybody, but he doesn't believe many people are going to buy Nintendo hardware to do it. And looking at Wii U, he's right.
Blackley meanders and doesn't really give much insight here.
There's really not much new here that wasn't discussed in the aftermath of last week's episode. Wii U is irrelevant. Maybe one day, it actually won't be worth Nintendo's time to put out their own platform because royalties on other people's games won't make up for the lost revenue from their own games. It's up to Nintendo to make their business work and for at least the past few years, they haven't been doing it. Good luck with that in the future.
First of all, it was a joke. But in all seriousness, Rubin quit Naughty Dog in 2004, he had nothing to do with Uncharted-like games.Originally Posted by Log4Girlz
That's probably exactly what happened. They were probably all like bakka gaijin we don't want the likes of you working with us. We don't need those Uncharted like games on our systems.
Well..the wii u has been a massive failure.
Of course it is. They are comparable in specs with each other, allow for easy ports between them, have controller features that are pretty much in parity, have developers' tools work better with them, and feature technological growth that aligns with developer ambitions. The PS4/Xbone hardware is what developer's want to work on. How is that NOT a differentiating factor from Nintendo's offerings the last two console gens?I suppose...there' very little value in the hardware Sony and MS offer though. The value MS brings to gamers is largely their relationships with key AAA third-party players and a variety of software features, and the value Sony brings is largely in the diverse, high quality first and second party library. The hardware really isn't the differentiating factor.
Last edited by Tookay; 12-02-2013 at 02:37 AM.
I'd just like to point out that Naughty Dog has only gotten better since Rubin left.
I'd guess Nintendo will still be making games, and likely hardware as well along side Sony or MS in the future. Really it's Sony and MS fighting it out , there's enough parity between systems to the average consumer that I don't think both companies survive in the space this gen, certainly not a 50/50 split like like last gen anyhow, think 60/40 or 70/30Originally Posted by DragonSworne
Nintendo currently is irrelevent in the console hardware space. Wii U is never going to sell well.
If Iwata is still CEO of Nintendo come next gen, it might be more than just the console space that Nintendo is irrelevent in.
To those pointing to his Naughty Dog thing, that was almost 10 years ago, people generally look for what have you done for me lately. And this is port begging. He has no idea how much money they make right now. Yes the WiiU was a fuck up but some of it is not quite their fault (This time around)
| Thread Tools | |