Naughty Dog Co-Founder: Nintendo ?Irrelevant as a Hardware Manufacturer?

[Mr.Mattress]

What are you on about? There's no rule that says a console can't use an x86 or ARM based main processor, or that it has to use a custom GPU. Hell, the PS3's cell architecture, while neat, was a good chunk of why the PS3 had issues last generation. It was a ***** to learn and develop for, and that limited the speed at which games were released for it, thus cutting into the year lead it had over the 360 (price didn't help either).

So, instead of trying to learn how to make games for a platform, like all developers had to do generations before, your telling me that 3rd parties decided to be lazy, not try at all to make good looking and good playing games for the PS3 just because they would have to actually Try hard?

I know a lot of 3rd parties are lazy, but the more I keep being told "Why should they have to learn something? They should be given everything they want with no problem" the more I think that they're spoiled brats that need a time out.

And if I was given something hard to do, could I simply say "Screw it, I won't try hard" and still expect good results? No! In the real world, if I did that, I would either fail or be fired! Perhaps 3rd parties need to fail and be fired instead of coddled!

Effort versus reward. "Why would I put x amount of effort into a project, when I can do a different project that requires less resources and make a lot more profit?" It's not lazyness; it's business. They're not making games because they're artists they make games to make money.

So what your telling me is I should just quit college right now because the odds of me becoming a successful lawyer are too low for the amount of money I'm putting into it? I'm glad your not my life coach...

It is incredibly lazy to simply go for the easier option, even if it makes more money. That's why RPG's, 3D Platformers, Beat Em Ups and Fighting Games are dying, because people don't wanna try to make good RPG's or 3D Platformers or Beat Em Ups or Fighting Games because they're afraid "They won't Make Money". Yet Nintendo does all these and they do them successfully, even if they don't make tons of money immediately or ever. Great Art always sells (Look at Psychonauts, for example. It didn't sell well immediately, but since 2011 it has made Double Fine money), and the fact that most companies are afraid to make Art anymore is a very bad thing for an industry that is an art (An Art of Games, but art none the less).

"What's the real difference between Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 besides Yoshi? Nothing really."

I agree with you, actually. I thought Super Mario Galaxy was enough, and when I heard about Super Mario Galaxy 2, I was worried. I mean, it is a good game, but Nintendo's always tries unique things with every sequel they produce for their franchises. SMG2 was a repeat of SMG with Yoshi and Luigi. Heck, I was even against Super Mario 3D World, not because of the terrible E3 Reveal, but because it was a Console Sequel of the Handheld 3D Land. I'll still end up buying it, but I really want Nintendo to do something completely different with Mario, like they did with World, 64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1 and 3D Land.

A pain in the butt for lazy third parties? It's a pain in the butt for everyone first, third, lazy, adept. Nintendo programmers didn't just magically know how to develope for the wiiU, they just had a leg up on everyone else by having a head start.

Things don't get easier or cost less when you approach with a can-do attitude. And for zero benefit other than the right to produce a game for a nintendo console, which didn't do Ubisoft any favours considering the fact that they view ZombiU as a failure.

And yet, the WiiU has produced wonderfully beautiful games such as Super Mario 3D World [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUFhJ1V50gs], Nano Assault Neo [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCa54wDMe9M], Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCXabGw7ypw] and the upcoming games X [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Q4ld4uqcY] and Bayonetta 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amFu1hsOtuM]. Just because something might be "Hard" to do at the start doesn't mean it won't ever get easy (Doesn't necessarilly mean it will get easier either), and it certainly shouldn't be an excuse to quit on something. If that was the case, I would have chosen to flunk every math course I ever took (They never got easier for me).

And just because ZombiU was a "Failure" for Ubisoft, does that give them the right to just give up on the WiiU and never try again? No! That just means they have to keep trying, over and over again, until they get it right. "Oh, but it will cost them money to do it." Well, welcome to business 101, where the saying is "You gotta SPEND money to EARN money." If they don't wanna waste money making games that may or may not sell, why did they bother resurrecting Rayman? Why did they bother making Watch_Dogs? Why did they bother making Assassins' Creed last gen?

And since a lot of PS3 games where hard to make, and didn't give companies money immediately when they released games for it, should developers have just up and abandoned Sony? Or should they have kept trying, like Sony fans said and even demanded at times, until they eventually got it right?

 

[Psychobabble]

I'd say this is better than Nintendo becoming the third console "that so wishes it was a PC", whore like Microsoft and Sony. I'll take interesting game ideas over just the same old shit only held hostage to a lesser platform, any day.

 

[daveNYC]

Obviously the problem is that software development has become too easy. Nintendo should solve that by designing their next console to only play games written in pure binary. None of this high level programming language crap that has coddled the current crop of developers and let them become lazy and useless. I imagine that developers will flock to the platform as the limitations therein would unleash levels of creativity not seen since Pong and Hunt the Wumpus were developed. The hardware savings from only needing a keyboard with a 0 and 1 on it wouldn't hurt either.

Look, there's a finite amount of developer resources that can be spent on a game. Any resources spent on jumping through crazy technical hoops in order to get the game to even run are not available to be spent on making the game fun. Nor are smaller developers going to have the resources to develop a game that can run on two very different systems. Nintendo's usage of non-bog standard parts isn't helping them, it's hurting; and coming up with some crazy scenario that it's all because of lazy developers who've been coddled by the other console makers is just that, crazy.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Obviously the problem is that software development has become too easy. Nintendo should solve that by designing their next console to only play games written in pure binary. None of this high level programming language crap that has coddled the current crop of developers and let them become lazy and useless. I imagine that developers will flock to the platform as the limitations therein would unleash levels of creativity not seen since Pong and Hunt the Wumpus were developed. The hardware savings from only needing a keyboard with a 0 and 1 on it wouldn't hurt either.

Look, there's a finite amount of developer resources that can be spent on a game. Any resources spent on jumping through crazy technical hoops in order to get the game to even run are not available to be spent on making the game fun. Nor are smaller developers going to have the resources to develop a game that can run on two very different systems. Nintendo's usage of non-bog standard parts isn't helping them, it's hurting; and coming up with some crazy scenario that it's all because of lazy developers who've been coddled by the other console makers is just that, crazy.

It's exactly what I said it was: Mysticism. There's some esoteric, poorly-defined essence of being a console that the Wii-U has that the PS4 and Xbone don't, and the fact that it can't be explained logically makes it better and means better game will come out for it.

 

[EvilRoy]

A pain in the butt for lazy third parties? It's a pain in the butt for everyone first, third, lazy, adept. Nintendo programmers didn't just magically know how to develope for the wiiU, they just had a leg up on everyone else by having a head start.

Things don't get easier or cost less when you approach with a can-do attitude. And for zero benefit other than the right to produce a game for a nintendo console, which didn't do Ubisoft any favours considering the fact that they view ZombiU as a failure.

And yet, the WiiU has produced wonderfully beautiful games such as Super Mario 3D World [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUFhJ1V50gs], Nano Assault Neo [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCa54wDMe9M], Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCXabGw7ypw] and the upcoming games X [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Q4ld4uqcY] and Bayonetta 2 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amFu1hsOtuM]. Just because something might be "Hard" to do at the start doesn't mean it won't ever get easy (Doesn't necessarilly mean it will get easier either), and it certainly shouldn't be an excuse to quit on something. If that was the case, I would have chosen to flunk every math course I ever took (They never got easier for me).

What difference? It's great that they look good on the wiiU, but do they look better than they would on ps4 or xbone? Will it sell more? Will it play better or produce some greater artistic feat? Aside from the feeling of accomplishment of a job well done, which you seem to view as absolutely critical, what benefit was there to developing these games on the wiiU over any other platform?

And just because ZombiU was a "Failure" for Ubisoft, does that give them the right to just give up on the WiiU and never try again? No! That just means they have to keep trying, over and over again, until they get it right. "Oh, but it will cost them money to do it." Well, welcome to business 101, where the saying is "You gotta SPEND money to EARN money." If they don't wanna waste money making games that may or may not sell, why did they bother resurrecting Rayman? Why did they bother making Watch_Dogs? Why did they bother making Assassins' Creed last gen?

That would make sense if the wiiU was the only option for these companies to develop for (and in the case of bayonetta 2 and mario above, it is), but for everybody else there are three other options that cost less money to develop for, already have large instal bases, and allow for greater game specs.

Business 101 is spend money to earn money? Fair enough, but allow me to let you in on business 210: if you can spend less money and make more money, do that. Sure risks have to be taken at times, but the wiiU risk was already taken by a few developers, and it went poorly. Why go back when other options exist?

And since a lot of PS3 games where hard to make, and didn't give companies money immediately when they released games for it, should developers have just up and abandoned Sony? Or should they have kept trying, like Sony fans said and even demanded at times, until they eventually got it right?

Well considering the only other options were essentially untenable at the time, yes they had no choice but to keep trying. Thankfully that is no longer the case.

 

[WeepingAngels]

He's right. Most third-party developers won't bother with it because of the much inferior hardware.

It's not because the hardware is inferior, it's because there is too big a gap between the PS4/One and the Wii U. The 3DS has inferior hardware but third parties like it.

 

[Plinglebob]

To be irrelevant, Nintendo's actions should have no effect on the market or either of the other manufacturers. Why is it then that in the E3 after Nintendo showed off the Wii U and the second screen controller, both Microsoft and Sony went out of their way to show how their consoles could work with a second screen provided by a third party device?

 

[Atmos Duality]

When asked by host Geoff Keighley if Sony or Microsoft will win the new battle between PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, the topic of Nintendo came up. ?[Sony and Microsoft] will do, for the next few years, extremely well, again because Nintendo has stumbled,? Rubin said. ?Nintendo is irrelevant as a hardware manufacturer in the console business right now.?

I can understand what Rubin is saying...how to put it..

Nintendo's hardware is mainly relevant to Nintendo.
Games drive console sales, not the other way around and Nintendo's 1st party games VASTLY outstrip the relevance of third party games in selling consoles.

And what Rubin says is actually true...for the moment.
It probably won't hold for long, at least in the next year or so (my speculation).

Until VERY recently, the WiiU has had virtually no quality 1st party titles. The next best thing was...Monster Hunter, which itself didn't do much to move systems. (and was FREQUENTLY thrown out as a defense for the WiiU's lack of games in the last year. Turns out, it wasn't the system savior the Nintendo Defense Force had made it out to be.)

It'll probably play out like the 3DS did; dead start, and go gangbusters once the usual Nintendo catalog rolls through.

And this is the big discriminator: It's not relevant to folks like me who are utterly burnt out on Nintendo's retreads, so neither will the WiiU be relevant. But I'm not everyone; besides, Nintendo isn't directly butting heads with Sony and Microsoft, they're going for the kids and their (hopefully gamer) parents.

I liken Nintendo to the Disney of the Game Market. Old and formulaic to a T, but perennial because there are always a steady stream of new "suckers" who haven't run the Nintendo gamut yet. And it's not like Nintendo's games are really BAD* even if they're kiddie; Most kiddie games, by far, is just Shovelware.

(*mostly..there are...exceptions.)

 

[Seracen]

Troll worthy title for a somewhat justified troll of Nintendo (at least, his original words, not the sentiment the headline portrays).

This is trying to sensationalize a statement to lose the original message. The more salient point to me is that nobody would have dared to make such accusations back in the Gamecube era or before, even when Ninty seemed to be losing its way. The company was unassailable.

The Wii had it's share of issues, but it provided a much needed reboot for Nintendo. However, the Wii-U doesn't seem to be actually GOING anywhere, not least because of poor marketing. Moreover, for folks who don't care for much of Ninty's 1st party titles (like me), there isn't much to see there.

Unless they turn it around on 3rd-Party support and regularly releasing killer apps, the "trolling comment" isn't rendered invalid. I'm looking forward to Wii-U's summer releases, but one shouldn't have to wait 1.5 years for anything good to show up on a console (Mario doesn't count, they have a damn stockpile of Mario games and concepts).

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I'd say this is better than Nintendo becoming the third console "that so wishes it was a PC", whore like Microsoft and Sony. I'll take interesting game ideas over just the same old shit only held hostage to a lesser platform, any day.

Let me know how Super Mario 5,238,432 is working out for you then. I'm sorry, but saying that Nintendo actually has more interesting ideas than other developers is completely ignoring the fact that they pretty much just repackage the franchises they've been using for the past 30 years with shinier graphics. Don't get me wrong, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. are incredibly solid games at their cores, but I wish Nintendo would try releasing something that is truly a new IP instead of just rolling everything into the existing series.

When it comes to hardware, and the general topic of the thread, I think it's pretty much impossible to say that Nintendo's actually doing anything cutting edge with their current system. Part of their weakness is the insistence that they remain a toy company instead of an entertainment system maker for the whole spectrum of gamer interests. Of course they'll always have more kids who will want a Nintendo for Christmas or whatever, but as gamers get older they are leaving Nintendo's systems behind. I know within my circle of friends that has been the case.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Actually I would tell you to go to a law school, or a school that is known for their law program. You should focus your efforts in an area that will give you the largest chance of success. To keep up the metaphor, most 3rd Party developers are trying to get their law degree and the WiiU is Culinary School.

I disagree, in fact, here's the Analogy I would use:

Most 3rd Parties are trying to get their law degrees. The XBone and PS4 are basic Law Schools where anyone can go in with nothing and come out with a Diploma in law. But the WiiU Is a highly advanced Law School filled with Strict Teachers and rules, and anyone getting less then a B- is considered a failure. However, anyone making over a B- is destined to not only get a good job in Law, they're bound to be some of our best lawyers we ever had.

A pain in the butt for lazy third parties? It's a pain in the butt for everyone first, third, lazy, adept. Nintendo programmers didn't just magically know how to develope for the wiiU, they just had a leg up on everyone else by having a head start.

Things don't get easier or cost less when you approach with a can-do attitude. And for zero benefit other than the right to produce a game for a nintendo console, which didn't do Ubisoft any favours considering the fact that they view ZombiU as a failure.

SNIP

What difference? It's great that they look good on the wiiU, but do they look better than they would on ps4 or xbone? Will it sell more? Will it play better or produce some greater artistic feat? Aside from the feeling of accomplishment of a job well done, which you seem to view as absolutely critical, what benefit was there to developing these games on the wiiU over any other platform?

The original argument wasn't "PS4 and XBOne can do anything the WiiU Can", the argument was "It's a Pain in the butt for everyone to program for, and isn't worth it". I pinpoint games that where developed by companies that actually tried to work with the Hardware, not just plop it on and expect instant results, that are highly rated for their game play and their looks, and then you switched the goal post. And of Course the PS4 and XBone can do what the WiiU Can, but I wasn't arguing that at all.

And for the record, these games would play better on the WiiU then on any other console. For example, Bayonetta 1 was glitchy as all get out, especially on the PS3, due to rushing the game to it. However, Platinum Games has said Thanks to Nintendo, Bayonetta 2 will not be Glitchy because Nintendo forced them to focus on Gameplay rather then Graphics [http://www.destructoid.com/platinum-games-discusses-relationship-with-nintendo-259536.phtml]. If this game where on the PS4 or XBOne as produced by Sega with a forced Due date, Bayonetta 2 would be just as glitchy as Bayonetta 1. Without the Hardware knowledge, Nintendo probably couldn't make Super Mario 3D World Shine as well as it does on the WiiU. And without Nintendo, Capcom would have had to add Achievements to Monster Hunter, something they refuse to do, though I don't know why.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!

Seriously, no development house owes Nintendo, or any other console maker, a damn thing. If Nintendo doesn't increase their install base sharply, then they're going to be left out (even more than they already are) of the third-party titles as it just won't be worth it for anyone to port things over. A weaker set of hardware will just be the icing on the cake.

And you really should think twice about law school. The job market for grads outside of the top 10 or so schools is pretty bad, and your ability to put together a persuasive argument is lacking.

At Bolded: I take it your the funny guy.

Of course not development house owes Nintendo anything, especially if they specifically said out of the gate "We will not develop for Nintendo", a la Bethesda. However, plenty of companies said they would, and I hold them up to expectations to hold their promise, otherwise they're just as bad as EA. And we all know how bad EA is.

Plus, WiiU is still ahead of both the PS4 and XBone. So them abandoning the WiiU while supporting these two consoles, with their future not even completely known yet, makes me call shenanigans.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Consoles are suppose to be architecturally built uniquely. Every Console before the XBox had a unique architecture within them that 3rd Parties where then suppose to learn. Even the PS3 had a Unique Architecture within it (At first, I don't know about later models).

The point of a console is not to have unique architecture, it's to have standardized architecture. With standard architecture developers know exactly what they have to work with, in contrast to developing for home PCs where architecture can vary widely.

Consoles generally do have fairly unique architecture to try and get more performance out of their hardware, even PS4 and Xbox One have some nonstandard hardware features (both use APUs instead of the more traditional CPU/GPU configuration for example).

 

[EHKOS]

Yeah, take it from the washed-up concept artist who ran a decent game company into the ground harder than a Crash Bandicoot belly flop. The only reason to buy one console over another is the exclusives, and Nintendo is known for nothing if not it's closely guarded IPs. The Wii U is faaaaar from perfect, but so is every console this gen.

 

[A-D.]

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

Jason Rubin =/= Naughty Dog.

He hasn't been with them since 2004 so I don't know why you're interpreting his words as Naughty Dog's.

I aint interpreting them as a statement from naughty dog, but rather as a statement from the co-founder of it. Whether he works there or not is irrelevant. Plus, he basicly ran THQ into the ground, or at least it went under on his watch, so really he shouldnt be talking about other companies anyway.

Plus, even if he left in 2004, Naughty Dog didnt make anything other than Playstation games then too, so the point is just as valid.

 

[KazeAizen]

Lol,Nintendo is doing well for itself unlike most AAA devs and actually makes games that people don't hate.

And also don't make disc locked DLC or any real DLC for that matter. In other words they actually make finished games.

 

[Zipa]

I get the feeling that people think processor architecture means something different to what it actually does.

The architecture is just the instruction set that a processor uses to function. That is it it has nothing to do with how good or bad a companies games will be or how they look.

There are quite a few advantages to this, the more obvious ones being devs can port games across PS4 XBox one and PC easier. Devs only need to learn one set of instructions not three saving time and money. It will cut down on issues like the ones that plagued Skyrim on the PS3. If they next gen after this carries on using X86 it will be much cheaper and more viable to have backwards compatibility.

The only real downside is no backwards compatibility from the PS3 and 360 to the new consoles.

It will also get rid of a lot of the problems like the ones that plagued Skyrim on the PS3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

 

[Roxas1359]

Lol,Nintendo is doing well for itself unlike most AAA devs and actually makes games that people don't hate.

And also don't make disc locked DLC or any real DLC for that matter. In other words they actually make finished games.

Quick correction on the no DLC thing. Nintendo actually made DLC for New Super Mario Bros 2 and DLC, in this case an expansion pack, for NSMBWU under the title of New Super Luigi U. Nintendo really couldn't actually do DLC until the Wii U because the small memory limits of the Wii made it virtually impossible because the console would be unable to load it all since it used a type of flash memory. It's why they are talking about DLC more now.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Go Naughty Dog, the wise!

Nintendo, at least compared to the phase other developers are going through now, is actually doing pretty well.