By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - 'Nintendo could be on a path to irrelevance', says Atari founder

richardhutnik on 07 September 2013
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
leo-j said:
It's incredible, just 4 years ago the WII was just dominating the entire game industry with it's record breaking sales, and near record breaking software sales, and the DS was dominating as well.... in just a matter of 4 years nintendo go from being the top dog, to barely playing in the game..... yas

It isn't that bad for Nintendo now.  But, they are off where they were, even with the 3DS doing well.  The Wii U didn't continue what the Wii was doing.  The way the videogame industry works, is that it is next to impossible for anyone to stay on top for as long.


Nintendo has been on top for 30 years.. Even to this day they are number one in the games industry.  You jump from leaky ship to sinking ship.    You can't tell Leo was baiting?  

Post SNES days, you had Sony trouncing them.  They managed to carve out a solid niche in the portable arena.  They also made a comeback with the Wii.  If you want to see the history of top consoles over the eras, it was as follows:

* Atari 2600

* NES

* Genesis, then SNES in the end

* Playstation

* Playstation 2

* Wii

They have NOT been on top 30 years.  They have been competitive 30 years, and on top in gaps there.  



Around the Network
snyps on 07 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
leo-j said:
It's incredible, just 4 years ago the WII was just dominating the entire game industry with it's record breaking sales, and near record breaking software sales, and the DS was dominating as well.... in just a matter of 4 years nintendo go from being the top dog, to barely playing in the game..... yas

It isn't that bad for Nintendo now.  But, they are off where they were, even with the 3DS doing well.  The Wii U didn't continue what the Wii was doing.  The way the videogame industry works, is that it is next to impossible for anyone to stay on top for as long.


Nintendo has been on top for 30 years.. Even to this day they are number one in the games industry.  You jump from leaky ship to sinking ship.    You can't tell Leo was baiting?  

Post SNES days, you had Sony trouncing them.  They managed to carve out a solid niche in the portable arena.  They also made a comeback with the Wii.  If you want to see the history of top consoles over the eras, it was as follows:

* Atari 2600

* NES

* Genesis, then SNES in the end

* Playstation

* Playstation 2

* Wii

They have NOT been on top 30 years.  They have been competitive 30 years, and on top in gaps there.  



Have a look at this at tell me Nintendo hasn't been no. 1 in the industry for 30 years.



http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/ (count how many times u read Nintendo)



 

Nintendo will choose Profit and The Top Selling Games of All Time over marketshare any day... Don't you deny it!



richardhutnik on 07 September 2013

synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.



bananaking21 on 07 September 2013
DietSoap said:
Misleading title, he says they COULD be on a path to irrelevance, key word. And path is also a keyword, he's only mentioning one possible vision he sees way out.

And to all the idiots trying to blame the fall of Atari on Bushnell, he was forced out only one year after Warner Brothers bought them and completely restructured their home console sector (1978).


thanks for pointing that out. i remember i just copy pasted the tittle. ill adjust that now, though its pretty much too late for that



snyps on 07 September 2013
richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.



revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.



Around the Network
bananaking21 on 07 September 2013
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.



revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.


so you are telling me the N64 and GameCube made more profits than the PS1/PS2? you do realize that nintendo had VERY successfull handhelds in that time as well. any proof that the N64/GCN made more money than the PS1/PS2? 



snyps on 07 September 2013
bananaking21 said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.



revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.


so you are telling me the N64 and GameCube made more profits than the PS1/PS2? you do realize that nintendo had VERY successfull handhelds in that time as well. any proof that the N64/GCN made more money than the PS1/PS2? 


No.. No.. I'm not telling you that. I'm saying Nintendo as a company in the whole industry.  As per the op, bushnell is referring to handhelds too.



bananaking21 on 07 September 2013
snyps said:
bananaking21 said:
snyps said:
richardhutnik said:
synps, as you have shown, they have not been #1 the past 30 years. There were periods where other companies went past them. If you want to argue they have sustained the longest period of profitability and have been the longest survivor, I would say pretty much that is true with a few remaining companies like EA and Activision being with them. But, they have not been top dog every year over the past 30 years. There have been years they were not.

Also, I would HIGHLY suggest you look at total revenues and marketshare, NOT profitability. What you have now is a large market with very small profits. That is an issue.

And you do not have Atari and Sega in there either, who were rivals, and were beating Nintendo in the early years. Even then Nintendo was not top dog.

In short, your charts are biased.



revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.


so you are telling me the N64 and GameCube made more profits than the PS1/PS2? you do realize that nintendo had VERY successfull handhelds in that time as well. any proof that the N64/GCN made more money than the PS1/PS2? 


No.. No.. I'm not telling you that. I'm saying Nintendo as a company in the whole industry.  Even bushnell is referring to handhelds

my bad then



snyps on 07 September 2013
bananaking21 said:
snyps said:
bananaking21 said:
snyps said:



revenue means squat. marketshare means squat. Profit is king! Nintendo wooped atari and sega.. there's no point in showing it here. I'm biased? Of coarse I am. That's not a question. Who's bring the facts!?! You're biased against the truth. Nintendo came out of every generation with the highest profits. Admit it.


so you are telling me the N64 and GameCube made more profits than the PS1/PS2? you do realize that nintendo had VERY successfull handhelds in that time as well. any proof that the N64/GCN made more money than the PS1/PS2? 


No.. No.. I'm not telling you that. I'm saying Nintendo as a company in the whole industry.  Even bushnell is referring to handhelds

my bad then


No biggie. I'm glad you fixed any confusion.



Lawlight on 07 September 2013
Mnementh said:
Lawlight said:
The only 2 things keeping Nintendo relevant at the moment is Japan and casuals.

I agree somewhat on Japan, but what casuals? We have a new gen, DS and Wii aren't selling much more. 3DS and WiiU have nothing to offer for the casual player. That's why the WiiU is struggling.


I think there are some casuals that are remnant of the DS/Wii force.