And this can't be called good business because...? The whole assertion that a business making money is bad/hurts the consumer is ridiculous, really. Do you actually believe what you are saying, Pezus?

How is 299$ bad compared to what Microsoft or Sony are charging? Console MSRPs will continue to go up, no matter what, though.

"So much more greedy than Sony / Microsoft"? Do you have an inside scoop on Nintendo? Last time I checked, all businesses strive to make a profit. In anyway they can. Why? Maybe because that's how they stick around, by making money. 

I would also like to point out that it wasn't just Microsoft fans who were against MS' practices prior to the XBO's release. The larger voice game from Sony fans and Nintendo fans.

1. Iwata hasn't "failed at his job". They just need to make sure more games come out more often.

2. If people really care about "helping Nintendo", get the fuck off the couch and go buy a Wii U. There are plenty of great games coming soon, on retail and eShop, along with the many great games already out on it. That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there.

...because it's not sustainable. Look at how Nintendo's market share lowered from NES to Game Cube. Look at how it lowered from the Wii's shiny beginning to nowaday's Wii U. Nintendo is able to somehow revolutionize the market from time to time but its bad attitude undermines the long-term results.

Easy: 300€ for a 7th gen console is more expensive than 400€/500€ for a 8th gen console. And AAA game titles will end up being more appealing to ever more demanding consumers than low-budget "remakes" mainly focused on the kindergarten niche. Nintendo may have fooled gaming newcomers with the Wii but "to blunder twice is not allowed in war".

You check it wrong then. Different companies have different attitude, despite they all attempt to maximize profits. Therefore, they don't do it in every way they can. They have ethics, principles, rules. For example, Valve's principles would never allow the company to make such shameful decisions as Nintendo did with many of their consoles. They respect the gamer's money in ways Nintendo could never dream on. And the results of such different attitudes can be clearly seen in both companies' actions.

PS3 owners may very well buy an Xbox One, so their reaction is understandable. Gamers that only buy PlayStation consoles have nothing to win from it, so I don't think that makes sense in this case. Regarding Nintendo fans, if they really did so, then they use double standard once they are much more squeezed on Wii or Wii U than they would ever be on a XOne with DRM.

I reaffirm my statement: Xbox would be a disgusting choice if its clients were like Nintendo fans.

Nintendo's market share rise and fall came to happen because of many different problems. If you are talking about Nintendo keeping their games at a higher price throughout the generation, that's because of supply and demand. If a company sees that their product is still selling at the price that it first was sold at, they're going to keep it at that price. This didn't effect Nintendo's market share. However, I don't know if this is what you are replying to me about.

Your second point is just plain bollocks all around. Nintendo's console, even if it is considered a "7th generation console", is still affordable in that sphere of thought. The PS3 cost more than it for awhile, then became the same price. The XB 360 was sold at the same price, for certain editions. And the Wii was sold for 50$ less which, I'm guessing here, is a "6th generation console" to you. By "low-budget" remakes are you talking about WWHD? If so, how do you know without question how much it cost to make?

Easy, Nintendo has values. Every company, to an extent, has values. They have to follow laws.

I don't see how you can even disagree with this statement. It shows how the gaming community can come together on something and push against it. Is that bad, in your opinion?

Didn't realize Nintendo was a non-profit organization taking donations. They can suck a fart for all I care. I'm gonna donate money to Monsanto and the Federal Reserve instead.

Except very few people bought PS3 at that price

Quite a bit more than people who bought the WiiU at $300. 

Wait what are we talking about again? I thought this thread was about donating money to the Big N. 

Lol, donating to Nintendo like they are even in trouble. They can have 5 console failures in a row and still survive because they are an extremely solvent company. They have cash in the billions of dollars, if anything Nintendo needs to donate to us.

No, it's not a rise-and-fall. It's a rise-fall-fall-fall then again rise-fall-fall-fall. Fall is the rule, rise is the exception. The rule comes from what they are every day and night (not a coincidence of many problems that strangely get bigger 3 times in a row). The exception comes from a combination of creativity and market opportunity that only happens from time to time.

They managed to control supply and demand in NES times (http://www.geekcomix.com/vgh/fourth/nesbad.shtml) in order to get submissive retailers and gamers. Again, you are considering that all companies think the same way. If what you say was to be right, then Game Cube console and games would have experienced many more price drops than PS2 console and games. And if you read the article I've mentioned, you will understand that it did affect Nintendo's market share. When there are cartrige shortages, games don't sell as much. When it's the console maker controlling cartrige production, 3rd parties don't get as much units as they would want. When small 3rd parties don't have decent sales, they break. When there is less competition, the console maker raises its market share and domination.

Affordable? Yes. Cheap? Not as much as the PS3.

In what year, month, day, second did you see the PS3 or X360 more expensive than the Wii U?

No. The quotation marks were not on the "low-budget" but on the "remakes". Nintendo games are low-budget and that is obvious for me even without knowing any numbers from them. Just do the following experiment: 1 - look at the production costs of high-budget games and low-budget games - 2 - make a list of the things that mostly made the games expensive - 3 - see whether those things are mostly present on the most expensive games - 4 - see if Nintendo's games have those things mostly present too. You will get to the same conclusion as me.

Regarding "remakes", I'm talking about the old same old IPs with the old same old game architectures. Nintendo is the company doing it the most. The most demanding gamers could not stand for it and decided to migrate to PlayStation as soon as it appeared. That was Sony's revolution with the PS1: a revolution of atttitude...and the market opportunity was there, gamers were desperately waiting for new games and decent quality/price offers.

I don't get you. Of course evey company has values and they go beyond the law. Sony and Microsoft could have adopted the region lock for PS4 and XOne (like Nintendo did for WiiU) but they didn't. Nintendo has certainly more values than Monsanto once I don't see them capable of challenging the public health. And there are many more examples of different values among different companies. The law means actually very little as some companies manage to change it with their influence while others go around it changing the market rules.

No they don't. I won't even talk about fanboys that only want to see the other side burning. A gamer is a consumer, and a consumer only cares about him/herself. I'm not concerned about whether it is good or bad. It is what it is. So, gamers fighting for the abolishment of the DRM from XOne only came (significantly) from people interested on the console.

But ok, let's forget about Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo clients and let's just consider them as gamers. Then my statement would be: Xbox would be a disgusting choice if gamers were as demanding with it as they are with Nintendo consoles.