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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why is it hard to believe that third parties are biased against Nintendo?

BeElite on 23 April 2014

3rd party's are like ho's.

there is no bias discrimination hate personal judgment bias what not, they will jump on the whatever dick white black brown yellow fat skinny ugly or not as long as the bank account is big and where they know they can suck of the most $$$ from.

They would be all over ninty if they could make $$ of them.

It all comes down the the reality of where $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ can be made. That's all.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 23 April 2014
bubblegamer said:
burning_phoneix said:
spemanig said:
bubblegamer said:
Because the whole definition of bias playing a role, where money is the only driving force, in the business making decisions of corporations is utterly unrealistic.


^


It might be shocking to many people but corprations are actually run by human beings, with motivations and feelings too! I KNOW! SHOCKING!

 

While usually, corprations will try to maximize profit at all time, there is precedent for personal feelings getting in the way of decision making. Hell, the original Playstation was released out of pride rather than careful financial analysis.

And this happens EVERY time AND to EVERY corporation? I see. Must be nice to belive things that suit your part of view.

EVERY corporation is certainly run by humans. Your view of the perfectly rational business sounds like something out of a tract on Mises.org



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 23 April 2014
vivster said:
Still wouldn't call it bias. It's a quite rational belief that's based on insufficient data. Business decisions will change when more data becomes available. Bias will hardly.

Filtering data that suits your worldview happens just as easily to a CFO as it does to any armchair analyst on this site. Cognitive bias doesn't necessarily mean rampant fanboyism, hardly.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

fps_d0minat0r on 23 April 2014
BeElite said:
3rd party's are like ho's.

there is no bias discrimination hate personal judgment bias what not, they will jump on the whatever dick white black brown yellow fat skinny ugly or not as long as the bank account is big and where they know they can suck of the most $$$ from.

They would be all over ninty if they could make $$ of them.

It all comes down the the reality of where $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ can be made. That's all.


nice analogy lol



bubblegamer on 23 April 2014
Mr Khan said:
bubblegamer said:
burning_phoneix said:
spemanig said:
bubblegamer said:
Because the whole definition of bias playing a role, where money is the only driving force, in the business making decisions of corporations is utterly unrealistic.


^


It might be shocking to many people but corprations are actually run by human beings, with motivations and feelings too! I KNOW! SHOCKING!

 

While usually, corprations will try to maximize profit at all time, there is precedent for personal feelings getting in the way of decision making. Hell, the original Playstation was released out of pride rather than careful financial analysis.

And this happens EVERY time AND to EVERY corporation? I see. Must be nice to belive things that suit your part of view.

EVERY corporation is certainly run by humans. Your view of the perfectly rational business sounds like something out of a tract on Mises.org

And all these corporations are biased against Nintendo?

You know how that sounds? Like someone blaming everyone else for his/her mistakes.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter on 23 April 2014
st0pnsw0p said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
You could call it bias, or you could call it alternative motive. Several key third parties do not want Nintendo to be the platform of choice for hardware, because they do not want to compete against their software. EA is in this category. A few, like Take-Two, seem to have a mild bias and just prefer to work on other platforms. There are bias in favor of Nintendo too, like Shin'en for example, developers that grew up with Nintendo products and dreamed of making products for them. Other companies, like Ubisoft or Activision just want to make money and will put games on Nintendo platforms if it makes sense, but sometimes promote other versions because they were given money to do so.

But bias definitely exists.

Despite popular belief, Nintendo games aren't so good that they appeal to absolutely everyone and stop people from wanting to buy any other type of game. The reason most 3rd parties sell poorly on Nintendo consoles is due to their completely different demographics. People who buy a Wii U generally aren't the type of people who are interested in AAA 3rd party games and vice versa, hence why games like AC, CoD and the like sell worse on Wii U than on other consoles, but for a Rayman Legends, which appeals 

If Nintendo made a console that both audiences bought, both types of games would sell well and third parties would be willing to support it, just like they supported the PS3 at the start of the generation despite its faults simply because their games sold on it.


a) "Despite popular belief" is a funny term, but it's really all that matters.  You may not think Nintendo games aren't that good, but the popular belief is that they are and so people buy them ahead of all else if they are available.

b) Even if Nintendo games aren't that great and/or popular, they're still massively more popular than any other 1st party collection.  As a result, third parties prefer to publish on systems with weaker 1st party presence.  Hell, Sony thought about ditching their entire 1st party line up a few years ago.  If I was a third party looking to have as little competition as possible, that's where I'd go.



noname2200 on 23 April 2014
Serious_frusting said:
Your OP has nothing to do with the thread title

He's assuming that everyone on this site can take the formula "1+x=2" and find x. Stupid of him, I know.

fleischr said:
I think biases that determine if a game goes on this platform or another can really only proliferate at the indie, self-publishing level.

EA, Ubisoft, Activision, WB and the like are corporations. Any platform they can sell well on, they'll develop for. Even if the development is like pulling teeth.

Within the companies, you probably have biased developers and development leads. But I think most are self-objective enough to port their games to a platform not of their preference if the business case is there (or their boss tells them too).


Except that we have ample contrary data. EA in particular offers a clear example from the NES days. Don't forget, a corporation is a legal fiction: the corporation makes zero decisions, and does not in fact even exist.

vivster said:
Still wouldn't call it bias. It's a quite rational belief that's based on insufficient data. Business decisions will change when more data becomes available. Bias will hardly.

Would you say this change happened last generation?



CrankyFlameBunny on 23 April 2014

I've got these relatives that have a Wii U which i play with them and the first thing that i always notice is something important do you know what it is? Their Wii U game library is only filled with Nintendo exclusives and i always tell myself that that is basically the reason that barely any games are made for the system, because NO ONE BARELY BUYS ANY THIRD PARTY GAMES FOR IT. So in the end some Nintendo fans treat Third Party companies as diabolical companies that only wish for Nintendo to burn down and blah blah, but all of that happens because Majority of the fans buy a nintendo console for Mario, Metroid, LoZ, and the next big exclusive affecting Third Party game sales repeating the whole process.



Mr Khan on 23 April 2014
bubblegamer said:
Mr Khan said:

EVERY corporation is certainly run by humans. Your view of the perfectly rational business sounds like something out of a tract on Mises.org

And all these corporations are biased against Nintendo?

You know how that sounds? Like someone blaming everyone else for his/her mistakes.

I'm certainly not suggesting this is universal, but that bias definitely plays a role. It is not, as many Nintendo critics contend, "just business."



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Incubi on 23 April 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
burning_phoneix said:
spemanig said:
bubblegamer said:
Because the whole definition of bias playing a role, where money is the only driving force, in the business making decisions of corporations is utterly unrealistic.

^

It might be shocking to many people but corprations are actually run by human beings, with motivations and feelings too! I KNOW! SHOCKING!

While usually, corprations will try to maximize profit at all time, there is precedent for personal feelings getting in the way of decision making. Hell, the original Playstation was released out of pride rather than careful financial analysis.

Its actually halarious imagining a board room of businessmen having a console war and ganging up on the one guy who speaks out for nintendo.

Maybe developopers and those lower down the hierarchy have feelings, but near the top, I dont even think they are gamers, let alone have a preference.

Actually, Trip Hawkins, former CEO of EA hated Nintendo so much that when the board of directors decided to support the Super NES back in the day, he resigned and then quit the company and formed 3DO. He took some of his friends with him, like Jason Rubin which went on to form Naughty Dog.