I can tell you don't like to "lose" an argument, Picko, which makes me wonder why you get into so many of them. Also, it's very childish to make overbearing statements like "you don't deserve to participate in this thread" when somebody counters your argument with a well-reasoned explanation. The entire point of debate is to provide reasonable arguments, not to belittle your "opponent" and hope they leave in disgust.
You completely ignored the point I made to harp over idealistic "what if" situations that don't take actual market mechanics into consideration. Nintendo did what every smart company does in that position: they minimized competition. If you don't like that, as I said, you'd better start criticizing every company that does it, because otherwise you're just being intentionally hateful towards Nintendo and forgiving of every other company that does the EXACT SAME THING as they do, if in slightly different practice.
Perhaps an example that hits close to home will make you realize how common "exclusionary policy" really is. When Microsoft first released Windows as a bundle with new PCs, they strong-armed hardware manufacturers to only package Windows with their new PCs; anybody caught shipping off a non-MS OS with any system was put on Microsoft's blacklist and boycotted by MS. They continued this practice until very recently, and it was less than a decade ago that this policy was finally put to rest in light of harsh federal prosecution.
Before you go condemning a practice, I suggest you do some actual research and find out how common it is. You end up looking like a hypocrite at best, and an ignorant debater at worst.
Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.
