Wow, I mean, I know this happens whenever Malstrom gets posted but it's particularly hard to swallow now.
Instead of actually thinking about and having a big discussion about the actual important points Malstrom makes, people just zero in on one insignificant point he made somewhere in the piece and argue against it. I won't lie, on entering this thread I did expect pettty bickering, but I expected bickering related to the important arguments Malstrom made.
Can we move on from talking about whether Nintendo's studios are better than Sony's and talk about whether overall Malstrom is right or not? Or perhaps someone could write a rebuttel to the piece itself?
"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."
"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."
