2 statements of declaration before I begin.
1. I am responding solely for the edification of others.
2. I am a fan of Nintendo and their productions.
1.1 What Nintendo does with your dollar.
This might be the most contrived, illogical "Truth" about Nintendo, Sony and MS I've ever read.
Have you ever heard of the "Razor and Blades" business model?
Does Sony or Nintendo really owe you (or are owed) if a favorable/unfavorable foreign exchange rate moves them into or out of profitability in any given quarter/fiscal year?
Does every company that retains profit owe you?
Is consumer business a zero sum game in your opinion?
Do you have any idea how a publicly traded corporation operates?
Do you really think that a publicly traded company that documents a loss on their ledgers gave you something?
I guess we are also supposed to ignore the fact that Sony and MS have a dozen other corporate divisions with which to generate profit while Nintendo must rely solely on gaming.
1.2 How Nintendo has evolved along the time.
Popular genres? Wasn't it Nintendo that kicked off the FPS craze on home consoles with Goldeneye? To claim they can't keep up with popular genres is ridiculous. They are usually the ones that popularize a genre to begin with.
Nintendo didn't become "kindergartenized". They targeted the concept of anybody as a gamer from the get go and have stayed that course. And even if you want to claim that gamers aged while Nintendo didn't, where is it said that they had to age with you? Do you think other companies that cater to a targeted market must age with the first generation of consumers they sell to? No. Is pampers supposed to sell you pants and T-shirts after you age out of the diaper phase?
Nintendo sports games. If Nintendo had moved into the complex sports simulation genres, who then would fill the void of fun, arcade sports titles? Where is it required that a developer of arcade sports games must eventually make complex, simulation sports titles?
Again you seem to be suggesting that a game developer must make their games complex and realistic. Where is this written? If Nintendo didn't make the fun, arcade style racing games, who would? Are gamers not allowed to want to play Mario Kart? If they are, then Nintendo is allowed to make Mario Kart.
Fighting games, see above. Where is it required that games must be complex and realistic? Actually, all that is rather ironic because practically every fighting game ever made is hardly realistic.
To say nothing of the fact that Smash and Mario Kart are some the best selling games in their genres ever. Apparently people like them. Is it wrong to make games that people like?
You focus on financial requirements for complexity and realism as if that is the only risk. You don't think the Virtual Boy was a risk? Or a 2 screened portable launched during the peak of the GBA success? Or a low powered, gesture and IR based game system targeted at people that don't play video games? That's risk. Sony and MS approach risk with financial investments in complexity and realism in games. Nintendo approaches risk with financial investments in concepts and innovation.
You claim Nintendo just does more of the same. But isn't Sony and MS also just doing more of the same? More pixels and polygons...but it's still just pixels and polygons. More of the same. Nintendo just simply has a different approach to creating product.
You're basically asking Nintendo to become something they aren't. Why? They aren't asking you to become someone you aren't.
1.3 What Nintendo is willing to offer.
The volume of incorrect facts an assumptions here is staggering. NES had 2 KB of main RAM. Master System had 8 KB of main RAM (Genesis/Mega Drive had 64 KB of main RAM). NES also released 2 years before the MS. "...because Nintendo claimed the average gamer was not mature enough for 16-bit systems..." Please provide a reliable source for this one. You really shouldn't just make up stuff for your "truth".
Who releases first or last has staggered through the generations with no relation at all to what position they were in during the previous generation. Funny how you claim we'd still be in a 32 bit generation when Nintendo jumped over 32 bits to 64 bits and the Xbox itself was largely a 32 bit machine. I don't think you understand bit depth at all so please don't use the term any further.
Maintained price points. Demand and value. Please look up these terms as they relate to economics. I have a feeling these are another terms you don't fully understand.
It also appears you don't understand the difference in production costs between an optical disc and a game cartridge with circuit boards and IC's.
You also make a lot of assumptions about what they could never do with prices and new models. The fact they don't is not truism that they can't. They simply don't. Go back to demand and value from before.
1.4. Nintendo’s policies towards gamers.
Hang on a moment? Exclusivity of their own games is somehow elitist?
With regards to inventory management, you do realize this all came about not long after the major market crash of 1983? These policies were put into place in 1984 to reduce the volume of games on the market to prevent another flooded market induced crash.
Yes, region locking is a war with gamers. It has nothing to do with Nintendo trying to maintain legal compliance with dozens of regions nor the fact they have no direct distribution presence in the majority of the markets they sell to.
2.1. Limiting third-party freedom.
See above again. Those policies were put into place to prevent the circumstances that lead to the video game crash of 1983. If those policies were so bad, why were they adopted by all others after? And why to this day do Sony and MS also charge licensing royalties?
On the flip side, look at Nintendo's current policy toward indie developers? They have by far the most laxed policies.
2.2. Despising partners’ need.
"Sony and Microsoft have always attempted to develop powerful consoles using mainstream hardware tech that could please and be accessible to as many 3rd parties as possible." Are we talking about the same Sony that developed the PS2 and PS3? 2 of the most notoriously difficult to develop for platforms in video game history?
And I notice you say it is OK for MS and Sony to fund 3rd party development yet you claim it is evil for Nintendo to financially secure content in your earlier passages.
The Wii was anything but safe. That was one of the riskiest bets the industry ever saw.
And then you bring up anonymous devs. Do I really need to post the contradictory dev statements from those that have gone on record with their actual names and reputations? Or is the commenting on Wii U closed to anonymous devs only which never have a verifiable source?
2.3. Using fear to motivate developers.
Nintendo never forced exclusivity to 3rd parties. Where do you get your history?
As for how Sony dominated? It was CD's (low cost of mass production and massive data volume), lower royalties (Sony made up the difference with codec and music licenses, etc...), marketing and global distribution capabilities (Sony was already established globally thanks to the its consumer electronics and media divisions).
2.4. Suffocating competition.
So how many companies died over the past 8 years again thanks for MS and Sony? How is THQ doing again?
I'm also really interested in where you keep getting this 90% market share from? I get 67%. It's not even 90% with just Nintendo and Sega consoles.
3.1. Blackmailing retailers.
Child World had major problems. It wasn't just Nintendo they had issues with, LEGO and others refused to provide them with product. Their whole board was fired in 1990.
And a lot of distribution/supply companies carry a refuse to refund policy on opened product.
3.2. Harming promoters.
So what exactly is the problem here? Their legal team ran with a Youtube policy in place. When it was learned that it was a problem with "promoters", they backed off from Youtubes own policy. That sounds to me like they were listening to what the promoters were saying and took corrective action. This is not a good thing?
3.3. Damaging the gaming ecosystem.
So, this is just a summary of your factoids, assumptions and opinions.
We've been lied to. Not by Nintendo but by you. We were promised truths. You gave us a rhetoric of revisionist history, falsehoods, a complete lack of corporate and economic understanding and reaches of logic that damn near require brain synapses to defy the laws of physics. You owe us time invested in reading your composition. But I guess since this package was already opened, no refunds are forthcoming.
The rEVOLution is not being televised
