The truth about Nintendo

[Mnementh]

Zod95 said:

Mnementh said:

You said PS2 was the most powerful console when it launched. It barely have beaten the Dreamcast, but that aside - you're right. But also right is, that the WiiU was the most powerful console when it launched. So you might define 'cutting edge' differently, but if you do it as you do for PS2, the same can be applied to WiiU.

This is obvious for what you do - you apply different measurements for different companies/consoles. Same about the money. Nintendo made long time profit, and you concluded the gamer get more investments for his dollar with Sony or MS. Now Sony makes profit on PS4 and Nintendo loses on WiiU, but you will not accept your own line of argument for current facts.

I dare you to prove that WiiU is more powerful than PS3.

But even assuming the WiiU is more powerful (which is not), what is your point? You want to convince me that WiiU is cutting-edge when it's 1 entire generation behind consoles that were launched only 1 year later?

Regarding the profits, I think I've already told you why it's not wise to consider what happens in some months or years to take conclusions about a company's attitude. Sony had to sell their entire headquarters in the USA. They will need so many little profits like the ones they had last quarter that if things continue on this pace they should be having their buildings back by 2050. If such thing happens (which would be not bad at all for Sony regarding what happened to them in the recent years), will you say they're greedy just by recovering their assets?

LOL, you really believe that stuff about WiiU is weaker than PS3? Oh god. First rule of propaganda: don't believe your own lies. You should be provng me, that PS3 is more powerful than WiiU, but I will help you a bit: look at games like X, and say they are possible on PS3?

And you spin your argument around - your argument was, that PS2 was most powerful as it was released, hence it was cutting edge. If we want to use logic and apply the same argument to WiiU, you say no, it doesn't apply here, because ... it is Nintendo. Well, that's logic! You're my hero.

But that's a general pattern, that you ignore all logic. Your profit-argument ids only true  for MS and Sony, not for Nintendo. That's incredible. I don't even want to talk about the fact, that losses resulting from a loss-leading strategy are invested into marketshare, not games. I don't want to talk about the fact, that companies usually invest on profits, not losses. What Nintendo did, they created a lot more gaming-IPs over the years, than Sony and MS together. That is investment in gaming. But you aren't even willing to use your own argument in it's consequence. In your initial post you even said that Sony made initial profit (and therefore ripped customers off), but SHOULD now have balanced out. You don't deliver facts. So, a shorter time of losses for Sony is good for gamers, but a shorter time of losses from Nintendo isn't. Again, no logic at all.