Zod95 said:
My question is general and to go to the root of the problem: Nintendo is not used to negotiate. See what they did in the 80s. They need a dominant position so they can "negotiate" properly. |
OK, I'm getting tired of this. You wrote this "article" about history yet you know very little of the actual details. It's like you pulled together a bunch of fanboy rants and tried to pass them off as a researched and coherent topic.
"Nintendo is not used to negotiate"? Thsi is your factual truths? How about the factual truth that Sony's contract would have granted them full licensing and branding control therefore reducing Nintendo to largely a 1st party role within Sony? Do you know this at all? If not, and I suspect you didn't, you're revisionist history needs to end here.
What you call truth is actually nothing more than hedged passive aggression.
Your statements are tinged with a tone that alludes to your personal feelings. Even if you don't say something overtly, you mean it with your tone.
Your "quotes around words" are nothing more than a mask to hide behind. So you claim something doesn't really mean something and you're just using the terms allegorically but it's purely a ruse to allay bias.
Your article is non-factual, filled with bias and opinion, laced with passive aggresive attacks and as the executive editor of a video game network, I'd damn near fire you if you tried to pass that across my desk. Start again, remove your personal feelings, do some real research (you know, call, email, contact actual people from back then), look at both sides, write from the view of the reader and then try to publish.
I'll give you credit for be able to write with proper grammar and syntax. You're educated. But you're biased, misinformed/confused, and seem to have an agenda that you put above the integrity of truth. And that is where you have failed.
The rEVOLution is not being televised
