Zod95 said:
Bias, cherry-picked data, opinions stated as facts, I know I didn't but proving that demands a lot of text and iterations. I'm ok with such vague critics that end up being opinions. But please tell me 1 single fact of the OP that is not true. Note that you've separated "opinions stated as facts" from "not true", so I'm really curious about which fact of the OP can be easily proven to be a lie. |
You've done all of those things and it's too easy to find 1 fact that isn't true. I can provide you with plenty examples of "bias", "cherry-picked data", and "opinions stated as facts" you made.
I'll just point out the blatant lies: "They could never put a Mario game at 20€ or 10€ as Sony and Microsoft do with some of their games. Those are prices for virtual console titles"
"Not letting any of their games to be launched out of their consoles (not even on PC) was a way to tell the consumer that, no matter what, Nintendo games will ever only be played on Nintendo consoles."
"Thus, Nintendo can manage the availability of games and their prices by region to better squeeze each one of them. And, by doing so, there won’t be global negative reactions towards any of their localized abusive practices. If you’re from a tiny little region, you’re on your own against the powerful Nintendo."
"Moreover, that makes them free to launch western versions of japanese games one year later the original launch at full retail price. Actually, that makes them free not to launch at all some games in some regions if they think it won’t be as profitable. There is a military maxim that says “divide and conquer”. I find it sad that Nintendo is at war with gamers."
^--- Nintendo doesn't have "abusive practices" here. You simply don't understand localization and that's why you think this.
"No one was doing that and Nintendo just felt the need to control third-parties even further, to give them even less space in the market, to profit even more from an already successful business they had created. Nintendo proactively restricted third-parties’ freedom. The other console makers have only reactively adopted the same logic" (Others have already explained to you time and time again why this is false)
"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, which could aim for protagonism within the console. Actually, Sony and Microsoft enhanced it, providing good software development tools and eventually financing some projects if they were to be exclusives. Their philosophy was: “if we develop the best system for 3rd party developers, it can’t be bad for our 1st party studios”."
"Again, Nintendo designing a console only for its needs"
(Nintendo is at the moment the only major console maker to use region lock.) <-- Not a lie, but it is worded in a way where it is almost a lie. Region lock also still occurs with Sony/Microsoft systems, it's just up to the devs and competition HAVE used region lock before. This is your cherry picking and half-lie.
(Some developers making ports from PS3/X360 to the Wii U told they had to cut back on some features due to the CPU not being powerful enough, which has impacted the game as a whole.) This is a dumb argument IMO. XBO and PS4's CPU clock speeds are also lower than the 360/PS3's (the devs you're talking about was referring to clock speeds).
This is only SOME of the things. Pretty much your entire "article" is filled with cherry picking, antagonistic bias, opinions stated as facts and all sorts of other things.
