| impertinence said: A valid reason if you buy into the bias, sure. Anything can be a valid reason. "I don't want to" is a valid reason for anything, it is also heavily dependent on bias. The statement "Third parties have a good reason to avoid Nintendo" is a steaming pile of confirmation bias. |
If you truly want to examine bias, then it necesitates that you be objective. To objectively analyze bias, you must abstract the scenarios and behavior away from the actors and see if there is no logical reason for the behavior.
Otherwise, your own subjective opinions are clouding your judgement.
Irregardless of accusations of bias, does it make sense for 3rd party publishers to support a device that does not support them when there are other device that the former competes with that do? Only if that device has the marketshare to warrant the oppurtunity cost.
Now we can add context to our question. The Wii U neither explicity supports i.e was developed in mind of 3rd parties and it does not have significant marketshare to warrant the cost. in this scenario, it is impossible to identify bias objectively because its rational as well.
Seeing as EA, and lots of other 3rd parties, supported the Wii, its marketshare was enough to overcome any anti-nintendo bias they might harbor, so it is illogical to assume that this bias alone is the reason for the Wii U's third party supported.
Whether or not they have no bias, is impossible to objectively know for sure, but we do know that money can easily overcome that bias, so its not even relevant.
Everyone has Biases, but when your a AAA publisher, those biases are practically irrelevant.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
