By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
impertinence on 28 April 2014
Edit Thread
Hynad said:

You missed the point. You were asking devs to adjust what they create to what the audience of the Wii U might want. If what they're good at making are FPSs (desks)  like CoD, and they don't sell well on the Wii U, it's only normal that they will prefer making those for the market for which they sell, like the Playstation and Xbox consoles.  

You're asking devs to change what they're good at doing to maybe please an audience that might or might not exist for their hypotetical games (asking a desk maker to manufacture cars) ... -__-


You're being very disingenious and unreasonable so far in this discussion. While I agree with the fact that everyone has biases, companies aren't run on gut feelings. That's a very naive way to picture how a board of directors works. ¬_¬

You are not understanding what I am saying. In the example of someone who is good at making first person shooters, an unbiased decission would take into account the option of creating a different kind of game, for a different kind of platform and do the ROI analysis on that option. Instead, they default to the biased opinion, we will do best making a FPS and that will do best on Sony and Microsoft hardware. That is a biased decission.

As for me being unreasonable and disingenious, that's borderline insulting, especially when all I am saying is that decissions are overwhelmingly made based on bias rather than rational thinking in the wast majority of cases, including in the videogame industry. Wheter you like it or not it is still a fact. In fact, the false belief that many people parade around in this thread that companies are less biased than people is another example of bias. In the real world, companies are run by people who are hugely subjected to bias. As a result, they make decissions like the one you outlined earlier: We should make first person shooters because that's what we are best at. It's not difficult to see how the board of directors will find that to be a perfectly reasonable policy, when it is not a rational decission, but a decission driven by bias.

So, accepting that bias plays a huge part in decission making it's not hard to see that there are currently huge negative bias against Nintendo in the videogame industry. There are already many examples of seemingly irrational decissions exposed in this thread, and predicatbly just as many biased attempts to explain them away. In fact, I would go as far as to say that anyone who can't see a clear anti Nintendo bias in many developers are opperating under a strong personal bias themselves.