| Dr.Henry_Killinger said: First off, Calm down. Secondly, you're refusal to consider the posibility that bias might not have much relevance in the decision making of large corporations is due to stubbornheadness. You claim that you know the statement is false, with zero supporting evidence of your claim. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your assertion, otherwise its simply argument from ignorance. Show me without a reasonable doubt, the effect of bias in the decision making of 3rd parties in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof Don't bother, it is an impossible feat. Thirdly, You claim that 3rd party bias agaisnt Nintendo is significant enough to affect there treatment of their systems but you refuse to prove it and claim you don't need to prove it because you believe it is true. Despite the fact that you refuse to prove it and you haven't proved it. Just like the heliocentric model was "proven". Biases are inherent to people, Companies are not people however, they are made of people each of whom have conflicting biases. So to suggest that as a general trend 3rd Party publisher have some kind of universal anti nintendo bias among all of the multides of people working within them is completely insane. Lastly, I already told you how you can prove bias. It is irrational behavior, so in order to expose bias as you say you must remove any rational behavior and evaluate whether or not a decision makes rational sense. If it does, then its impossible to attribute bias to the decision. Only if it is irrational, then the decision can be attributed to irrational prejudice. Its that simple. It is pointless to throw around the world bias angrilly, when I'm talking about a method of rational proof of your claim. Bias has nothing to do with it because it is Objective, not-relative, it hold true for any observer, and the experiment can be reproduced an infinite number of times with no variation attirbuted to the observer. Until then your claim of biases influencing significantly the decision making processes of 3rd parties is not verified and effectively false. Furthermore, support of the NES,SNES,64,GC,WII, GBA, DS, and 3DS show that at those marketshares, bias was not significant enough to influence the decision to port to Nintendo. If anything, 3rd party support of the GC shows bias in favor of Nintendo. Trying to find any biases with the situation the Wii U is as pointless as trying to find a needle in the Sun. |
1. Calmer than you are
2. It's not stubbornness, it's merely the fact that I know what behavioral economics are and you don't
3. A systematic bias against Nintendo in the videogame market is easy to see. For one example, see the many articles about developers who make claims along the lines of "Don't want to sacrifice artistic vision', 'Wii can't hanlde the loadscreen of our game' etc. Are these rational statements? No. If you want me to come up with links to this bias (which is just a subset of the massive biases in the industry) then though luck, you and everyone else here know that these kinds of statements are plentiful.
4. Your last statement makes no sense. As I've already told you, just because a decission is not made based on rational though, but rather on an illusion of rational thought clouded by bias, doesn't mean that decission is not 'right'. For example, many many thrid parties decided to support the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One over the Wii U while only one of the platforms were even on the market. Effectivly ignoring one platform based on a gut feeling that other platforms would do better. Did it turn out to be the right decission? yes. Was it a rational decission? No. It was a decission built on bias and assumption, and quite possibly a uniform bias that created a self reinforcing feedback loop.
