Why is it hard to believe that third parties are biased against Nintendo?

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

impertinence said:

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.

Let's just air this all out in the open shall we:

Systematic Bias against Nintendo in the videogame market is easy to see is your claim.

Your evidence: Is various developer statements despite the fact that many publisher can overwrite developer decisions. E.G. Respawn wanted to develop for one platform, EA released the game on 3. Regardless of what these devs say, how exactly do you know whether these are the reason the wii u is not getting ports? How do you know whether any of these claims are either false or true. Especially, concerning last gen as many multiplats that made it to the Wii were significantly downgraded. But they still were ported to the Wii despite its lower end hardware. Obviously that Anti-Nintendo bias wasn't enough to stop them then. 

Furthemore, you claim that the Wii U's free year was its only year on the market. Despite the fact, that it was competing with PS360, consoles that we're not only much cheaper but much better understood then the Wii U. Nintendo designed the system the way they wanted, which was why they didn't get the fcking memo that nobody uses PowerPC any more. Why would third parties take a risk on a  system whose power they would only be able to understand after PS4/xb1.

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'.

What are you arbitrarily defining as right? Pro-Nintendo? Can Nintendo do no wrong? None of that is objective, so it is useless insofar as analysis goes. We are talking about biases which are strong enough to harm to company that has them. If you bring an impartial observer who know nothing about gaming, how in the hell would they know that 3rd parties were biased against Nintendo if the decision to refuse porting was made out of bias/fear/or any other irrational idea if it is in fact rational to avoid the system?

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.

How do you know this? Surely, its not proven by your inconclusive evidence? 

You can't possibly be trying to argue bias from a clearly biased point of view. You will prove nothing this way, only air out your frustations and leave having learned nothing or improved at all. If you are not objective, then how can you call out companies for being biased against Nintendo when the only thing you can see are the Nintendo Googles plastered to your eyes.

Obviously, you do not understand my biases because you incorrectly assume that I am biased against Nintendo, because I am disagreeing with your method of analysis. NOT your assertion. I have never said, 3rd parties have no bias for or against Nintendo. Simply, that unless you prove it, which you refuse to do because you cannot comprehend how any doubt could possibly exist, your claim is unverified.

Prove it. 

Show me the bias that is strong enough to make a company harm themselves just to spite Nintendo. All the money, they lost ignoring the Wii U while removing the porting and advertising costs. If you find 1 example, this is enough to disprove the counterargument.

However, your claim is not the contrapositive of such a 3rd parties being biased in favor of Nintendo, so it cannot be proven with contradiction.

1 example contradicting your claim is enough to disprove it as well.

You can chose to ramble as much as you like try as you might to utilize your biases to teardown my objective argument. It is futile however, I am simply repeating myself so that you understand, my stance has not changed at all.

If a decision benfits the company, regardless of whatever the decision consisted of whether or not it was rational thought, bias, fear, some combination of these things, it is impossible to prove unless you where actually in those boardrooms.

If a decision harms a company, then any rational thought was wrong, and only then biases and fear come to the surface and can be observed by an outsider.