Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
mysteryman said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
I have never said Companies have no bias, nor have I said that bias has no effect in a companies decision making process. However, with regard to the topic title. I have repeatidely stated that any specifically anti-nintendo bias cannot be observed unless the system in question is succesful enough that bias is the only thing preventing ports. The bias is not significant enough to overwrite and rational force that exists as well. We are biased actors trying to analyze the biases of a conglomeration of people who form a buisness which must make good decisions in order to survive. You cannot just claim that because biases exist and because 3rd parties didn't support the Wii U, that 3rd parties are biased against the Wii U, especially when it makes rational sense.
Consider a company run by computers without any biases whatsoever. If they acted exactly like these human companies, how would you know whether or not bias had a significant effect on the human company. See the problem? You know the biases exist but you can't understand them if it is not obvious.
|
1.@Bolded
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Everyone has Biases, but when your a AAA publisher, those biases are practically irrelevant.
|
You are saying that bias has no effect for AAA publishers right here. Though I wasn't referring to you directly, but instead to others in the thread who have stated it impossible for large companies to be biased.
practically irrelevant =/= no effect
practically irrelevant == not significant
(not significant) in a companies decision making process <- unfortunately this is a subjective claim as it depends on what I have defined significance to be luckily:
I've already defined significance as overwriting the rationality of a decision.
If a port to System A makes rational sense, then if its on system A then clearly any System A bias cannot be determined, even if the decision was made out of 100% bias. If the port does not make rational sense and its on System A, then we can say without a doubt that their is bias for System A. Conversely, the opposite scenario holds true. If a port makes rational sense on System A, and its not their. Then bias have overwritten rationality against System A. It holds true in every scenario regardless of whoever is observing or who it concerns. The fact that we are talking about Nintendo, 3rd parties, or even the gaming industry is irrelevant. If you can't apply the same method of thinking to any other company then clearly the method is relative and untrustworthy.
2. You assume that bias itself must be either extreme or have extreme consequences. Port prevention is not the only outcome of bias towards Nintendo and there are many forms of bias, which can affect decision making at many levels:
where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
3. You assume these businesses always, and only, make good decisions, which is clearly not true. I provided a quote showing just that:
"Our candid conversations with senior executives behind closed doors reveal a similar unease with the quality of decision making and confirm the significant body of research indicating that cognitive biases affect the most important strategic decisions made by the smartest managers in the best companies"
Are you generalizing the quote to apply to every company, or at the very least all multiplat publishers? Where did I make the assumption that you claim I did in number 3? Wouldn't my whole argument necessitate that wrong decisions are made some times?
4. @Italicised. I never made this claim. Though is it not plausible that confirmation bias has played a role?
This is a generalized claim, it is not directed at you specifically. It is an assertion that attempting to describe bias on the grounds that it exists is not sufficient.
5. I do agree that it is difficult to prove, completely and utterly, without any insider knowledge, but that does not mean it has been disproved. You admit that it's difficult to discern bias, but you are sure that it's not there.
Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. My entire argument is that without the right conditions one cannot observe the biases even though they exist.
6. Finally, back to my question which has been glossed over. What is a reasonable explanation (purely to maximise profits, and completely free from bias) for omitting any mention of a Wii U version alongside all of the others, for multiplat games in advertising?
How should I know. I never addressed that question in the first place. My concern is solely in the method of examing biases in decision to port to the Wii U.
|
|
1. Significant for you, is totally overwriting the rationality of a decision, and you say this is not seen, therefore you say that there is no significant effect. Semantics, but in essence you are saying there is no effect (because it's never significant). This is warped by your subjective definition of 'significant'.
2. You say the bias must be easily discernable to be significant.
I am saying here that the effect can be significant, even if not going to the extreme case of totally overwriting the rationality of a decision in a complately obvious manner. Also, the consequences of bias do not need to end in a poor decision, though one does need to be aware that this could also be confirmation bias in play, which will make poorer decisions better in hindsight due to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
3. The quote is general, showing a trend amongst higher-ups in large businesses in general, that bias is affecting large companies.
You say "buisness which must make good decisions in order to survive", implying that if the businesses are still here, they've made good decisions (and good decisions must have been free of bias).
4. I agree that this doesn't prove, on it's own, a certain causation. But correlation should at least show a plausibility to investigate further, but many shut down even the plausibilty or possibility (an effect of bias in its own right?).
5. You feel you have disproved it, but your criteria are flawed. But assuming they arent, you are agreeing here that bias could be playing a role, you just aren't able to discern it with 100% accuracy.
6. This was an example of potential bias. It hasn't had the effect of stopping a port to the Wii U (as i said before, that wasn't the only possible outcome of bias) but is a decision that makes no sense and only serves to reduce Wii U version sales of a multiplat title and hence reduce profit. I would even say it's more detrimental to the Wii U version than no advertising at all, as it gives the impression that the Wii U version doesn't exist.
Another potential example, though debatable, was the decision to delay the Wii U version of Rayman Legends. We can only speculate on the difference in sales if it had remained exclusive and released on time, and confirmation bias could be at play, justifying the less-than-stellar performance of the game as reasoning for the delay.
7. Just a thought; how could you determine bias using your criteria, if a biased group or individual was intentionally maintaining an air of plausible deniability?
