| sc94597 said: It is either delusional or an ignorance of basic microeconomics to believe that corporations are not profit-seeking firms. Of course Nintendo seeks to maximize profits. All companies do. As for your first point, that is only for you. I like having diverse IP's from Nintendo, as their ideas are fresh and creative. I like playing Nintendo's smaller IP's like Metroid and Xenoblade Chronicles. I like that Nintendo invested into Bayonetta 2, a highly aclaimed game by users and critics alike, and I look forward to playing it. Good for you =/= good for gamers, as you stated in the original post I quoted. |
That is not entirely fair though. All of the 3 platform holders have very divers games. Nintendo isn't the owner of the holy grail of innovation. Not much would be missing if we didn't have the IPs Nintendo has invested in. Nothing noticeable at least. We still have all genres and innovation and tons of indies. Having just a few of these IPs less in a time where hundreds of new games are created every year is not nearly as big a deal as making the gaming industry more converged. Hence increasing the audience each game can get. What good are the handful of games that Nintendo buys if they're on an undesirable platform and as such will only ever be played by a minority of gamers? I mean the IPs you are talking about are even only played by a minority of Nintendo console owners while Nintendo console owners are already a minority.
Nintendo going 3rd party = good for majority of gamers. Nintendo staying small and insular = good for only a minority of gamers.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
