About my Nintendo "hate."

[MDMAlliance]

potato_hamster said:

MDMAlliance said:

Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but the way you phrased that makes it seem like if anything, Nintendo isn't a true gaming company when compared to Sony.  

What Darth was trying to say is that Sony's main focus as a company is not on video games.  It is not the only product they make, and not what nets them the most profit.  Sony cannot truly be defined as a gaming company, given how many other things they do, and how a few of those other things are bigger than their gaming division.  Nintendo, on the other hand, devotes most of their resources into games.  They almost exclusively deal with games and things related to gaming.  

Basically, what Darth said has nothing to do with the quality of the work and just about how these companies operate. 

That's sone strange logic. By that definition, the company that created the Ouya is more of a "true gaming company" than anyone else. Was Nintendo less of a gaming company when they partially owned the Seattle Mariners? I've heard many arguments on this site that Nintendo does thing they way they do is because they are a "toy company" above anything else, since that is their heritage and their roots. Remember, Nintendo is over 125 years old, and has only been making video game products for 40 or so years... and now we're going to call them a "true gaming company"? So which is it? Are they a toy company, or a game company, or does it change depending on how it suits the argument people are making?

Don't direct this to me.  I'm just explaining what should have been pretty clear.  I am not arguing that there even are "true gaming companies" because it doesn't matter in the end.