You really think my writing "througout history" means it somehow changed? The customer NEVER decided the artist was right. It was just the artists who decided they know better than the customers.

Acting like magically we are obligated to pay for the artists enjoying themselves is like claiming you can tame the wind. Customers outnumber the artists, and you cannot make it so that their will is lesser than people who think they only have to make a type of game once.

Furthermore, it's a bullshit strawman to equate telling artists to get over themselves and resptect the customers with going backwards in technology and civilization.

I beg to differ with you on this respect. Nintendo is a business, not a charity. Yes, they have provided gamers much enjoyment over the years, but only in exchange for our hard earned cash (or our parent's for that matter) and never in detriment to their bottom line. They have in the past, as they should continue to do now, to procure their interests, and so should we. A fair exchange by all accounts. Nobody owes anybody anything.

Seriously what's with the avalanche of Nintendo D00med threads lately?? I'm surprised even 10% of it is even true and the rest just fanboy dreams...

"Nintendo is a business, not a charity."

That's a great rebuttal to such a mindset. Art is not charity. Casablanca wasn't made out of Warner Bros. wishing to bless the world with such a film. Neither was The Godfather, which wasn't even something Coppola wanted to make, but his small studio was going under.

Art is business, not a charity.

This time, it's following Nintendo actually losing money, instead of just haters wanting the Wii and DS to fail.

lol why are people so desperate to use copy when it comes to Nintendo? Has Nintendo never bought companies before? Even before Sony or MS entered this business? Sheesh

Relax, im just saying they havent been doing it lately. Not anywhere near as much as the other two. They have been gobbling up devs right and left, hell even EA bought Bioware

no man I am so angry I could eat a kitten alive!!!

:P

I think reviniente hit the nail on the head with this one as to why it's such a delicate issue. When your business is art there really does exist a fundamental conflict of interest at the very core. Personally I think there is very little correlation between good art and good business - for every "Godfather" there is a "Blade Runner", for every Michelangelo there is a Van Gogh. Good art is about making money just as much as running a good business is about artistic expression; Sometimes the two work together, sometimes they don't.

Thankfully the industry is smart enough to realize that long-term growth is important enough to account for some short-term losses. Hell, even Little King's Story is getting a sequel!

Van Gogh was more a victim of artists around him having their own ideas of what art should be, and when people outside that got a look at his work, it became popular. It's a similar thing to Star Trek, which turned mainstream enough to have a film franchise (it was the medicrity of Voyager and the crap of Enterprise that brought it down), but when the show was on, the network tried to screw it.

So the mainstream can actually make popular what those in art circles think is bad.