Nintendo also did not design or manufacture the 3d display in the 3ds so what?  The Power Glove is still a Officially licenced Nintendo product.

Btw when does something belong to a company? Does Foxcom also own the Ipad because its manufactured there?  Or does a LOGO on an Item make it belong to the company? I could also argue that Sony is not selling TV's they sell cases with Samsung Panels inside.

But the thing is all people understood what I wanted to say  which was " SONY was not FIRST!" (as usual)

BTW:
There is no mistake in the "nintendo introduced us to this idea with the power glove" because Nintendo DID.
As  the Playstation did with Resident Evil  because it first appeared there in gaming context.

Well, considering, when discussing the WiiU's development, Nintendo was saying they wanted a screen on the controller LIKE THE DREAMCAST, gee, that does look familiar to me.

You know that link contains at least 50 games that support the GBA link cable. I mean you quoted it so...

So now we get to give credit to those who did not create? Just because it is liscense does not make it Nintendo's.

Also, who made the screen means absolutely nothing since Nintendo designed and distributes the final product, which is the 3DS. COMPLETELY different scenarios.

 Apple designed the iPhone, then put deals in place with companies like Samsung to use their innards since Apple does not make that kind of stuff. This DOES NOT make the iPhone a Samsung device. The world doesn't work that way.

Now Sony is credited with Resident Evil and not Capcom? I guess Nintendo gets credited with Final Fantasy now too, but it became BIG with Playstation, so which do we use in that scenario?

Anyways, I know exactly where this discussion is going to end up since it usually ends up at the same exact spot.

You are aware that there was an argument going on about who did what first and the GC+GBA link was used to show Nintendo did dual screen first?

This is to show them that once again is a fallacy.

I also tire of the "Well, Nintendo has been researching blah blah blah for "X" years" excuses that follow posts like mine too since they conviently do not work when used in defense of anyone other than Nintendo.

I honestly don't know why I keep dragging myself into these discussions though. They happen at least once a month or so and always end the same way.

I get weary of the whole "who researched it first" as some sort of way to answer the question.  I have stated before, it is who goes into the market and makes it work successfully first that counts.  That is leadership meeting innovation.  You know this happens when others then jump on and it becomes a standard feature.  Motion control is now part of the mix, and it looks like dual screen around the console is becoming a norm to.

Well, one thing, look at where all the talk is regarding what is going on here.  it is around the dual screen.  People feel an urge to post everything Nintendo says and comment on it.  Nintendo did get a first mover advantage in what they are doing.

This is ultimately where the argument always lands, although by doing this is negates the Powerglove if we were somehow allow a non-Nintendo product to be credited to Nintendo. The Powerglove only sold ~10,000 units and had only (2) games designed for Powerglove only. The product also put the company making it into bankruptcy I believe.

Eyetoy I believe sold over 10M units on PS2, so by their own eventual definition it would make Sony come first for motion gaming on home consoles.

" Scott moffit "

Haha, like he ever had any input on anything in Nintendo other than a marketing lap dog
Nintendo's R&D is all japanese.

So "Leadership meeting Innovation" is the new criteria we fall back on now?

No offense meant to you Richard, but we really do get a new reasoning every time the previous reasoning is picked apart.

Anyways, back during the PS2 era Sony released the Eyetoy as you know. They marketed it, they released it in 2003 and it sold over 10.5M units as of 2008. Oh yeah, it also worked so successfully that it came back the following generation. So why does this get discounted in Nintendo's argument in the OP about who "first introduced motion as a style of gaming"? After that released we got the Wii the following generation and then from there on motion gaming became a staple in home console gaming.

Seriously, is it because the Wii went on to sell more than it automatically negates the existance of the Eyetoy before it? This is what I was originally asking before people told me I was wrong or should hold back my "hate".

Here you have "EyeToy Play", a collection of minigames packaged in (1) retail release to show some of the gameplay possibilities for the EyeToy Motion gaming controller.

A few years later you got "Wii Play". A collection of minigames packaged together in (1) retail release to display some of the possibilities of the Wiimote Motion Gaming controller.

Don't forget we also had U Move Super Sports which was a compilation of sports to play with your Eyetoy motion controls. Then we also had Groove, which was a dancing title. You know, we also had fitness games for the motion controlled device. Then don't forget we also had Antigrav, which showed that it could do more than simple minigames.

A lot of these same motion styled gaming choices were staples in the Wii library.

In the end, are to fall back on the "Wii became big time mainstream first" to give it the title of "first to introduce motion gaming to home consoles"? I wonder because even though the Eyetoy did not sell 100M units, I am pretty sure it indeed "introduced" motion gaming to home consoles.

Like I said though, this is not all aimed entirely at you and rather at this constant belief that Nintendo does everything first while everyone else copies. It is now getting so bad that this Nintendo rep is making up history and omitting everything that came before the PSWii60 generation.

it is a silly argument but i don't think the power glove really adds to the silly arguement.  i'm not saying that sony invented motion controls - they didn't.  all i'm say is that: yes - the move and the wii-mote have a very very very similar design  but the mere fact that we have product demonstartions that pre-date anything nintenodo did proves 100% that move was not invented as a direct response to the wii ergo not a direct copy.  

...now the fact it was held onto for so long without a release is enough evidence to me that move never would have been brought to market if it were not for the wii's success.

but for fucks sake - sony was already talking about NPG/ps3 interactivity for games before the wii U was announced last year.  but now that they wii U is announced somehow sony is spun up as just a copy cat for following through on their ideas...