Due to these posts in here becoming ridiculous in size, I choose to divide this one into a few posts. Easier on the eye and brain.

PART 1:

“Mummelmann:
* John Lucas is attempting to box in the argument and force me to argue on his conditions by trying to force the parameters through "banning" certain words and definitions from the debate, elevating himself by stating his superiority without ever presenting why he is actually superior. Textbook so far.

Me:
No, I responded to the words you used & argued each topic ELABORATELY point by point, line by line.
I argued from YOUR framework. I argued in the terms YOU set. I countered your arguments on your terms.
That's why you see me put your actual quotes in their entirety throughout that oversized so there could be no mistaking of me taking your words out of context.
Each topic heading came off of a point you were making or a certain string of words you said.

When you said, "A lot of people are claiming that Nintendo make such amazing 1st party games that 3rd parties wouldn’t be able to compete, that is hardly a nice environment to publish on..."
I refuted that showing the past of Nintendo promoting 3rd party games in Nintendo Power, showing them promote a 3rd party game Atlus's Shin Megami Tensei IV in a Club Nintendo deal.
You conflated Sony's & Microsoft's practice of letting the 3rd party do practically whatever they want with Nintendo providing a bad environment for the 3rd parties to develop on. I disagreed with that conflation.
I argued that Nintendo's standards made the 3rd parties a better game developer in the first place which shows how their 3rd party games once stood as equals to Nintendo's 1st party.
I argued that Nintendo creates platforms of lasting value that the 3rds refused to help cultivate yet still want all the rewards for minimal effort.
I argued that the 3rd party's practices outside of the influence of Nintendo resulted in the situation some of their games experience on Nintendo platforms.
That it's not the environment Nintendo provides but the attitude the 3rd parties take to Nintendo platforms that give them those particular results.
Yet if they fail miserably on a Microsoft or Sony platform they are willing to keep plugging away while still giving Nintendo little to no consideration.

I saw the conditions your arguments took & I argued within that structure. Within YOUR parameters.
That's why this took so long to put together. I had to keep it on-topic & in your structure.”

Elaborate is correct, argued; not so much. You dodged the actual arguments and wrote a lot of words and digressed and deviated on almost every single section; smoke and mirrors. And no, it was not on my terms, I make my points short and clear and coherent while you spin a massive web of meaningless text around every topic and answer and end up forgetting what the topic was, that is also probably why there are so many contradictions in your biggest posts; you lose sight of the shore. You took the quotes, and then added your own title to the sections; lending a semblance of control over the tone and meaning of my arguments to conform to your advantage.

Ah, Nintendo Power. You do know that it was pretty much and for quite some time a tool to control the impact on gaming press, right? People critique CNET for having ties to Microsoft but NP was published by Nintendo and provided reviews of their own games and the games of the developers attempting to make a living in this licensed crazed biotope! That’s amazing but not in a very good way and they were in a position where they could control everything from reviews of 3^rd parties, angles in the press and the main licensing, an all-round horrible situation for the integrity of the market and for creative freedom and diversity.  That magazine was very aptly named and represents the almost total control Nintendo had over press attention, review favor and licensing approval. They controlled the platform, the main press outlet and the licensing, the early Nintendo Power days were arbitrary and unstable times for 3^rd parties.

Yes, I said that Sony and MS offer better developer environments and you disagreed, what of it? Does that make me less right and you more right? You disagreed on a subjective and personal level but there really is no tangible way for you to illustrate this point; all signs and history points towards Nintendo having a very strained relationship to 3^rd parties for decades and I showed you several plausible reasons why. How they (developers) really didn’t have much choice beyond the NES back in the day and how Nintendo choose not to cooperate with the industry at large and embrace certain standards, they choose to try to force their way rather than compromise.

“Platforms of lasting value” is a highly subjective observation, and console life cycles since the N64 days, average sales and support would suggest otherwise.

If anything; in a more tech driven gaming market, Nintendo have provided the least lasting value on their platforms for 3^rd parties, Nintendo’s own titles are sort of removed from this issue since they rely so heavily on a very similar formula in most of their games and generally go for a more stylized visual direction and more viable gameplay mechanics on the long term, they are stuck in the past though and are guilty of somewhat of a creative cop-out along with most other developers. In other words; for 3^rd party software to experience lasting value on these platforms, they are more or less forced to conform to Nintendo’s brand of gaming and possibly forego no small part of their running standards and desire and vision in the process.

You seem to be implying that 3^rd parties have lost the ability to sell games on Nintendo consoles due to having severed the ties with Nintendo. You’re basically giving the developers 100% of the blame for Nintendo’s situation and refuse realize that they are in no small part to blame for this themselves. You also subscribe to the idea that 3^rd parties should be willing to “fail on Nintendo platforms too”, which is incredible illogical to me, given all past relations. 3^rd parties left and Nintendo kept creating increasingly alienating platforms, all the whole complaining along with their fans about the lack of proper support.

I have explained and reasoned around how Nintendo have a history of providing unreasonable and/or unfair developer environments while you have yet to show anyone how this is incorrect other than your personal opinion on their past policies and their very recent middleware drive that also exists to a greater extent on other platforms. Referring to Nintendo Power magazine and cheap direct ports from the PowerPC environment of the now dying 7^th gen tells us nothing. There simply is no viable market and/or cost incentive overall for good Wii U or Nintendo home console support in general in the past two decades or so.

You seem to subscribe to the notion that developers should simply show goodwill out of gratitude for Nintendo’s efforts in the 80’s in salvaging the market by providing a platform but this is not how things work and you should know better if you have industry insight above average levels. You’ve mentioned IBM yourself as an example in your huge rebuttal, they are a perfect illustration as to how developer and manufacturer relations change in spite of past merit and effort and IBM has never actively antagonized any one part of the industry either and are still subject to such a fate.

It is no great puzzle why 3^rd parties opt to mostly stay away from Nintendo home consoles given the conditions and circumstances in the market running from early 80’s and till today. It is not politics; it is logic and just due for the most part.

You didn’t keep it on-topic at all, you digress and roll into endless flashbacks and philosophical rants, talking about how the blue colors of Wii U lights remind you of the Blue Ocean strategy and generally doting on the product(s) at every turn has no merit in or as any argument, it’s filler text at best, are you discussing a topic with me or are you writing comforting fiction for your fans?

And the reason it took so long is mostly because it’s very hard to defend your position when there is so little tangible data and such few arguments to actually be had in defense of it.

Your post could easily have been at least cut down to 1/5 of the size, these giant posts add nothing to the debate, they’re a waste of your time, my time and everybody else’s time.

Do a history/trivia thread, heck; I’d probably read it and possibly enjoy some of it but it’s generally not an effective or valid tool in a debate.

“Mummelmann:
* John Lucas doesn't "believe" in architectural variables, some resulting in varying degrees of ease or difficulty in development.

Me:
The hardware argument is tired. These are all machines & you can get a machine to do what you need it to do.

So forcing developers into bifurcating their programming efforts is okay because it’s technically feasible in practice? It’s a very poor strategy if you want actual support.

Each console is designed differently by default. That is nothing new.
You can't count the power of a console by components alone. It is the INTERPLAY of those components that matter.

Yes, and the interplay of the One and PS4’s hardware components is terrific and streamlined, allowing for good and simple optimization in programming alongside PC’s, adopting architecture that eases development and ties it closer to the core tools and dev kits that are universally applied globally is a huge factor for developers, especially when going multiplatform where you need to optimize code for several platforms, having one that sticks out like a sore thumb is a pain for any developer when working on multiplatforms. This will become more and more apparent as the 8^th gen rolls by.

 
If you focus on CPUs or focus on RAM, you miss the point that each different design may be able to achieve similar effects in different ways.

No, due to very nature of computer hardware chipsets and their ingrained task strings, it is very much impossible to simply have another hardware component achieve what something else was initially meant to. You can’t run AI threads on the GPU, the CPU won’t help you create Bloom effects and RAM can’t help you store more information in solid state. You need to put thought into the specifics and lack of focus on these aspects will invariably cause bottlenecks.

And these factors you have to consider in your design.

One may move information faster through its pipelines while another creates a broader street for more information to pass through.
Some use raw power, some use specific structure optimized for efficiency.
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. More than one way to skin a cat.

And some have better pipelines, more transistors and raw power all the while being optimized for efficiency. All this does nothing to change the fact that simultaneous x86/PowerPC coding will be a massive hassle for all developers who choose to support the Wii U with multiplatform titles, a pretty big deterrent.

There's architectural variables & there's money to be made.

And Nintendo opted for a CPU die that is being entirely phased out of electronics and computers and that also added more R&D cost due to requiring more tailoring to fit a modern GPU and RAM setup and that will fall slower in production cost since it has way less product volume and implementation in the market, causing Nintendo’s hardware production loss to deflate at a slower rate than others.

"Hard to develop for" is an excuse. If the opportunity was ripe, they will DEAL with those hardships because of the potential returns.

And if the returns do not match the effort; they will steer away, towards platforms that are simpler to program for and provide by far the most and best tools that have proven in the past that they can actually sell your software in significant numbers. In short; with Nintendo, the opportunity is not ripe. Microsoft and Sony specialized in 3^rd parties, Nintendo specialized in themselves.

It MUST have been hard to make the Genesis version of Mortal Kombat to look comparable to the SNES version.
I mean Super Nintendo could put out 32,768 colors while Genesis could only put out 512.
Somehow they made it work, didn't they? Not QUITE as robust as the SNES version but very comparable even with all of that limitation.
It was hard to make NES versions of arcade games like Double Dragon feel as close to the arcades as possible.
Somehow they did it. They were different but similar enough to get their point across.
It was DAMN sure hard to translate arcades of early 80s to the Atari 2600, Mattel Intellivision, & the Colecovision.
Somehow they persevered & made something approaching those arcade classics.
Shoot it was hard to make CHESS work on the Atari 2600! Thought to be impossible! Somehow it was done.

Ancient times in programming terms, immeasurable difference in the complexity of the code and the visual and audiovisual output and resolutions were low enough to not give away the differences under the surface, the very surface lacked sufficient polish, all the easier to pull it off. This is not comparable, like so many other past parallels you have attempted previously.  

Read this excerpt from Wikipedia about Atari 2600's Video Chess.

"At first, the idea of chess on the Atari 2600 was considered to be impossible due to the limitations of the technology at the time. For example, Atari had to overcome sprite limitations; the Atari 2600 was only capable of displaying three sprites in a row, or six (such as in Space Invaders) with the right programming. The eight-piece-wide standard chess board exceeded this limitation. To rectify this, Bob Whitehead developed a technique known as "Venetian blinds" where the position of each sprite changes every scan line; this allows for eight or more sprites in a row.[1] Additionally, the concept of bank switching ROMs was invented for earlier prototypes of Video Chess that were larger than four kilobytes in size, however the released version ended up fitting the standard 4K size.[2]"

And the same thing has been done over and over again today with integrated meshes, pre-rendered texture filler and anti-aliasing to cover lack of sufficient pixels and rounding edges. Still does nothing to remedy the fact that having one abnormal chipset among more unified ones to work on is a pain in the derriere. And even though the Wii shared PowerPC familiarity with the PS360, it had hardware that couldn’t even recognize the same generation of shaders, smaller resolutions and a slew of post-processing and threading features (single core processor) across the line.
 

Developers had heart once upon a time. Limitations used to be a challenge to make it work DESPITE the supposed impossibilities.

They still overcome these challenges today if it is deemed worthwhile, that’s what you fail to understand here.

Where there's a will, there's a way. There ARE limits but I guarantee those developers didn't even approach those limits with Wii.

What was the incentive? They had the combined userbase of PC, PS3 and 360 to program for and sell to, with proven audiences. And the software that did find its way proved the skeptics right.

They weren't trying to. Instead they made excuses instead of becoming a part of a massive money-making opportunity.

You’re assuming that everyone could have made so much money on the Wii, this is baseless speculation and a very simple thing to say but impossible to prove. I can state with at least a semblance of data that 3^rd parties’ traditional games have not performed well on Nintendo home consoles while you can only apply skewed hindsight and draw an unfounded conclusion based off of an imagined best case scenario that never came into fruition. I can state that my car can reach 500 MP/h if I attach rockets to it, doesn’t make it true.

That's why they have to layoff so many folks & go bankrupt.

There were bankruptcies long before the 7^th gen during other shifts in development and programming paradigms (like the VGA/SVGA transition I mentioned in another post) and there was an actual financial crisis going on the whole time and a lot of developers have had a fantastic generation despite largely or even wholly ignoring the Wii. You’re basically hinging all industry troubles upon lack of support for Nintendo, a gross and surely purposeful misinterpretation of the entire gaming industry.

 
Wii U has a VERY easy architecture to create games on yet you still don't see many of the 3rd party publishers/developers flocking to it.

In its own right; no doubt. As part of a simultaneous multiplatform effort; not even close, see the above point on performance difference. Mere scaling was not enough, it might as well have been a different die branch all together for the massive difference it represented. It would have gone very well alongside the PS3 and 360 though.

It has nothing to do with "easy or hard to develop for". It has always been politics.

No, this is just you and you infantile conspiracies, tailored to avoid any blame and responsibility falling on Nintendo themselves. I find it strange that you suggest that such a massive amount of developers and businessmen have such little sense and foresight. What are the odds of practically every single 3^rd party developer having such a profound lack of insight into their own industry?

“Mummelmann:
* He doesn't "believe" in demographics.

Me:
No, I just don't believe "casual" & "hardcore" are accurate terms to describe those demographics.
When I pointed out the categories of Nintendo eShop's 2013 Holiday Gift Guide on Wii U saying "kids", "teens", "grown-up kids", "family" that shows Nintendo's take on demographics.
I ALSO pointed out that Nintendo tries to serve multiple demographics all at one time which is why I said they make games for EVERYBODY.

And yet they divide their software into demographics, what does that tell you? Your ire at these terms likely stem from what they represent; a market where a unified platform and perfectly versatile software is impossible due to the extreme variation in user preference. It makes your lofty utopia impossible at all turns.

It's smart market sense anyway since you are multiplying instead of dividing your audience.

The only viable and surefire way to catch a truly broad audience is mainstreaming the hell out of your product and aiming for the lowest common denominator. This is what Call of Duty succeeds in to a fairly good extent and not something Nintendo should strive for. They’re better than that.

Big Brain Academy at first glance may look like just a game for schoolkids but its difficulty rises & falls dynamically based on your ability.
It can get VERY hard for adults in short time yet can stay easy enough for a kid to play just the same.
Many of their games are like this that's why you rarely see difficulty options on Nintendo games.

Kudos to them. This philosophy is very hard to transfer to most conventional games though, without the option of a difficulty slider, that is.

I maintain that those who keep looking at the business with the lens of "hardcore vs. casual" will NEVER understand how the business really works.

And I maintain that those who keep denying the very big difference in user preference will miss the point entirely on the importance of product aim and market constants. The terms “hardcore” and “casual” in themselves aren’t that interesting to me; the very real divide they illustrate, however, is intriguing and has great impact.

KungKras recently posted a link to an article debunking this foolish division in a thread titled
The origin of "casual/hardcore gamers" and other industry bullshit

The article linked in the thread is called Why Marketers Fear The Female Geek written by anjinanhut.
She shows how marketing tries to make male & female products over things that are not necessarily male or female.
Shows marketers making artificial divisions & creating a false reality, an illusion of difference that is not necessarily there.
Both men & women use soap & shampoo but now we got Dove for Men & Herbal Essences with women having orgasms from washing their hair.

Linking a gender debate into a more general demographics argument is counterproductive though; I have never tried to point out the vast difference between a man and a woman who enjoy sprint but rather a man who enjoys sprint and a man who enjoys chess, only for illustrative purposes, of course. You accuse me of erroneously portraying the differences as rather too big and I still believe that you are downplaying their significance and impact.

There are just gamers. Some gamers are sports gamers. Some gamers are RPG gamers. Some gamers play a little of everything.
Girl gamers don't necessarily play Style Savvy & fashion games. Guy gamers don't necessarily shy away from Cooking Mama.
Some girls like to play Madden & First-Person Shooters. Some guys like dating sims. It's all over the board.
But if you make it like Guy gamers play this & Girl gamers play that, that's when you fail to see the real demographics.
Demographics exist but Casual & Hardcore are not demographics. They're BS marketing divisions.”

And I disagree with the last notion, and again; using gender to illustrate the fault is ineffective and misplaced. There are exceptions to every rule but the exception is not a rule in itself. Besides; the only thing you’re doing here is adding even more labels; RPG gamer, Sport Gamers, these are extremely distinct classifications of no value, unlike broader terms describing one group that lives and breathes for gaming compared to one that has only superficial investments in it, at least relatively speaking. The true marketing BS here is the notion that anyone can appease everyone in one stroke; such a belief does not belong in any rational discussion.

“Mummelmann:
* He refuses to take a proper stance on a couple ethics questions and instead dances around the subject and deviates into long-winded philosophy which doesn't pertain to the matter in any meaningful way.

Me:
What ethics? Whose ethics?

Nintendo’s marketing towards children.

If you're talking about Nintendo in the 1980s with the NES, yeah I dismissed that whole thing about the big bad evil Nintendo.

You dismissed it based on personal opinion and because it fits your quest to chronicle Nintendo as a company that does not slight and misstep to the same extent as others. That does in no way dismiss the subject; it only conveys your feelings on it, and that’s fine but I still maintain that the 80’s Nintendo were not wholly benign and took it a couple steps too far. Quality control is fine but there really is no grounds for claiming that it was necessary to go to these extremes, it likely caused as much damage as it prevented.

Before I thought in depth of it, I used to buy a little bit of that argument. When you look at it further it doesn't hold up.

It does for me and a lot of other people, eye of the beholder and all that.

You go into a place of business there are going to be certain standards you must abide before entering.

Agreed, but there is such a thing as overkill. And going against your original intent, deliberately or no.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service is one of them. Nintendo set their standards because they were trying to revive an industry.

Which is in and on itself a good deed, no doubt. Going so far as to controlling gaming press, review outlets and imposing licensing policies that in essence constrict the software breadth long-term is going overboard. You believed that MS’ foiled DRM plans were bad (and they were) but forget that Nintendo had an actual restriction chip embedded in their hardware and that they actually have a region lock on both the Wii U and 3DS, unlike Sony and Microsoft with their current consoles, for both movies and games.

The 3rd parties don't make platforms, they just supply platform makers. That's their role.

And the least courtesy one can show is setting the stage properly, or what?

The NES wasn't the only platform in town. There was something in Japan you might have heard of called the MSX (the Microsoft Sony X).

These early home computers were prone to piracy and had low adoption rates outside of Japan, in addition; the sheer number of them caused a situation not entirely dissimilar to the North American home console market in the late 70’s. They never caught on in North America, UK and most of Western Europe, the largest markets in the world, despite attempting to create unity (whoa!), what the collective efforts of probably at least a dozen major players and companies failed to accomplish in the 80’s in a time lot less complicated will somehow be achieved by Nintendo alone from their current position of strain and near obscurity, it is all very, very, well; impossible. There is no crash to exploit either this time around. The market is way too broad and branched out today.

PC platforms & other console makers were around. And they weren't minor league players either.

As singular platforms in the 80’s; they were and as a single mass they were brought to their knees by piracy, formats of the time were dead easy to copy to and from, much like the VHS. It was so primitive that it was basically like drawing with trace paper, that’s how incredibly simply it was. CD-ROM was a lot better suited towards the purpose of stopping piracy (and holding up to several hundred times as much information) but didn’t come into its own until well into the 90’s.

Nintendo didn't kidnap these 3rd parties. They joined Nintendo willingly & thus accepted Nintendo's standards.

They really, really didn’t have much of a choice in the matter and these standards became worse as the NES’ sales roared away. Developers also had to pay for the Nintendo produced cartridges up-front before game release, in addition to the development cost.

One refused & instead of complaining they made their own platform with NEC. That company was Hudson Soft.

It's the same thing when a performer signs up with a record company or a venue.
There's a contract written up to commit the performer to the company or the venue to ensure that the company or venue get return on their investment.

But the record company does not control your press mentions and reviews, and in these cases; the record company actually takes the financial risk and leap of faith while in the case we’re talking about; the developer takes the cost and risks losing a bunch of money and precious time if they fail to meet the sometimes arbitrary conditions and a good enough review in the mostly Nintendo controlled gaming press. This is actually not a very good analogy at all.

I use Motown's equipment to make my album then I walk out on Motown trying to have DefJam profit from my Motown-produced product.
I agree to perform on these dates in Caesar's Palace. Then on the dates I'm supposed to perform I suddenly go to Radio City Music Hall & perform there.
Nintendo says you're using my platform, my development tools, you're gonna perform exclusively for my platform with only 5 games a year.

For any major publisher/developer, releasing only 5 titles per year wouldn’t net a whole lot of revenue per year, more than nothing but still.

It is then up to the 3rd party to agree or disagree with those terms.
If they disagree, go to the many other platforms available & make a stand there.
But since Nintendo created such a hot opportunity, you didn't see the 3rd parties try to go anywhere else.

That’s what I’m trying to say though; there really wasn’t any other opportunity worth mentioning at the time. And I know that you are aware of this as well, us both being old gaming dogs and all.

When Sega challenged Nintendo greatly in the Mega Drive/Genesis era & they had another hot platform to work with, they STILL worked with Nintendo.

Like I mentioned in the other rebuttal; Sega had some pretty crazy policies themselves, no doubt with the same partially earnest intention and they were not a proven platform at all, the NES had beat Sega by selling about four times as much in the 3^rd generation. Sega loosened their policies slightly though, and got vastly improved sales and support as a result, again like I mentioned; 3^rd parties did start to leave Nintendo (or at the very least testing the water) at this time because they weren’t thriving under the strict conditions and high publishing cost.

I showed a 3rd party who turned into a 2nd party named Rareware whose former staff look back on their Nintendo days fondly.
Hardly sounds like a big bad evil company to me.

I have never stated and will never state that Nintendo was or is a “big bad evil company”, this is simply a thinly veiled attempt at polarizing the argument. I’m not calling anyone evil; I’m standing up for the fact that other companies aren’t evil either and that Nintendo actually does have a skeleton or two in the closet. Their primary objective is and always has been to make money, that does not mean that they are not genuine or love what they do; just like it doesn’t mean that other publishers and developers don’t love what they do or that they aren’t genuine despite having profits as the their main objective, that is literally exactly what I’m trying to convey to you in this thread. One does not get 14 billion dollars in the bank by not thinking about profit maximizing over an extended period of time.

Besides all the above though, it is very easy to find developers who very displeased after their Nintendo years, here is one example:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-04-born-slippy-the-making-of-star-fox

We got a company who tried to do away with game ownership/trade/resale with the XBox One & you're so down on a company that tried their damndest to restore customer & retailer confidence in the whole videogame business. Who tried to restore Quality to the business.

What I am down on is you painting them as a company that can only do good and who deserve so much more than others based on past merits and their long and admittedly impressive pedigree while not only ignoring or downplaying others’ contributions but also avoiding or outright denying Nintendo’s negative sides on several subjects.

Nintendo WAS controlling. And it's EXACTLY that control which allowed you to even have a videogame business today.
Once again, you're welcome.”

We could perfectly well have had an industry without Nintendo alienating 3rd parties way back when, and as I’ve mentioned several times already; there were plenty of really bad games on the NES. It was also a platform with a whole lot of very similar software, games of the same genre were often strikingly similar and this is not only down to primitive hardware and limited rendering capabilities; it was also a result of developers rarely deviating from the recipe they knew would net them approval and licensing. It likely suppressed quite a few potentially very creative games and gaming concepts. The NES had very good software breadth genre-wise but the breadth and variety within each individual genre was far from breathtaking, especially considering the sheer amount of published games on the platform. Head and shoulders above anything else though; yes.

I feel like repeating that there is no reason to entitle Nintendo to unconditional support because they helped save the industry in the 80’s; their actions and merits do not make them exempt from critique and they really haven’t worked at cooperating with 3^rd parties very well at all and have insisted on deciding or trying to decide the parameters all along, even after they lost the throne in a big way. They’re stubborn and amazingly bound by tradition, this is probably their greatest weakness and one they need to work on in the coming years.

PART 2:

“Mummelmann:
* He links a bunch of unrelated youtube content to undeline opposing arguments to arguments I never made (the commercial bit is the main culprit here).

Me:
Do you even remember what you write, man?
Here's a reminder of what you wrote:

"Look at their advertising over the past three decades; where companies like Sony and Microsoft and independents often focus on effects, visuals, sound and other, perhaps superficial things, they choose to focus the presentation on the product.

Nintendo have a long history of panning shots where they show ecstatic kids playing games, this isn’t because they have such immense heart and love your smile more than others, it is simply a marketing ploy to draw in young customers, they focus on the implicit euphoria of owning Nintendo products, instilling a sense of “can’t miss this, kiddo!” rather than focusing on the product."

You just made a giant spiel contrasting Sony's & Microsoft's advertising with Nintendo's.

Yes I did.

You pretty much said that Nintendo is manipulating the viewers by showing the reactions of people.

Actors with staged reactions, like all other commercials.

Pretty much implied that these types of commercials & ads are disingenuous of Nintendo.

I’m stating that I think it is unethical to market towards children, kids should not be consumers at all.

So what do I do? I once again argue in your framework & dismantle it.

Actually, what you did was fail to take a stand on the ethics question I was actually posing; is it ethical to market/advertise for children and is it more or less ethical than being superficial?

You said that Sony & Microsoft focus on effects, visuals, sound, & product.
You said that Nintendo focuses on ecstatic kids, implicit euphoria WITHOUT focusing on the product.
I AGREED & said that it was a SUPERIOR way to deliver their products. That it was a more GENUINE way.

And I maintain and suggested that adverts aimed at children are unethical, more so than being superficial.

I used your very own words to hang you with. Sony & Microsoft focus on product, effects, visuals, sound AKA Technology.

You read my words and then wrote about your philosophical stance of employing a human appeal to advertising; which is that it superior, something I don’t disagree with in principal, I find most of Sony and MS’ commercials to be bland, plain weird (creepy baby doll anyone?) or nondescript (there are a couple of great ones though, Microsoft’s baby being launched into the air and aging before crashing into the casket is one I will always remember simply due to its highly original and simultaneously provoking and humorous nature).

Nintendo focuses on kids' ecstasy & euphoria AKA People & Emotions.
I showed numerous examples of Nintendo commercials showcasing this reality.

And still managed to avoid the actual argument; the ethics surrounding marketing aimed at children. Besides; commercials do not showcase reality, according to both of us; I have pointed out staged reactions and scripts and you have very recently uttered the following:

““A commercial is a commercial, Mummelmann. We know it's advertising.””

I underlined the whole thing showing that it reflects the philosophy of their entire console & game design.
That tech is a MEANS to an end not THE END as it is with Sony & Microsoft.

And that’s a perfectly fine point, but still not related to my actual query.

Two companies started out in tech fields & naturally reflect their origins.
Another company started out in play fields & naturally reflect their origins.

Hard to disagree with that, anyone who would is being ridiculous.

Nintendo has always been a PLAY company from day one making those hanafuda cards.
That's why they were able to naturally transition into toys (another PLAY field) & videogames (another PLAY field) while they couldn't transition into instant noodles, taxi service, vacuum cleaners, & love hotels (love hotels is a SEXUAL PLAY similar but not quite the same).

And that’s why MS and Sony have gone to such lengths to forge lasting alliances with outside creative talent or been aggressive and showed more initiative in acquiring them as 2^nd party; they realize full well their shortcomings as game makers.

Cards, toys, & games is what Nintendo is all about. That's why they were so stubborn with the cartridge format (CARD-tridge) for the Nintendo 64.

I disagree. In actuality, this was more about not adopting the CD-Rom format that was in no small part a Sony venture. Doubly so after the fiasco of the Sony and Nintendo coop with a potential CD-Rom driven Nintendo console. Nintendo, in a slightly amusing twist of irony, wanted to avoid royalty fees on the format and having to work with Sony and they instead opted for an archaic solution more or less out of spite. It is not unthinkable that Nintendo would have actually embraced the new format had Sony nor been such a major proponent of it. The DVD was pretty much the same story, Sony had a big stake in this format as well and Nintendo once again opted to bypass the format the rest of the world were embracing and chose a proprietary disc in the miniDVD, there really was no other reason for them to do this, there was no advantage to it other than avoiding going onto the market with a joint-Sony format in their box. The format choices of the N64 and Gamecube were a show of poor sense in almost every way, the advantages of adopting a universal format that also stored more information and was a lot cheaper to produce would have far outweighed the mostly imagined slight of accepting and paying a bit for a competitors format solution. These, among others, are the kind of decisions I’m talking about when I call Nintendo out for not working towards an optimal developer environment; it is wholly selfish and rather illogical in the long term.

If you want a prime example of staggering political play; it doesn’t get more definitive than this.

Nintendo are refusing to join market movements willingly and wait until their hand is forced, they miss out on the process when these standards start gaining traction and become ingrained as the default in the industry and fail to construct a practice and structure on these solutions and tech and end up trying to jump onto a treadmill at full speed (their recent trouble with extended development times for HD games is a perfect example here). To top it off; they insist on making the belated tech “unique” and this often results in missing the mainstream angle and them becoming niche in features and overall. Pair this with missing the market constant on account of lack of breadth of software due to poor support and you have yourself a disaster. The two problems are closely tied and the cycle perpetuates itself, it is not mere coincidence that the real problems began around the N64 era and onwards. Nintendo and the 3^rd party effectively rebuking one another.

The Wii U is the ultimate culmination and illustration of these issues. And yet, they somehow still think they can dictate the market and force convergence and developer direction; delusion incarnate. Their horrible online effort, lack of account system, ridiculous 8GB Basic SKU at launch and tablet controller with off screen play that doesn’t even support the console’s native resolution all show a company that has let themselves be outrun by standard tech and features in favor of their own solutions and there is no point in attempting to compete on a halfhearted basis, they are basically surrendering potential selling points to the competition by becoming the inferior and cumbersome option in many areas on the home console market.

These are not the marks of a solid strategy or a company properly attuned to the market.

They still have game cards & SD cards in their home consoles & handhelds.
Wii U has a initial setup screen asking to tap icons of Spades, Hearts, Clubs, & Diamonds.
New Super Mario Bros. U's Boost Mode has you summon platforms adorned with Spades, Hearts, Club, & Diamonds.

You know what? That’s actually pretty damn cool and a nice ode to their own heritage.

The Nintendo DS released a game called Master of Illusion complete with a deck of actual Nintendo playing cards.
They give away playing cards on Club Nintendo—Western & Hanafuda styles.

Again, good stuff. Despite what my at times brutal tone would lead you to believe, I actually appreciate and even love certain Nintendo products and certainly their games. That does not compel me to condone their misguided strategies though, which is another thing I’m hoping to make you understand in here.

Wii Music is more like a musical toy than a game. And so is Electroplankton. So are certain extras in the WarioWare games.
Nintendo licenses plushies & LEGOs of its characters to be released in the toy aisle. There's even a Super Mario Chess set.
Even the way Nintendo conducts business & delivers conferences is playful.

And that’s also good, but I feel that their recent focus on Nintendo Directs is a bit of a waste, especially if they’re hoping to draw in any kind of non-gaming audience again.

They hold their cards close to chest just like an experienced card player & dazzle you like a magician showing you card tricks.

Perhaps they used to, now they mostly hype up announcements and then disappoint a large number of stoic fans with underwhelming news. There are recent examples (Grumpy being one) and this is possibly not the best strategy for them right now when they need to regain trust and show future promise and purchasing incentive.

They USE tech to deliver card, toy, & game. They don't use game to deliver tech, effects, visuals, & sound.
When you play with cards or toys or games it is ALWAYS a social experience. A people-focused experience.

This is not true for my part; I love a good single player game, nothing much social about that. Focusing on social gaming is nice but you can’t possibly argue that this should be the emphasis of all games and gaming experiences. I do enjoy local multiplayer as well but my most memorable gaming moments are single player ones.

The interplay between peoples. So it's no surprise why Nintendo is focused more on people than their tech.
And that's what makes them successful in the end. That's why they are not in awe of their tech.
They only see it as a way to deliver more fun, more PLAY to PEOPLE.

See, that’s the thing; other developers also want to deliver fun and engaging player experiences and the massive focus on online in the 7^th gen shows the intent of making gaming an experience to share with others to a greater extent. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of online gaming, but to each his own.

And to show that this intention IS genuine (as if their conduct doesn't already show it) & that the results ARE genuine, I punchline the topic with the N64 Kids hollering ecstatically euphorically over the Nintendo 64.
That's a real video. That's a real reaction. And that's why Nintendo will always remain the leader of the business.

Like I said in my bigger rebuttal; these kinds of videos can be easily be found for other products and consoles as well and this is not an argument to elevate Nintendo’s hold over their fans and the market over the competition. Quick examples;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFTCKYUZweo Pretty happy about that 360.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7GqAOqJinI These boys seem reasonably satisfied with their PS3 gift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6XCEuhlCn4 Going bananas over an iPad. And, yes, I hope you appreciate the irony of the video description! J

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_tgnDvgP5g Some real happy faces over something as mundane as a laptop (crazy for me though since I grew up in a poor family).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH_X4mJYhxA For good measure; batshit insane over 360.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpU-5xLza3o One more PS3 meltdown.

Aren’t these shows of euphoria? This is more less the best illustration I could ever find for my point; Nintendo are not the only ones who have earned their fans, they are not the only ones who make people happy and ecstatic, they are not the one company in the world that loves games and gaming and they’re not the only ones who would be happy to see kids, or others, become so thrilled with their products. Do you understand what I’m saying here?

Somehow they have the ability to make these mundane machines feel like more than machines.

There are two machines that have made me feel this way; the N64 and the first Playstation, the feeling of something alien yet comforting, a plastic box holding the promise of class entertainment and value for years and years. Both delivered.

That takes a certain kind of magic. Something is genuine there & that's why you see people proudly wearing NES controllers on their T-shirts today.”

Again; there are plenty of people wearing PS and Xbox effects as well, this is not unique to Nintendo. A classic NES controller belt-buckle is pretty thug though, gotta say.

“Mummelmann:
* Due to my harsh language, I've made him all but come out and expose his Messiah complex, it's actually scary to witness.

Me:
Messiah complex? No, what you're doing is trying to make a caricature out of me to dismiss what I have to say.
I ran down every single one of your points line by line in VERY elaborate fashion & you have no valid answer to my comments.
I argued in your framework & defeated your arguments in excruciating detail.
All of your comments lately have run on the mentality "Due to my superior ability & master mind, I have made him come out, I have made him do this & do that".
That sounds like a God complex to me. As if you're the puppeteer with the puppet on a string.
The Chessmaster moving your pawns.

The truth is you have to resort to these tactics because your arguments have run out.
You can't attack the message so you attack the messenger.
Have fun with your caricature but when you're done with playing with that, you can rejoin me in debating the topics at hand.”

I’m gonna level with you here; I admit to having been rash and childish in my tone. I saw you write that you have a “confrontational personality”, well so do I. I’m simply frustrated by your thick-headedness and (to my mind) hopeless digressions that are all a waste of time. I told impertinence that I would focus more on the arguments and less on the person, and I will hold true to that word.

I disagree with your statement on me not having any valid answers though; I still consider most of your main arguments feeble and hollow and I do find your rhetoric unsettling and preachy most of the time.

You did not defeat my arguments so much as write around them and then moving on.

My arguments have not run out, I’m only getting started, and there are still several posts of mine you have yet to answer, some containing points directly countering many of yours. The ones on 3^rd party ambition vs development cost are one group, a highly relevant one, you have yet to show a sliver of proper reasoning for how Nintendo offers any kind of advantage with the Wii U over the others.

I am attacking the message and I’ve done a pretty damn good job at it, this very reply included, and I’ve even steered clear of the relative pettiness of some of my previous posts and I actually, honestly feel good while writing this post.

Your last sentence here bothers me; it is you who are avoiding points and failing to properly defend your position and beliefs in a tangible and sensible way; a lot hinges on speculation, un-provable hypothesis rooted in the past and some extremely far-fetched leaps of logic and it is crystal clear that you lack any degree of technical insight.

For all it’s worth though; I’m sorry for having been an asshole.

“Mummelmann:
* He thinks, apparently in all sincerity, that everyone should have the same taste in gaming as him, including me, a staggering show of incredible elitism.

Me:
Hmm. The following are words from Mummelmann.

"Now, as for me? Do I love all this? No! I hate the idea that Hollywood is the primary inspiration for games, I hate QTE’s, hand-holding, ridiculous AI and other bullshit and I consider phone and tablet gaming nothing but cancer on the industry, pulling quality down along with the Hollywood model."

Phone & tablet gaming is a cancer on the industry, Mummelmann says. But he calls me an elitist.

I honestly believe that convenience gaming is detrimental to the overall quality of gaming since it takes funds and potential creative investments away from other, more thoroughbred forms of gaming.

This is what I said about mobile gaming & other platforms in general.

"I don't necessarily hate the mobile platform & I am always open to any avenue a developer can have to express his/her vision.
The open-ended nature of mobile DOES tend to pack a lot of trash on this platform but it's not all bad.
There are good games on the smartphones & tablets. There are good games on the PC.
There are good games on the PlayStations & XBoxes.
What I'm concerned about is the EXCLUSION of Nintendo from the discussion."

Which one of those statements sounds elitist & sounds like everyone should have the same taste?
I also said this in another topic later in that rebuttal.

The problem is; you go directly against this attitude in other segments of your posts and cite Nintendo as the be-all end-all to gaming and basically labeling the vast majority of other efforts as useless and baseless and/or shallow. A large part of the industry today really is shallow but on the whole, it’s not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, despite the lack of Nintendo’s craft shining through most productions.

"The one who plays Candy Crush Saga is JUST as much a gamer as one who plays Mario. Those who play the Facebook games are JUST as much a gamer as those who play World of Warcraft. Those who only play the perennial sports games like Madden & NBA 2K are JUST as much a gamer as those who play indie games.
And because I don't believe in this concept of "Non-Gamer" means that I DIDN'T resent the emergence of the PlayStation when it expanded the scope of gaming. I don't resent the emergence of the smartphones & tablets as a gaming platform. I don't resent the emergence of the browser based games. I don't resent Steam as a platform. I didn't resent Nintendo's Touch Generations titles like Brain Age & Wii Fit when it brought people who never played games to the pastime.
The more gamers the merrier."

Who's elitist now? The guy who calls a Candy Crush Saga gamer as just as legit as a Mario gamer or the guy who says the phone & tablet gaming is a cancer on the industry?

You take it upon yourself to decide that Nintendo are the way, that their philosophy should be the inspiration for all gaming, this is more or less condemning other forms of games or gaming and you do have a very deep set and genuine desire to see Microsoft and Sony burn, along with what I can only imagine is a large part of the PC industry.

Sneaky late edit for emphasis on my stance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/dungeon-keeper-mobile-remake-deemed-unplayable-due-to-inapp-purchases-9119140.html

That right there is why I call mobile gaming a cancer on the industry, or is someone going to tell me that this is an acceptable and healthy form of gaming we should welcome in the industry? It is by far the most destructive model we've ever seen. I'm not as elitist as you, and furthermore; I actually have a point, read the above link.

And he takes this statement I made & totally misses the point.

"They ALSO want Nintendo's standards to be the Rule not the Exception. Mummelmann, you should want the same too."

Somehow he reads that as I think he should only play Nintendo games & only like the games I like.

It sounds an awful lot like you stating that Nintendo standards are the best and, by logical extension, that you taste in games is superior to others’ and you really are telling me directly and unmistakably that I should wish for the same things as you, based on your subjective reasoning and personal preference. That is elitism, John, no way around it. I’m probably elitist too, being a PC gamer and all, but I do insist that you are showing a lot more elitism than me, I have not once attempted to dictate what your gaming tastes should be nor have I implied that others should not be allowed to enjoy other games and types of gaming (the latter does not pertain to you). I expressed my honest disdain for convenience gaming on mobile/tablets and I will continue to shun Hollywood inspired drivel with no depth.

Rockstar follows Nintendo's standards by not putting out games until they make signifcant improvements or advancements instead of banking on the yearly installment deal.

On a personal level, I would disagree somewhat here, GTA IV was a step down from San Andreas both in my eyes and in the eyes of what appears to be the majority of the franchise’s fanbase. It was smaller, relied a lot more on the glossy tech you have no mind towards, it attempted to make cars behave more “realistic”, going against the well-known, perfectly fitting and widely loved convention of the series, it featured a very 7^th gen inspired and somewhat poorly executed cover system and it featured an inferior soundtrack to both Vice City and San Andreas. It also removed quite a few gameplay elements. It made improvements as well; the “moral choice” system was somewhat good (although a tad underworked) and offered actual consequences as the story unfolded and a welcome addition to the series. Overall, though, most fans agree with me that GTA IV was a step back. GTA V is in many ways what I feel that GTA IV should have been but is also failing to reach San Andreas’ level, in my humble opinion.

That's why Grand Theft Auto V sold so much so fast.
That's why PS2's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is #16 on the all-time best-sellers list.

The primary reasons why these games have performed so well is terrific writing, awesome music, multitude of gameplay elements and self-ironic tone and sheer size, both in the literal sense and in length, massive value for money.

They also do different things & diversify. They put out L.A. Noire, Table Tennis, Manhunt, & Red Dead Redemption.
Rockstar & Nintendo haven't gotten along since the N64 days when they were DMA Design.
Yet Rockstar's quality levels approach Nintendo's levels because follow tenets Nintendo is known for.

Disagree, the GTA series, especially since GTA IV, have relied heavily upon hardware, they have focused rather heavily on tech (ragdoll physics in GTA IV and V), rely on writing that would simply never appear in a Nintendo developed or published title, art direction that strives for realism more than any other sandbox game today, heavily saluting pop cultural phenomenon rather than shamelessly promoting only themselves and, not to mention; depicting situations of a violent and sexual nature that few games approach without becoming a parody of itself. For me, the GTA series is among the most far removed from Nintendo tenets, both on a technical and philosophical scale.

I personally believe Rockstar is one of the best & most creative 3rd parties out there.

One of the best; certainly.

He complains about a Hollywood-ized industry, I show him the antidote to that, he takes it as if I'm elitist & thinking he should play the same games as me.
Hey, all I can do is show the word history.”

You don’t show me the antidote, you show me your antidote, and it’s really hard to interpret your index finger in my face as anything but assertion of superior taste and intent to steer. I have already explained several times what kind of games I like, there are a whole lot of companies that can provide an antidote to the Hollywood game, but this doesn’t fit into your world where Nintendo must be the pinnacle of gaming and the shining beacon everyone should shamble towards. Nintendo should never become the template for all gaming, neither should any other one direction or philosophy, that is what most true gamers should desire in my opinion; this inspires diversity, risk-taking, a more competitive market and an overall more sharp industry.

“Mummelmann:
* He thinks that the development cost of a game is affected either way by how many copies you print... no comment needed there.

Me:
It takes money in every aspect of the game-making, game-shipping, game-stocking, game-selling process.
Why is this such a strange statement? They allocate resources for programmers to build the code, for artists to conceptualize & actualize the figures & backgrounds, for musicians & sound men to deliver the audio, for factories to make copies of the finished product, for warehouses to store these copies, for planes/trains/automobiles to transport these copies over-air/overseas/on-the-road to docks/warehouses/retailers, for marketers to advertise the product & get it to sell.
Money is parceled out for each & every step of this process.
When they develop games, they can share the resources they make in production for each platform assigning this team to make this version for PlayStation, this one for XBox, this one for Nintendo. They can & DO forecast what they believe each console can sell & make shipments accordingly.
That's what Activision did when they made Call of Duty games for the DS. They assigned a team to create a DS version & allocated the amount of stock they believed would best sell for that platform.
All of this is under production costs.

People in the food business, in the clothing business, in the soap business, in ANY business do the very same things.
They may allocate 300,000 of a product to one retailer in a Southern region while allocating 1,000,000 of a product to the same retailer in a Northeastern region.
They may allocate 10,000 to this store while allocating 200,000 to another store.
They have metrics that figure out what sells which in which retailer, which region, which season.
But you notice that the smartest businesses make sure there's at least some of their stock in EVERY store.
Frito-Lay doesn't just ship their Doritos to Wal-Mart. They make sure their Doritos are seen in every store they can put it.
Some people don't go to Wal-Mart, some people don't go to Kroger's but no matter where they go they can get some Doritos.
It's in a company's best interests not to arbitrarily deny a retailer/platform for trivial matters.

While a Wii U version of a particular game may not be the best-selling of the versions, you GUARANTEE not to get any business by not putting the game on the platform at all.
And after awhile if you keep not stocking your product in Nintendo's stores, those Nintendo customers will just buy other products & get used to them.
Instead of Doritos, they'll get used to Taco Flacos. You'll be locking yourself out of a hot market.
If it sells weaker on a Nintendo platform, just publish a smaller amount of stock where it can sell through.
Who knows the shorter supply may increase demand where you can publish more. Won't know if you don't try.”

See, this is one you should have just let die, this is probably the easiest one to really, properly pick apart and it does nothing but detract from your entire argument and your insistence that you have great insight into the industry and business in general.

Game-shipping, game-stocking and game-selling are the distribution process and have absolutely nothing to do with the development process.

The conceptual work, planning, sound work, visual coding, post-process and polish and finally; editing and testing phases are all complete once the game goes into actual print. The amount of copies you print does not affect this process as it happens after the fact and is an entirely separate entity.

You can’t compare this to the food industry, clothing, soap or any other industry of the same kind; these are assembly line products with production costs per unit. If you write an essay of 35.000 words (like your biggest post in here) and make 200 copies, that doesn’t mean you have to write it 200 times more; it is a blueprint copy from a template, or a mold if you will. It does not make your writing process more difficult, take more time or affect the intellectual investment (or lack thereof) in the text itself.

When a movie goes out of post-production, it is a finished product. Selling 500 copies or 25 million of the DVD does in no way affect the production cost of the movie. Printing the 25 million copies do not suddenly and retroactively increase the cost of the production itself that was finished a long time ago.

Advertising costs are not in any way tied to development costs either. Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re writing this or why I should have to explain this to you in depth at all, anyone who claims to be knowledgeable on the gaming industry and business should already master at least the very basics such as these, this is one step below 101. This section only serves to strip you of credibility for every time you proclaim your insight on anything gaming related, especially since you choose to actually keep arguing it on absolutely no grounds at all. This is by far the worst part of your already fumbling reasoning process in here.

And I sure hope you don’t think that I’m too dumb to respond to this; if you think so lowly of me, surely you’re wasting your time here.

“Mummelmann:
* He gives me a proper new-age psych evaluation, in which he concludes that I am traumatized and depressed.

Me:
You sounded cynical so I addressed your cynicism.

Fair enough.

You make a stereotype of business as nothing more than greedy money-grubbers.

I went over the top on purpose to make a point; I don’t actually envision Nintendo or anyone else sitting rubbing their hands and junk over the thought of snatching cash from kids with cancer. My message is that making money is the overarching goal of any business and I just get tired of you and a lot of others covering this profit drive in euphemism and sugar when it comes to Nintendo.

You make it sound like a company who exchanges money for a product can't have any other motivation than that.

Perhaps I did make it sound like that, see the above though.

There ARE a lot of businesses like that but every business is not like that.

I know that full well and I never stated as much either.

The following is the some of the most cynical garbage I have ever heard.

"Then there’s this notion of a Nintendo that is somehow more relevant, loving and caring than others, they have the only true passion for games and gaming. Why? Because they have different art direction? All other companies are just evil bastards who don’t like anything but your money and they’re too dense to see that they’re ruining the industry because Nintendo are the only ones who understand “what’s really going on”.

Nintendo are, believe it or not, a company with investors, they love to pocket your change as much as the next company, a change in color-palette doesn’t change that.

Which is more ethical? Don’t think for one second that Nintendo are some benign saint who swooped down to earth so that grandma and her cancerous grandkid could enjoy gaming together, laughing and living it up like a fairytale; they want grandma’s money and they want the cancer-kid money (offended? I’m making a point), they want everyone’s money like everyone else does, they’re running a business!"

I'm tired of that 'hip cynic' crap. People put that mess up as a shield.
It's safer to think the world is all dog-eat-dog than to think that genuine actions still exist in the world.
And they don't wanna take the chance on making a mistake so they hide behind the shield of cynicism. It's cowardly.

Note the “offended? I’m making a point” in parenthesis, this is a willfully over the top description to promote a point; companies want to and like to make money, Nintendo are no different. I am simply vexed that you keep implying that other companies don’t love what they do; you’re actually the one who seemingly thinks that almost all the others are behaving in such a way.

Nintendo's actions over the decades have proven they care about more than just the dollar, the yen, the euro.
There's no incentive to create a physically-durable lasting piece of hardware when people are buying multiple XBox 360s over & over after they break.

Again, I resent the notion you put forward that Xbox and PS customers are so simple-minded.

Any heartless company that you're proposing Nintendo to be would stop giving a damn & do exactly what Microsoft gets rewarded on doing.

I’m not proposing that they are heartless, I’m proposing that they aren’t strangers to some questionable practices (the Foxconn incident hurt them just as much as the other industry giants). You know what Microsoft’s “reward” for the RROD was? Massive consumer distrust, bad press and the most costly warranty solution for any consumer electronics product ever made. And this is, again, you implying that Xbox customers are mildly or wholly retarded.

When people pay for online like with XBox Live why in the hell would Nintendo insist on a free service like the Nintendo Network?

Because the flog people on peripherals and games that almost never drop in price and because their online service is highly inferior?

They were thinking about changing to a paid model. Seems they weren't appreciated for keeping it free.
In the end, they said no, it's free.

And that’s a good thing, as it stands; their online service is not worth any money in a lot of people’s opinion.

Nintendo is a company with integrity. These kind of businesses still exist as hard as it is for you to believe.

Hmm, well yes they are but they do have some really, really overpriced gear and aging software. See; when MS or Sony require payment for their online, this is a bad deal and poor integrity but when Nintendo charges 140$ for a Wii-mote + Nunchuck in my country, this is smart business somehow. Sony and MS also offer their “Greatest Hits” and “Platinum” software after a relatively short time on the market and they often have some really great deals on digital fare.

You could argue, like you and many others did in the 7^th gen, that Nintendo’s refusal to lower their price on software for so long was justified because seeing the sales, the perceived value of these games was obviously high enough to warrant the price. But then you would have to reconcile with the fact that Sony and MS’ online services also have a high enough perceived value to warrant their price.

With no valid challengers in the handheld realm, it would be easy for Nintendo to artificially jack up the prices.
Nope, even with the GBA prices remained fair. Mass market as always.

Nintendo handheld hardware and software is and has been rather expensive in large parts of Europe, often the same as home consoles.

Edit: Gosh darnit, I stumbled across something on the internet, some guy called John Lucas apparently once had this to say on the 3DS: "Nintendo’s been getting out of control with prices since the DSi and now that $250 price tag they’re putting the 3DS under looks comical to the $250 Wi-Fi version of PlayStation Vita. Nintendo could get away with being less technologically horse-powered so long as they put up a more economically horse-sensed price. They ain’t got neither with the 3DS compared to Vita or the rest and that should scare the pure dung out of Nintendo."

Just because an entity get money doesn't make them phony, doesn't make them heartless.

I know, and this applies to other companies as well, including the two you most enjoy demonizing.

I showed countless examples of famous & unfamous people doing a job, getting paid for it, but enjoying the job BEYOND the paycheck.

And a lot of other people besides Nintendo do as well; they are not the sole subscriber to the love of the game (in a double sense).

The honest truth is Nintendo gives us a bargain. The best developer in the world selling their high quality works for a low price.

Best developer in the world is subjective, overall for me that is Valve, when you look at the total package they offer the market as a company. Anyway; prices of Nintendo software, peripherals and controllers are hardly low. Back in the day, if I wanted to buy a Wii and play MK with three buddies, I’d have to shell out 480$ for the controllers alone, basically the same as the cost of the console over here. And the price of MK itself stayed the same for a couple of years despite massive sales (don’t say “yeah, but Ninty games are worth full price for longer” when the argument is specifically “low price”).

You pay big for Bose speakers. You pay big for Beats Audio by Dr. Dre. You pay big for Corvettes, Lamborghinis, & Testarossas.

I would never waste money on any of that.

You pay big for Rolls-Royces. You pay big to stay in Trump Hotel. Cashmere costs & so does silk. Diamonds don't come cheap.

It’s kind of weird seeing you make these analogies, kinda makes me wonder what hotel, car make and gem 8or pebble) you consider the competition.

Any big-name designer is charging top dollar for their clothes. Living costs in Beverly Hills & Manhattan is too rich for you.
Yet Nintendo, the premiere name in gaming, gives you all that level of quality for a price most people can afford.

So do MS and Sony, their games cost the same and often even less due to “Greatest Hits” and “Platinum” releases. Not to mention on PC, there are some ridiculously amazing games for some insanely low prices to be had.

They give a damn & it shows. I'm man enough to recognize it. I'm man enough to celebrate it.
I don't need to hide behind the Cynic's Shield.”

And I’m man enough to enjoy the offerings of others on the same level. I’m also man enough to point out where I feel Nintendo (and others) are in the wrong. Do I need to remind you that the Wii U is the only 8^th gen console with a region lock?

PART 3:

“Mummelmann:
* He backs up his mostly philosophical arguments with obviously made-up and anecdotal "conversion" stories, including ones about himself and even states that I will soon convert.

Me:
I showed the link to Metallicube's post. It's right there.
At last, Nintendo (and Best Buy) have convinced this veteran cynical Nintendo fan to cave in and pick up a Wii U. My impressions. 

Ah, Metallicube. I already adressed this in my other rebuttal. I know this guy and his ways, him, Neos, NJ5 and a select few others were slightly below the likes of Avinash, yourself and Rol when it came to gloating, insane predictions and massive amounts of hyperbole in the 7^th gen. He was anything but cynical towards Nintendo and had full-on tunnel vision in all things pertaining to them and was quite unpleasant towards Playstation fans in particular.

There is also some recent and fairly recent damage control showing a very real need to belittle the competition, or at the very least disarm them, all the while still being very forgiving towards Nintendo. He’s not entirely changed and wasn’t really ever in that bottomless pit of despair you seem to portray him in:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=172640&page=-1#1

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=160659&page=-1#1

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=152726&page=-1#1

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5903370

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5275437

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5191649

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4979196

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4894537

Sneaky edit;

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4778025 He clearly had lost absolutely all faith in the Wii U right before it launched, or what?

You can't dance around that. It's not made-up. He's right there. Talk to him.

No need, I know who he is and what he stands for, this could probably be an efficient argument against a fresh member but I’ve been here for a long time and have probably spent a lot more time in here than even you have.

And as for me. Whether you want to believe it or not, I wasn't always in line with Nintendo's direction with Wii U.

That’s so easy to say in hindsight though; what strikes me is that you never wrote it up like you did the loving bits; it would make sense for you post and muse around real doubts revolving around your favorite company and their products (look at Malstrom having at it today). I have a really hard time taking this seriously; it all seems more like a ticket to spin a heartwarming conversion story to me and there is apparently no way to disprove that notion.

 
I mention that from the very first post in this thread.
I exampled my gaming history for you to SHOW you how wrong you were.

Again; how do I know all this is true? I could easily say that “I used to think Valve was a pretty bad company that only caused a hurt on the industry but they convinced me in an amazing turn of events!” These are words from an anonymous person on an internet forum and this doesn’t really prove anything due to the fact that there is no way to verify whether you’re fabricating most or all of this; I see people all the time pretending to own consoles so they have an excuse and an alibi when they bash them, it’s a very common practice online.

You're too busy making a caricature of me instead of dealing with the real person.
You said I hated PlayStation's emergence in the mid-1990s. No, I didn't & I detailed my history showing this.

Your stance on Sony, their policies, business, games and future outlook all but dismisses this statement; you quite clearly have an agenda against the Playstation brand and its father. You also take it so far as to portray Playstation owners and customers as mindless consumers and go into how you managed to steer clear of becoming such a drone to Sony’s offerings. “Honestly, I really did want a Playstation at one point but then I regained my senses and didn’t fall for the same as the other morons who were swayed” is more or less how I interpret that section. Feel free to correct me or clarify this bit.

I look at your signature & how you have not changed it.

Going down with the ship, John, going down with the ship. I made a stupid call and underestimated the impact the Wii U’s lack of appeal due to the attempt at forced market convergence would have and assumed it would take actual competition to expose it as a bad and poorly aimed design for the modern market. I was wrong.

While the hecklers are lambasting me about the 12 million call, I see you have 11.5 million in your year-end prediction.

Yes, and I freely admit that it was ridiculous and this number has actually taught me something while you cling to your old beliefs.

Virtually the same number & you're holding it until the end just like I'm doing.

I put no stock in it and simply kept it because I never change my sig predictions through the year, I’m not so much holding it as I am showcasing it to myself as a sign of how bad things actually turned out for the Wii U .

I'm gonna find it funny in a few years to see many of the people who ran down Wii U start championing it in the coming years.

I don’t think you will ever experience that, not only because these people would never “champion” the Wii U but mostly because it will never become a force to be reckoned with on the market. Absolutely all signs point towards it having a pretty miserable life with low sales.

Yeah & I'm predicting you're gonna be one of them, Mummelmann. Doggone right.

And I predict that;

A: No, because your fever dream scenario won’t play out, reality will be light-years removed from it.

B: You won’t stick around for me and you to discuss the matter on any level.

Right now you're just an antagonist for antagonist's sake. You just wanna argue for the sake of arguing.

No, the main reason I’m bothering with this is that your notions of knowing the “truth” and passing off wild speculation as facts irritate me a great deal. I’ve even moderated myself heavily in this very post because I want to show that you’re being silly without resorting to spicing it up with insult and pot shots.

You said it yourself either on somebody's wall or somewhere in this thread.

I have said that I enjoy debating and that’s true; it energizes me, writing this post was amazing for me, making it even more on point and free of personal slight made it a lot more savory as well. And video games and markets is something I find intriguing and fascinating and something I’ve studied intently for many years now and I feel that I have learned a lot.

This is just a show from you & I see right through it.

I’m not the one employing the theatrics and swollen lingo and I’m not messaging a bunch of people to have an audience. I’m not trying to put on a show; I’m trying to decipher yours.

Just like many crowed doom & gloom for the 3DS & then changed their tune as the library built up, the same will happen for the Wii U.

The Wii U won’t experience a 3DS turn. And even if it did; the 3DS is not in the position you seem to think it is; it is very heavily down from the DS despite Sony bringing no contest this time around and is set to peak at PS3 level yearly sales when all is said and done. And all this is with developer support the Wii U can only dream of.

Very predictable. People are fickle. That's a truth about humanity. Very few stick by their words indefinitely.

Sticking by your word indefinitely is silly, I hope you understand that. Where would science, society and the human race be if this were the case?

I know this console is capable of greatness & it will example that throughout this generation.
One by one the naysayers will relent & they will begin to appreciate what Nintendo is doing with Wii U.
Just a matter of time.”

Needless to say; I strongly disagree. What they’re doing with the Wii U is setting themselves up for another premature launch for the 9^th generation.

“Mummelmann:
* He goes on a long rant on why he didn't post here for a few years, constructing a saintly persona from a low-ish background that has defeated the odds all the while deflecting how someone doesn't have any time at all to write a single word on a forum they used to love despite working mostly on the internet. Basically, he's making himself a Nintendo personified, or Jesus if you will.

Me:
Since you seemed to have trouble believing that people get busy & don't have time to post on a VGChartz forum (as if that's the most important thing to do in life) I detailed the entire history not necessarily for you but for all of those who may have wondered why I drifted off from the site.

It was needlessly elaborate and strangely personal, the fact that you felt like sharing this on an internet forum seems strange to me and this ties into my perception of you as someone who really craves attention.

It was also for the readers to get a sense of who I am, where I come from, & how this shapes my views.

“For the readers” almost makes it sound like you’re a journalist or professional analyst of some sort, this is yet more grounds for me to believe that you’re doing all this out of a desire for some sort of stardom; you’re not here to debate and make sense, you’re here to gain fans and get praise. I also love getting praise but nearly on this level.

Definitely shows you that I was not running away from the VGChartz forum.

For me, distractions like vgchartz are what get me through tough times and stress, just like video games and writing and socializing. I still find it strange that you found no time at all to visit and write on your favorite forum, especially the timing of it all. However; whatever.

It was cathartic to get that out anyway. Been on my chest for awhile.

If it was earnest and truly made you feel better, good for you.

Keep on making the silly caricatures, Mummelmann. Perhaps you're not able to deal with realities of a situation & prefer to take comfort in abstractions.”

I have become a terrific dealer with situations (I assume hardship and trying times is what you’re getting at here) through my own childhood, adolescence and even adulthood and have gone through more feces than most. I don’t think it’s very interesting for others on a gaming forum though, so I won’t elaborate further. Unless, that is, you’d like me to over PM or something.

Constructing a caricature was wrong, there are ways of pointing out flaws without resorting to painting someone a clown. I can debate perfectly well on a civil level and will do so from now on, my view on your arguments being ridiculous and your lack of insight have not and will not change, however, but that’s doesn’t mean I need to cover the posts in blood red dye, so I won’t.

“Mummelmann:
* He believes that Nintendo are the ones who set the standard in the industry, but he also says that everyone else refuses to follow this standard, inevitably making it not a standard by the very definition of the word (this is just one contradiction but among the worst of the bunch).

Me:
Yep, Nintendo's always the standard maker. Sega did its BEST when it was trying to match Nintendo or beat Nintendo at its own game.
That's why Sonic was so good. That's why Sonic Colors was so good. That's why Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games is Sega's best-selling game ever.
Those who refuse to follow that standard lose billions, layoff staff, & go bankrupt.

That’s just not true, failure to follow in Nintendo’s footsteps is not the cause of recent industry trouble; massive changes through branching, convergence, hardware and developer transitions and a looming financial crisis is. A lot of developers are to blame for their own demise but these are simply overreaching on their production ambition rather than being murdered by smothering overall development costs. There are measures to be taken, many didn’t take them and these measures do not revolve around Nintendo; I’ve already covered the 3^rd parties in several other posts, no need to bloat this thing further.

How many times do i have to tell you that Nintendo designed this business out of the ashes of the Crash?

They designed their platform and philosophy, the industry at large is very much a separate entity today, you’re even making it a point yourself how different most of it is from Nintendo and how they need to come into their philosophy, but they’re all pretty much opting for “Nontendo” (hilarious, I know).

Yeah you may make the mistake of seeing 2 out of 3 console platform makers do things a certain way & see that as the standard.

If the vast majority of a market does things a certain way; this is the standard, that’s what the entire term entails.

Quantity & Quality are two different things. It only takes one to set the standard.

There are a lot of standards that had and has nothing to do with Nintendo, most of them even.

Everything Nintendo does eventually gets co-opted by their competition.

This is simply not true and Nintendo themselves have leaned rather heavily on other standards and taken cues from other markets and manufacturers and developers lately; the recent obsession with touch interfaces, their online whose mold MS more or less created by themselves and the increased focus on online gaming, the integration and focus on social networks, the slow and gradual move towards a more realistic looking Zelda franchise, the embrace of digital distribution, the focus on streaming services and a better internet browser, trying to secure a very PS3/360-esque 2^nd party title in Bayonetta 2, multi-purpose hardware (TV remote) inspired by smartphone and tablet solutions and possibly features like Bravia integration, and many more.

 
They may go wayward for awhile but in the end they follow the leader.

Like I’ve already established several times; no.

That's why Sony changed their Walkman for 21st Century approach for the PSP into Long Live Game with Kevin Butler.

This shift in focus was in the most part due to their increased focus on rekindling their phone division after the ugly break-up with Ericsson, modern phones has and had a very people and philosophy oriented marketing structure and it made sense to apply this ploy to a dedicated handheld console. They also slowly implemented this into the PS3 marketing to decent effect, especially among the more hardcore fan base.

That's why you got Kudo Tsunoda out there getting that little girl giggling at Skittles at the E3 2010 Kinectimals display (Nintendogs?).

This was merely and embarrassing footnote in the MS and Xbox saga, this was never any standard of any kind; Kinect remained and remains an extremely obscure device in traditional gaming and there is little to indicate that Kinect 2.0 will do much to alleviate the situation. Making Kinect mandatory was a huge mistake, an attempt at market convergence that will inevitably fail and I believe that Kinect will be an option on future One SKU’s. Gaming on Xbox consoles is very much the same as it has always been and Kinect is not the standard, not even close.

The PS4 isn't pushing a new media format like every single PlayStation before it & they're half-and-half on whether to promote graphics or not.

It isn’t pushing a new format because that would be ridiculous at this point; digital and streaming is taking over more and more marketshare, Blu-ray is still highly relevant, making a lot of money and netting Sony vital influence and is certainly sufficient and there was no HD transition this time around to warrant a fresh format. Besides; you berate Sony and MS for spending too much money on hardware and now you’re saying that they are somehow being backwards for not wasting billions on developing new formats and causing a massive rise in hardware cost on top? This just doesn’t make any sense. There is no need for a new format.

"The time when horsepower alone made an important difference is over??"
We got Microsoft making Kinect mandatory for the XBox One much like Nintendo made the Wiimote mandatory for the Wii.

Except no, Kinect is/was not the primary gaming device on the One, that is still very much a traditional controller. In fact; Kinect isn’t really much of a gaming device at all, it is an interface addition currently sharing a lot more similarity with the likes of “Siri” in its current application than the Wii-mote. And, like I said; Kinect integration is a huge mistake in my opinion, so it is hardly proof for Nintendo like behavior and focus being particularly clever even if you were somehow right.

Kinect Sports to answer Wii Sports. PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale to answer Super Smash Bros.

Like I’ve mentioned before; there are a handful of games that are shameless rip-off’s but overall, the entire gaming industry is very far removed from Nintendo standards, once again I feel like pointing out that this is actually one of your main arguments and you’re setting yourself up for a fairly heavy contradiction here.

The examples are too numerous to list. I'll be here all day. The controllers they use are another example.

Controllers are no doubt heavily influenced by Nintendo, which makes perfect sense since they’re the only remaining console manufacturer from the 80’s assembly and they drove the development of controllers a great deal. Shoulder buttons, analog stick, rumble and button configuration. I used to think that either Sony or Nintendo were first to implement a memory card on consoles too but it turns out that that was SNK on the Neo Geo way back in 1990 or 1991. Ironically, Sony and MS are actually following the older Nintendo standard for controllers more than Nintendo themselves. I do find it odd that Nintendo pushed for motion gaming in the 7^th gen and then jumped back into a semi-analogue stick controller in the 8^th, kind of bipolar design choice in my opinion.

Nintendo's imprint all over that & so much more.”

Sure, they have had influence, denying that is beneath me, it cannot be argued. To what extent is highly questionable though; there really isn’t all that much taking a cue from Nintendo overall in the industry today and this is clear as crystal when we see Nintendo being forced onto the ice by competing in areas where they have no pedigree and very few allies but have become central and integral parts of the industry and gaming, some of them I have mentioned farther up.

They will have to change their traditions a great deal to stay relevant and they need to accept that they are not in a position to make demands of the market, they simply must read, interpret and adhere to the demands of the market lest they fall behind.

“Mummelmann:
* He still has no explanation for how developers will save money  making games for a HD console (with a similar CPU structure to the 360 and PS3) and seems to believe that lower power consumption in chipsets means that the price of developing textures and other visual bits for them is lower. Yeah.

Me:
It's HOW things are done, Mummelmann.

I know, I make that exact point in my post(s) on 3^rd parties directed at impertinence. There are many options and measures for developers to take; Nintendo is not the solution and the only way out of a bind. They don’t even have to be a factor at all in these measures.

The only thing Nintendo's losing is time. They underestimated the time of development which is costing them in the short term. But as the games come out it corrects itself.

This kind of ties into my point in an earlier part of the post about Nintendo not focusing on tech and only adopting it after it has caught on. The others already had a set structure and routine for HD development, Nintendo did not.  You see Nintendo as the smartest in no small part due to their conservative nature and hesitation to jump into technology, yet shouldn’t we also praise those willing to move forward and take the risk on behalf of the industry? Pioneering the techland wilderness and opening a path for all to thread? Where would formats, hardware, integration, alternatives to retail and programming be today without the likes of Valve, Sony, Intel, AMD, Philips and others?

I think Nintendo are missing out on the opportunity to make their already great games even greater; as I’ve mentioned, there are very few people indeed who disagree that HD quality images and a high and stable frame rate does not become them. There is room for remaining unique, I hope they never start behaving like Activison but I do hope that they will take some chances, tread some new land, push their creative capacity and strive for even more immersive experiences and I hope that they (and you) one day recognize that technology can help you along the way without removing your unique flair and touch. Kind of like in my post to zod95 where I talk about how tech actually drove gaming experience in total in the 90’s and early 2000’s on the PC and some consoles.

Like when Nintendo made their first 3D Mario, imagine if they discovered and unleashed something of that magnitude again, not to mention several times? They need to learn how to compromise and they need to stop being so timid and reliant on ancient tradition and hinging their entire relevance upon a handful of franchises. I want a new and even better Nintendo but they want to remain the same, at all costs, it seems.

Wii U won't break developer's bank to produce for it.

It’s on par with or somewhat above the PS3/360 in development cost, so as you can see, the danger to the industry was never as massive as you claimed.  And this fabled “leap” in production cost for the 8^th gen is a myth, nothing more. The difference is marginal and easily overcome.

Mummelmann forgets about all the free middleware tools Nintendo offers including Unity.

And you seem to forget that you had this fire and brimstone on the subject of middleware only a couple of weeks ago; “Enough of this repetitive middleware garbage. That's why many of today's games are so samey samey all the time.
Production-wise, presentation-wise, subject-wise. All cut from the same cloth.”

Besides, this is also available on PS3, 360, iOS, Android, Browsers, OS X, Flash and Win Phone 8. For free, of course. And it is coming to PS4 and One as well. So, no I didn’t forget about it, I firstly didn’t think it was a big deal seeing as how everyone else in the world has the same offers and secondly; I made it a huge point in my posts on 3^rd parties that Middleware was a great cost reducing agent, time saver and tool for scaling to hardware specs.

The way they design their console & the way they implement game production on those machines will make it a more affordable choice.

There really is no difference in the raw output cost, the difference lies in the willingness to forego production value (i.e; scaling budgets like I’ve said) to reduce cost. The lowered wattage of chipsets has one purpose; decreased levels of heat generation. Lower wattage = less heat generated = less cooling required, saving yet more power on fans and sinks = more effective hardware setup in terms of room and logistics, with the added bonus of securing a longer life since chipsets that heat up more also die more quickly. Convenience, not a measure to reduce your power bill or anything to influence development cost. Nintendo waiting to adopt HD until components were cheaper has no effect on development cost either, and they still managed to sell at a loss from the start anyway. This is technical stuff, which once again has proven to go over your head.

Oh here's word from a major publisher/developer. Some company out of France, you might have heard of them.
I think they make those wascally wabbit games starring Raymond.
Developing for the Wii U has been surprisingly inexpensive for Ubisoft
Excerpt:

You'd think becoming the leading third party publisher for Nintendo's Wii U console would be expensive, but according to Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot, the company has not invested much money in R&D for it.

Speaking to investors, Guillemot revealed just how cheap - relatively - it is to develop new games for the console. Console ports are even less, he added.

"Out of seven games we are planning to launch, five games are ports, so those are games for which there is quite small reinvestments to do," Guillemot told investors (via NeoGAF).

Guillemot did note that the two original Wii U titles, ZombiU and Rayman Legends, are the most expensive to develop, but that the investment is still significantly less than that of some of their other multiplatform franchises, like Assassin's Creed - which also happens to be one of the titles being ported to the Wii U.

Rather than big production value, Guillemot shared Ubisoft's strategy for innovation with the Wii U.

"Because as we've always said when there is such an innovation the need is not to have big production value but to concentrate on the innovation. This is what we are trying on Rayman and ZombiU."

"For the other five games, you are talking about small budget, I'd say of less than a million euro to make some of the ports, I'd estimate," he concluded. "So together I don't think we have a huge investment on the Wii U."

...Anything else you would like to add, Mummelmann?”

Yes, quite a bit, actually. Thanks for asking!

“cheap – relatively” is one key here, this has a lot to do with the surprising fact that development costs between the 7^th and 8^th gen were/are truly miniscule compared to the 6^th and 7^th gen. The switch to the HD paradigm and age was costly, no doubt, but not only has this cost settled; with experience and development tools having been made and implemented for over 8-9 years, the HD development process has become quicker, more streamlined and less costly relative to the hardware output and over time.

The Wii U is currently enjoying the 7^th/8^th gen transition, it has ports coming in, directly from the PowerPC environment of the PS3/360, porting is simple and cheap because it is more or less completely translated and compatible with the hardware. As this period ends and development focus shifts more heavily towards the PS4/One/PC, the x86 coding focus will become apparent and, subsequently, the Wii U’s PowerPC die will cause trouble for Nintendo and developers of multiplatform titles. This is the same reason that the PS4 and One aren’t backwards compatible; entirely different chipset structure, the CPU die is of another kind. I’ve already covered this in my biggest rebuttal though. The Wii U also suffers from “tiny hard drive syndrome” or THDS; this is a real issue with digital distribution being a big factor that will only keep on getting bigger. Not only will programmers need to re-fit the code to PowerPC die, they will also need to spend time and money compressing the data compilation to fit that one platform’s lacking specs or forego digital versions entirely, even the mandatory installs that have followed us from the 7^th gen will cause trouble after a very short time with such a small amount of built-in storage. One could argue that “you can buy additional storage yourself” but that’s hardly fair, the Wii U simply lacks fundamental capacity out of the box that will hamper Nintendo’s support even more. Their “well-planned design” is starting to look highly improvised, cumbersome and short-lived.

Zombi U and Rayman Legends were less expensive than Assassin’s Creed, a franchise that focuses very heavily on production value? No way!

The ports were cheap and easy due the enormous convenience of stemming from the PS3/360 hardware era, this is not a luxury any developer (including the Nintendo fans champion; Ubisoft) will have during cross multiplatform work on PS4/One/Wii U/PC and thus it is irrelevant in the long term.

The Wii U’s hardware does not offer a cost incentive; it poses considerable hindrance in multiplatform development and also sports a main control scheme that is hard to justify for most mainstream gaming, with the additional hassle of the coding, limited storage and lacking distribution channels it’s a tough sell to have developers also come up with a worthwhile and intuitive use for the ill-conceived Gamepad, it has a huge chance of ending up as either a bypassed cucumber (99% water) of a controller or a tired gimmick.

“Rather than big production value, Guillemot shared Ubisoft's strategy for innovation with the Wii U.”

Again, this plays into my point of ambition vs cost for 3^rd parties and the scaling of budgets accomplished by taking various measures. The Wii U doesn’t have an advantage anywhere here. It’s a re-run of the Wii; they have purposefully made it different and will have to face the consequences. To make matters worse; Nintendo platforms have proven to be terrific at selling Nintendo software but not very good at selling most other software. The lack of incentive is staggering from where I’m sitting.

Sony screwed developers by developing and implementing the ridiculous Cell processor and attempted to screw consumers by launching at an insane price: consequences were suffered, loss of marketshare, massive loss on R&D and hardware and loss of exclusive support to MS.

MS attempted to screw consumers with crazy DRM and made a console with horrible hardware failure rates: consequences were greatly reduced consumer trust, bad press and a terrible monetary loss on warranties.

Nintendo chose, once again, to design and release a console that forces the developers to deal with a divide in the industry and refuses to compromise time and time again: consequences are lack of support.

Why is it so unfair that Nintendo suffer the consequences of their own, often poor choices? Their developer relations are a result of their own political play over a very long period of time.

PS on Guillemot's overall stance on the Wii U and the costs and profits of their games;

http://www.destructoid.com/zombiu-257720.phtml

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-07-08-does-nintendo-stand-a-chance-this-holiday

 
"Yves Guillemot, Chairman and CEO of Ubisoft, is typically one of the biggest proponents of new systems, but betting big on the Wii U didn't work out well for the company. ZombiU, one of the most popular launch titles for the system with players, was not profitable, he says. Not even close. As such, he says, there are no plans (or even desire) for a sequel."

Ouchie, John Lucas, ouchie.

“Mummelmann:
* He has forgotten that the Gamecube and N64 was pretty much irrelevant and maintains that Nintendo has carried the industry since they started and to this day.

Me:
So irrelevant that their game & console design has shaped the other competitors immeasurably.

Like I’ve argued, and you yourself have pointed out several times, in this very thread at that; the vast majority of game design is very far removed from Nintendo today. Or are you saying that Nintendo’s influence has caused gaming to enter this decrepit state? As for console design in general; no, other consoles are doing their thing and Nintendo are doing their thing. Again, you have yourself talked about how unique Nintendo hardware is. It’s not apples and oranges, it’s apples and whiskey.

The analog stick, rumble, & 3D-space gaming, console-born FPS, popularizing 4-controllers per console, Wavebird's wirelessness.

Wavebird; yep, innovative, influental and ever so slightly revolutionary. 4 controllers per console; I’ll give them that but this is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things since local multiplayer is slowly dying and being replaced by online multiplayer (sadly, because I love local multiplayer).  3D-space gaming was a lot more revolutionized by the likes of Monster Maze and Alone in the Dark, 3D space gaming with actual good controls, however, that’s surely much to Nintendo’s credit. Wolfenstein on SNES and later Goldeneye on N64 were no doubt instrumental in the FPS becoming even a factor on consoles. Ironically, FPS games are no longer a factor on Nintendo consoles though. Analog stick and rumble; yeah, like I mentioned earlier, impossible to deny. And I am thankful for every single one of these things, despite what you may think.  

I mean there's a mobile game called Oceanhorn right now which is pretty much Zelda: Wind Waker from the Gamecube.

Almost all mobile games are a copy of something; there are hundreds of games inspired by games and concepts that have nothing to do with Zelda or other Nintendo games and even some original concepts.

Reality is reality. Deal with it. Accept it. Nintendo shapes the industry. Nintendo's the root of the industry.

The reality is that Nintendo is not the major source of influence they used to be, they have become less and less relevant and the industry as whole has moved further and further away from them, again; a point you make yourself.

I don’t have to deal with it since it’s not detrimental to my life, any of this; it’s a debate on an internet forum.

I accept the parts that Nintendo fathered or evolved, I’m a gamer. There is no reason for me not to accept it.

Atari, Magnavox, Fairchild and others are the root of the industry. Nintendo is a part of the trunk though, no doubt, but the tree has grown, the trunk is under heavy strain and the branches are reaching ever upwards and outwards, drinking most of the sustenance the root and trunk used to savor in majesty. New times, old wood. Tradition can be their undoing or it can become the bedrock on which to develop and evolve a new and even more exciting Nintendo. I really, really, honestly do hope so.

Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. And it will set you free.

And you are the conveyor, facilitator of and direct source to the truth? You’re privy to a part of it, sure, like most everyone else, but for all your entertainment value for some and your ability to fill a post with a massive amount of words, you are very far from seeing the whole picture; you’re mostly conjuring an image of a canvas splotched with the colors and shapes you would most like to see and imposing it as inescapable future reality. (I am once again musing over Adam Savage’s famous quote).

This guy goes on & on with nonsense so I'm gonna just cut it off right here & deal with his full rebuttal in the new year.

Looking forward to it, I’m hoping you can adjust the scope and format somewhat, these giant mounds of words are becoming tiring, there is a proper debate to be had but we’re wasting an awful lot of time on filler here. This post was decently arranged though, certainly miles ahead of the Great Wall of John Lucas Reminiscing and Deftly Dodging from last time. If we keep it this way, it might even be somewhat productive for all parties involved.

One more thing...

On January 27, 2013, on my wall is a post from Mummelmann himself saying the following.

You should have a comeback, the forums miss you. I might not have agreed with a lot of things you said but thoroughly enjoyed your long and articulate posts, those kind of things are few and far inbetween in here now, we had some good times in '08 and '09. Come back, man!

All I can say to that is be careful what you wish for.
I'M BACK.

Welcome back, don’t go anywhere this time, see it through.

Happy New Year everybody!
John Lucas”

Happy new year.

So much irony in this post. 

Because ps1/2 didn't have shovelware. And blind support, you wouldn't know anything about that obviously. 

Using the frequency as to how long someone plays games is a stupid idea for a stupid terminology.

Shit even Im buying wiifitU and I've never even owned the past games. AS are many several of my gaming friends.

People are people.

Thats some impressive Circle Jerk in here Mummelman but I just need to say.

The standards nintendo set allow for a much healthier, much more long term minded process of steady growth for the industry.

The problems in this industry started when PC like sensibilities and incongruencey in design decided to start messing with the console in Gen 6.

Several industry problems started in the 6th gen and the 7th gen only grew and exacerbated these problems

I mean heck several of Nintendo's own franchises grew more with the 3DS than with the DS despite its numbers and the roads into new audiences that device made

Step 1?

Since August Wii U has gotten Pikmin 3, Super Luigi U, Wonderful 101, Sonic Lost World, Wii Party U, Mario & Sonic Olympics, Mario 3D World, Disney Infinity, Splinter Cell, Rayman Legends, Batman Arkham Origins, Assassins Creed 4, Call of Duty Ghosts, Just Dance 2014, Skylanders Swap Force, a price cut, improved advertising and new bundles.

But yes ur right Wii Fit U is step 1 to recovery

That isn't how you determine each label. It's how invested in gaming a person is.

If you want a terminology for people who play and buy a lot of games then sure but that demographic has no unified sense so it cant really apply to how something will sell.

I wonder what JL's opinion is on 5.5m for WiiU, that's 6.5m off his prediction.