How are the bolded assumptions? The only thing I agree with you on is the non-bolded quote from me. That was incorrect and I'll clearly admit to it, you were right.

Also, I said "what?" because of how profoundly ridiculous that statement it. The PS3 was clearly sold at a higher price, and I never said the 360 was sold at a higher price. I said it was sold at the same price, for some of the bundles/options.

I bought a Wii U last night.
I will buy Rayman Legends and 3DWorld this monday. Tekken Tag 2 if I can find it (hard to find in Argentina).
Later this year I will import the Wonderful 101 (impossible to find here). I will also get Kart, Smash and Tropical Freeze.
I will wait for reviews of X before getting it.

I missed the Wii generation, so I will suffer no drought, this backwards compatibility for me is like getting 2 generations for the price of one.

As you can see in my whole sentence I didn't talk about 3rd parties, only Nintendo.

You are asking which ones? E-V-E-R-Y-G-A-M-E. You may tell the PC flash games are even more primitive but for me it would be choosing the lesser of two "evils", except that one doesn't have the pretension of costing money. The market has clearly defined the rules: cutting-edge games cost money, arcade/retro games are like youtube videos (they cost some seconds of advertisements). But Nintendo still thinks it can produce arcade offers and charge like they were cutting-edge (even worse than this since they don't drop the price). So you have in one side cutting-edge games for 70€ (less than 20€ if you wait) and arcade/retro games for 0€...and somewhere in the "middle" Nintendo games for 50€.

I think it's normal one shows contempt for such disgusting measures Nintendo has taken in the 3rd generation. Don't you think? Or do you think we as gamers should be proud of that?

It's no crime to heavily spend on marketing and the article doesn't put it that way either. It only says that unparalleled investments in advertising played an important role for the NES to dominate the 3rd generation. I know it's more comfortable to think it was all Nintendo's talent making games that produced such results...but in fact it wasn't. Am I being a hater for pointing the truth? I guess anyone who criticizes Nintendo is a hater.

"did it ever cross your mind that all future console manufacturers are using this model too?" - True, but I just find it funny that the only real gaming company still producing consoles was the pioneer in a measure against gaming developers. And because of that Nintendo consoles could be much cheaper (once profits would be made on the games) forcing competitors to engage into the same strategy, otherwise they wouldn't conquer significant userbases once more. That's basically the difference: one company had a greedy idea, the others were forced to do the same. I don't know why is this so hard to admit. It's not that someone is making up all of this. This was what really happened.

"Another complaint are product shortages due to high demand; I guess right now Sony is also creating artificial shortages for the PS4, huh?" - Even if that was true, does it make it more excusable? Nintendo acted wrong, they were greedy and hostile towards the gaming industry. They didn't want the other gaming devs to compete in the same conditions as they did. They were competent but at the same time they were afraid of the competence of 3rd parties. They didn't play it fair at all.

Now let's see if PS4's case is similar: do you honestly think that shortages in a console is the same as shortages in games? Do you think it has the same implications? Do you think that a consumer that has already made an investment in a console (NES) and faces game shortages has the same "freedom" as another one that faces console shortages (PS4) and that can simply choose a different console (XOne, which btw is very similar)? Companies have nothing to gain from console shortages. Sony was in a rush to produce as many PS4s as possible. It's about a new piece of hardware (it takes some time to build) and a new technology (manufacturing processes are yet to be optimized). On the other hand, publishing games is like printing money. You can produce millions within hours.

"Numbers that are far below the defect rates that are deemed as acceptable nowadays." - The issue here is not the rate but the policy. You can steal 1€ or 1M€...in both cases you are stealing, and that is censurable.

"that's why the value of video games doesn't erode at the same rate as other computer technology" - I agree, the rate is not the same. But there still is a rate, right? The article says that Nintendo didn't follow that rate. They would rather make less profit than decrease their profitability. Let me give you an example: imagine that a console maker had the chance to A - sell a console + 10 games for 1000€ and make a 750€ profit - or B - sell a console + 30 games for 1100€ and make a 800€ profit. I would bet Nintendo would choose A and Sony would choose B. Nintendo wants gamers to have a high value perception on their products, that's their long-term speculation strategy. The last thing they want is gamers to see Nintendo games like PC flash games (their business would be ruined if that happened).

"The one thing that is certain though is that anyone who uses it as proof for Nintendo's despicable business practices makes themselves look like an idiot." - Thank you for your kind words. But I think I will continue to see facts rather than opinions / mirages / speculations, no matter how idiotic that might seem to you.

You don't think so and you're entitled to you own opinion but don't think consumers have all the same behaviour. For example, I never sell a game and I rarely buy a used one. For me, DRM would be no big deal. But region lock would, definitely. And I believe people that bought 2 3DS consoles share my view. Still, it's impossible to tell which measure is worst. Both attempt to squeeze gamers in different ways, so it really comes down to consumer's behaviour.

Regarding Valve, I didn't know that. And you know what? I guess most Steam users never will. As far as I know, Valve has always played it fair, unlike Nintendo.

I don't hate Nintendo, I just criticize some of their actions and also when gamers insistently refuse to see them. Ultimately, hipocrisy is what I hate the most.

You don't see me making fun of any Nintendo console either. Please stop with the lies.

You're trying to help out a company with some billions in cash that doesn't need help at all (at least financially).

In the first one you're assuming it was because of many different problems when it may have very well been their attitude. In the 2nd you're assuming all companies think the total profit can't be higher if a product that is already selling well drops the price to sell even more. In the 4th you're assuming laws can't be avoided or even adjusted (when there is too much power/influence). In the 5th you're assuming the gaming community can act as a whole when in fact each consumer only thinks about him/herself.

I'm being as demanding with your sentences as you were with mine. Ultimately, all statments are assumptions and all facts are opinions. We can't be sure about anything, like some philosophers say ("I only know I know nothing").

I start to think that you dare to compare the price of the PS3 in 2006 with the price of Wii U right now, which would be ridiculous and I still want to believe that it's not it and that you have another logic behind that I haven't understood yet.

The only thing I'm sure is that there is no moment in History in which the WiiU was cheaper than the PS3. If you know about any date where you saw in some store a WiiU for a lower price than PS3, please tell me.

My comments are rational and supported by a solid logic. You may disagree with it but if you aren't able to see it (or at least you say you aren't) maybe it's because you consider your perspective to be the only valid one. I feel sorry for people like you that feel superior to others. But I guess I can't do anything about it. I can't force you to respect others.

You think that I'm a joke account, the article that only talks about facts is a parody and anyone who criticizes Nintendo is a hater. Well, good luck in this path you're walking in.

Today I have learned that Nintendo is the greediest company in the videogame industry.

Yes, Microsoft with games like Forza5 that cost their usual 60$, have a 50$ season pass and try to trick you into buying microtransactions on top of that are saints compared to the despicable Nintendo .

Down with Nintendo.

Now, If you´ll excuse me, I have to buy an XBox one, the entirety of the microtransaction loaden firstparty stuff and every single online and season pass for every Sony title.

Sometimes, you gotta do the right thing !

oh, and always online DRM / a check in every 3 minutes (original target) / 24 hours AND region locking your console is significantly better on the moral scale than simply region locking your console because there are so many games out in other regions that I would like to buy for my WiiU

I wouldn't say Nintendo is the greediest company in this industry. There are others that would even sell their souls for some more money. However, I would say that among the greediest they are the biggest one (the one that sells more, makes more revenues and profits). Therefore, I would say Nintendo is the gaming company that collects more dirty money (although they are not the dirtiest company).

Microsoft, with all the DLCs and micro-transactions that may exist in Forza 5, are still not so aggressive towards gamers. They offer you a next-gen title (Forza 5) for 56€ and you only buy extras if you want. For example, I never bought a DLC in my whole life. They also offer you a 7th gen title (Forza 4) for 22€. On the other hand, Nintendo doesn't offer you any 8th gen game. They decided to build a 7th gen console just a bit more powerful than PS3 and X360 (dispite all the billions they made from you with the Wii). And they offer you a 7th gen title (Mario 3D World) for 51€ and a 6th gen title (Mario Galaxy 2) for 36€.

You're mistaken, XOne is not region locked: http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/16/xbox-one-games-are-not-region-locked-microsoft-clarifies-import-stance/

Regarding the DRM, I think I don't need to add anything on top of what I've said already.

And fyi region locked is not just about games that you won't find in your region, it's also about paying more for what consumers in other regions pay less or having to wait for 1 year for a game that isn't in your country yet. With region lock you depend on the goodwill of the console maker and devs. If you are from a tiny little country they can do to you whatever they want. They can offer you only a list of 10 games for platform that has hundreds of titles launched among the world if they see fit. They can offer you each of those 10 games for 200€ (while they cost 50€ in the other regions) if they want to. Region lock means that you're in their hands and no matter what atrocities they do to you, you may not have the support of millions of fellows if they only do that with your tiny little country. There is a military maxim that says "divide and conquer". I find it sad that Nintendo is at war with gamers.

Please tell me that this is a joke post... right???