short term profits are only really achievable from very cheap shares where a minor change goes up by like 20%+  

Hence why you see people trading all these very cheap shares all the time. However they are high risk.

Shares that take 2-3 years to go u in value are really not that short term to me lol. 

Also peopel shouldn't rely on dividends as most companies pay fuck all anyway compared to your investment per share.

Actual statistics seem more convincing than fanboi opinion:

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Watch%20Dogs%2C%20Super%20Smash%20Bros%20U%2C%20Mario%20Kart%208&cmpt=q

Dont worry after a Nintendo Direct everyone will nintendo nuts again

Are you suggesting the media bias was not there during the Wii/DS era? I mean you are old enough and not just another teenage expert on the forums.

OT: I loved this part, "However, if you report that we will release Mario on smart devices, it would be a completely misleading statement"

The media can't stop fantasizing about that. 

Would be better to release a pokemon game with collectible toys on smartphones and tablets. Instant multihundred thousand userbase. Instantly available in almost every home.

Abandoned the hardcore and core long ago and now are crying why the gaming world views them negatively.

Their failures are real so they are reported as such. Their is no bias. You do a shiity job you get shit. Ms with red ring sony with nuts 600 price now its their turn.

Playing the poor victim will not solve their problems. It will only compound them. They are to oblivious the the reality of their situation. Have none to blame then them selfs.

If anything, all the 9s and 10s Nintendo gets for lazy rehashes like 3D World and Zelda ALBW, as well as all the general apologist and damage control articles they get for being a gen behind on absolutely everything proves there's a media bias FOR Nintendo.

Were Sony or Microsoft even half this backwards and lazy... HO, you better believe they would be absolutely crucified.

Nintendo and/or their fanboys seem to think that just because some game was succesful in the past means it has inherent value. That's just absurd.

What defines success is just as much the context and environment at the time, just as much as the product itself. Super Mario or Pokemon are just not ahistorically inherently valuable. Pokemon was a phenomenon in a certain time period. To expect that it always will have superior value is a joke. The prime market for Pokemon has since grown up, and children now of that age group have no real investment in the Pokemon phenomenon. Further, expecting that one franchise will bring about significant change in the platform's prospects is absurd. Wii U having NFC just isn't a DIFFERENCE vs. the multiuse devices already present in THOUSANDS of times more consumers' hands.

That said, it seems like Nintendo has identified a few 'low hanging fruit' that they can reasonably spin into some profit with little risk, even if it doesn't change the prospects for Wii U as a whole. And Nintendo management, unlike fanbois, seems realistic about that prospect, that's why they are not emphasizing Wii U but their undefined plans to go into totally new realms outside the current console business model.

Those actual statistics don't represent real world and no about your accusation.

I'm open to actual evidence that is more representational...

Would you really say that is unrepresentational if Nintendo games were ahead by that metric?