My question is general and to go to the root of the problem: Nintendo is not used to negotiate. See what they did in the 80s. They need a dominant position so they can "negotiate" properly.

There are several PC standards. You have PCs for 300€ and for 3000€. The standard here doesn't have to do with low or high level but with type of architecture. 200$-300$? Put inflation on that: http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267

N64? You've just picked one of the cheapest consoles of all time. You call it the standard? The standard is around 400$. PS4 and even XOne are not expensive.

You seem to don't understand what a port to another console requires. You think it's just control reconfiguration. It's much more than that. Otherwise, GTA V woud have been already on WiiU along with many other X360/PS3 games that have been skipping the WiiU.

So, in your opinion, the norm is about risky concepts seen on the indie market but created as core franchises...what?

If Sony's audience is close-minded, how could a game like Flower be so much appreciated?

Cartoonish graphics are not less worthy than realistic graphics. You pulled that out of context. Read the 2nd reply of this post (http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6108102) to understand that I don't necessarily consider realism a greater thing.

OK, I'm getting tired of this.  You wrote this "article" about history yet you know very little of the actual details.  It's like you pulled together a bunch of fanboy rants and tried to pass them off as a researched and coherent topic.

"Nintendo is not used to negotiate"?  Thsi is your factual truths?  How about the factual truth that Sony's contract would have granted them full licensing and branding control therefore reducing Nintendo to largely a 1st party role within Sony?   Do you know this at all?  If not, and I suspect you didn't, you're revisionist history needs to end here.

What you call truth is actually nothing more than hedged passive aggression. 

Your statements are tinged with a tone that alludes to your personal feelings.  Even if you don't say something overtly, you mean it with your tone. 

Your "quotes around words" are nothing more than a mask to hide behind.  So you claim something doesn't really mean something and you're just using the terms allegorically but it's purely a ruse to allay bias. 

Your article is non-factual, filled with bias and opinion, laced with passive aggresive attacks and as the executive editor of a video game network, I'd damn near fire you if you tried to pass that across my desk.  Start again, remove your personal feelings, do some real research (you know, call, email, contact actual people from back then), look at both sides, write from the view of the reader and then try to publish.  

I'll give you credit for be able to write with proper grammar and syntax.  You're educated.   But your biased, misinformed/confused, and seem to have an agenda that you put above the integrity of truth.   And that is where you have failed. 

1. That the whole point...hes using that example to point out your double standards and it seems to me that you just admitted it >.>

2. Eye of Judgement: TCG + Camera
LBP: Generic 2D platformer with custom levels
Flower: Technically not a Sony game but i'll give you that one
Twisted Metal: Car Combat with dark shell
Eyepet: Nintendogs with camera
Singstar: Karaoke
Heavy Rain: Fahrenheit aka Indigo Prophecy (published by Atari and available on PS2/XBox)
Getaway: Never heard of it but it sounds like GTA to me
Destruction Derby: you mean this destruction derby? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_Derby
Not even close to being sony's game
Motorstorm: Just a racing game
Killzone: Halo killer

4. Graphic Leaps are natural progression so naturally they don't count as innovation.

Also, Eyetoy wasn't really a risk, if it flopped it wouldn't really hurt Sony too much. It was too peripheral to matter. 

BluRay was self support. They used a format that they made to make more money...

PSPGo was a terrible decision..If you classify terrible decisions as "risks" then I'll give you that

So if Eye of Judgement was a risk...what about the pokemon trading card game?

Seriously, if you classify those things as "risks", then I don't see how you could ignore that motion control was a risk, 3D was a risk, gamepad controller was a risk, First Person Metroid was a risk, etc....

5. As I've said before...if AAA games were making tons of money, devs wouldn't be leaving left and right. You don't walk away from something that works but the AAA gaming environment doesn't work

EDIT: @"That's right. I acknowledge little merit on that. And it's easy to understand why: such games require little time, money and other resources but talent, they don't even require to go out of the 4 walls of the studios. For me, that's the easy route."

110% your opinion...I would argue that it is just as difficult to create a game with a unique art style than it is to just make a cardboard cut out of real life. One of them actually takes talent and creativity, the other is just looking outside and saying "I'm doing that!"

Also, as I've said 100x, Nintendo games frequently have longer dev times than the industry standard for photorealistic games...what does that say about the time/money/effort that goes into Nintendo games? 

EDIT: @Your quote on pokemon below: You are clearly implying that a more complicated game is a better game. i have already fully argued your point on pokemon but this is ridiculous. Making pokemon real time wont make it a better game, it will just make it a different game.

OK, I'm getting tired of this.  You wrote this "article" about history yet you know very little of the actual details.  It's like you pulled together a bunch of fanboy rants and tried to pass them off as a researched and coherent topic.

"Nintendo is not used to negotiate"?  Thsi is your factual truths?  How about the factual truth that Sony's contract would have granted them full licensing and branding control therefore reducing Nintendo to largely a 1st party role within Sony?   Do you know this at all?  If not, and I suspect you didn't, you're revisionist history needs to end here.

What you call truth is actually nothing more than hedged passive aggression. 

Your statements are tinged with a tone that alludes to your personal feelings.  Even if you don't say something overtly, you mean it with your tone. 

Your "quotes around words" are nothing more than a mask to hide behind.  So you claim something doesn't really mean something and you're just using the terms allegorically but it's purely a ruse to allay bias. 

Your article is non-factual, filled with bias and opinion, laced with passive aggresive attacks and as the executive editor of a video game network, I'd damn near fire you if you tried to pass that across my desk.  Start again, remove your personal feelings, do some real research (you know, call, email, contact actual people from back then), look at both sides, write from the view of the reader and then try to publish.  

I'll give you credit for be able to write with proper grammar and syntax.  You're educated.   But your biased, misinformed/confused, and seem to have an agenda that you put above the integrity of truth.   And that is where you have failed. 

"not consistently seeking to screw over consumers" - read "1.4. Nintendo’s policies towards gamers"

"they do it all at a more affordable price point than Sony or Microsoft." - read "1.3. What Nintendo is willing to offer"

You don't. If Nintendo has the most appealing offers for you, go ahead.

Zod95 said:
As a fan of videogaming, what matters to me is that this industry produces high-quality games. That's what really matters. But quality is about how much a game is appreciated by each person. Then, it varies from gamer to gamer, because it is about tastes. Talking about tastes is going around in circles, it's not possible to argue on this field. .

Zod95 said:
These real people were rendered to the game, did all the action scenes to capture their movements and did their own voices too. This whole process demanded a lot of time, interviews, cinematic preparation, performances, etc. But the end result was absolutely remarkable: an immersive game like no other on the 6th generation. 

Zod95 said:
 Like the OP says, they have always avoided what is massive money spending, monsters of uncontrolled quality, bold concepts that could become state-of-the-art achievements. Nintendo games are nothing more than small and conventional fun experiences that can only be praised on a subjective analysis. Objectively, they are a nullity.

Zod95 said:
Not my criteria. As I said earlier, I disregard my tastes or the tastes of anybody else when talking about quality in a forum full of different people that have different perceptions of quality. Instead, I use objective criteria (universal truth) not to assess quality but to try to estimate it. You may find it good or bad, but it is indeed an estimation based on facts, not tastes. And even if you don't connect commitment to quality, that's fine, don't call it quality, call it commitment. The section 1.2 of the OP shows how commited Nintendo has been along the time.

Unfortunately, that goal was not achieved. Although the sources of the OP have been challenged (by not being 1st hand sources), none of the facts were proven to be wrong. The arguments were challenged too, but most of these attempts were misunderstandings about the OP. Others were subjective statements. Some users could manage to point out several bad practices from Sony and Microsoft but they were not even close to Nintendo's. Yet, most (if not all) of these users have maintained their positions. The chasm continues to exist either by disagreements on subjective points or by lack of willingness to see the truth.

That's hilarious.  There are plenty of "facts" that are wrong, but you never actually acknowledged them.

Pretty clear that you're the one who isn't willing to see the truth on an objective point of view.

...

I'll just point out the blatant lies: "Not letting any of their games to be launched out of their consoles (not even on PC) was a way to tell the consumer that, no matter what, Nintendo games will ever only be played on Nintendo consoles."