I'm going to respond to you on this point given this was him talking about what I said.  

The reason I call them blatant lies is because contrary information exists out there that actually oppose what he states.  As an example, pretty much every absolute statement he makes are lies as there's evidence that falsifies the statement.  Those statements are the ones made after he presents information and follows up with a conclusion.  

I agree that he has put facts into his argument, and they are certainly selected via an inductive reasoning.  However, given I have a good bit of knowledge about the topic myself (infact having made a response thread [incomplete] about it), the ratio of facts to opinions (or false information) is astoundingly bad.  

edit: I use the word lie because I choose to believe he's aware of the evidence and uses the absolute statement regardless of this to try and make his point stronger (an opinion which he states as fact).

Hahahahahaha...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

oh my...

I understand. I just don't think I have enough to argue intentions here, just bias and subjective statements expressed as facts. I'm inclined to believe he's being honest, yet not giving full consideration to other points of view or interpretations.

Just my 2 cents though...

Another interesting post with several arguments I must agree with (or at least accept your view). On the other hand, here is what I must comment:

As the OP says, that is the price to pay to blackmail the market. But once the "arm wrestling" is won, the earnings are expected to largely compensate the initial loss of potential clients. As for the retailers, they don't lose anything, they just have to order fewer copies or, better saying, the right amount of copies (since they are fewer than what they could be but actually higher than most of the games from other publishers). And the "arm wrestling" is won since long ago. Many of Nintendo's sales on consoles and games are from their inflated percepted value (precisely like Apple) and those sales along with the others at higher price points than what they should account for much higher profits than what would be achieved with another strategy.

But then Sony could have turned those MMOs exclusive on consoles. They didn't. Moreover, it's not just about SOE. Psygnosis, for example, was bought by Sony in 1993 and series like Destruction Derby and WipEout continued be be launched on the PC and even on Saturn and N64 until 1998. Lemmings Revolution was launched on the PC on 2000, Discworld and Formula 1 on 1996, ODT on 1998, Drakan on 1999, among many others. Another example is 989 Sports: Sony has let their MLB 2004 to be released for mobile. Another example is PlayStation Now: Sony will let their games to be played on every smarphone and even TVs.

You're right, Sony as a company has a different objective than Nintendo. They don't want to be the "Apple" of videogames.

All get price reductions. But only few (not the majority) drop their price significantly over time and they account for an even (much) smaller share of the sales. So, yes, I doesn't matter much.

Fair enough. It is true that the long-term strategy described is not admitted by Nintendo and thus is can be considered speculation (one can always argue there isn't enough evidence to be sure about it). But, at least in my view, it's like those kinds of things we know it's true. It's like saying there isn't enough evidence to prove that Microsoft prefers to buy exclusives than to make them. Unless they state it, the "preference" can always be argued about as well as their decisions. Or that Sony wants to appeal to the different markets and audiences. Unless they state it, the "desire" can always be put into perspective as well as their actions.

Therefore, I think it's honest in these cases to speculate. On the other hand, claiming such speculations are blatant lies is definitely dishonest.

The OP has nearly 6000 words and no comments on tastes.

I was just going to passively read the thread, not responding until after reading it all (if then), but I snapped on page 3 (@50) when I noticed a passage from the OP I'd overlooked:

Same thing happened in the Fighting genre, where Nintendo came up with Super Smash Bros to compete with the complex and somehow realistic Tekken, Dead Or Alive and Soul Calibur.
YOU SON OF A BITCH! After that huge fight in the other thread over "photo realism" you dare to call Tekken and Soul Calibur "realistic"? I guess Jigglypuff is too much of a balloon for you.

The fact is that you are still mistaking your personal views for universal truth. (This isn't directly talking about Tekken anymore, but in general how rock music and human characters are supposed to be objectively superior in games to orchestral music and Pokemon.)

Smash is not a fighting game.

On topic: I don't want Nintendo dead. I prefer them barely alive/struggling so I can laugh at their failures (Virtual Boy, N64 'lolcartridges', Game Cube, Wii U, more to come). Dead Nintendo would be less fun than it is now. Good to see Nintendo get what it deserves. Hopefully handheld market implodes so they look more fun than they do now.

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

1. Smash Bros. IS a fighting game. It is a stripped down, simple fighting experience, but not calling it a fighting game, just because it's not the same KIND of fighting game as Tekken or SFII, is fairly silly.

2. Your "on topic" comments are exactly what is wrong with internet forums and the gaming community in general. You want to see Nintendo struggle so that you can laugh at their failures? It's "good to see Nintendo get what it deserves"? What exactly does Nintendo deserve, and for what? For giving gamers great games and consoles, many of which have literally defined and redefined gaming genres, controller designs, etc., for 30+ years?

This is the part about some "fans" of anything that I just don't really get. It's one thing to be a sports fan and enjoy seeing a rival team lose. But this isn't sports. It's video games. It's entertainment. If you don't personally like something, then why not just enjoy  what you DO like and leave it at that? I personally dislike Microsoft and their Xbox brand, not to mention Xbox exclusive franchises. I just don't care for them, they don't appeal to me, and never have. But that doesn't mean I'm sitting there rooting for their failure. It's a waste of my time. Instead, I take the mature route, and simply enjoy the good games that the comapnies I DO like provide for me. Period.

Nice to see you Final-Fan.

LOL, I understand your anger, but let me explain then. First of all, I called them "somehow realistic", not "realistic". And I did so because they comprise fighters with real techniques and real moves. You can actually learn a lot about martial arts playing those games (in a way that you can't on books or videos, because on videogames you do it yourself and you apply each move when you feel the need to do so). On top of that, the characters are humans (maybe not all of them) and the arenas seem real.

And this is universal truth. Super Smash Bros doesn't comprise real martial arts. Other games do. Super Smash Bros isn't mainly about humans. Other games are. This is not my opinion. These are facts.

In regards to music, one can perceive an evolution along the time. And there was a time in history when music in videogames began to shift from instrumental-only to sang music. For example, 8 bit music is not as evolved as the music we have nowadays on games. Is it better or worse? That's about tastes. But it's not as evolved, that's a fact too.

As for the human characters vs Pokémon, I didn't get it. What are you talking about?

The lines are a lot blurrier than you seem to be claiming here.  Consider Soul Calibur.  Sure, there are relatively realistic-looking moves going on there, but on the other hand, you have ridiculous crap like Ivy's chain-sword and Voldo in general.  Additionally, people routinely get stabbed and have things done to them that would cripple or kill real humans, and they get up none the worse for wear, aside from a lower health bar.  Super Smash Bros. doesn't pretend to be realistic, but how much less realistic is it actually?—aside from at-a-glance appearance? 

The arenas in Soul Calibur are just platforms with cosmetic features and backgrounds that sometimes look sort of real, like the cave dock/shipyard area, and sometimes are pretty fantastical.  Yes, it's more "realistic" than SSB but it's just a matter of degrees.  The biggest difference is the fact that you have more interaction and variation with the level in SSB.  More stuff to jump around and play with, versus a small blank area for pure one-on-one combat in Soul Calibur. 

"the characters are humans (maybe not all of them)"
There are also more human characters in SSB than non-human, although some of them are "cartoony". 

As for music, my thought is that there came a time when the technology in video games made it possible to have pleasing-sounding music with vocals, and then some games included that.  But I wouldn't say there's a large scale trend of phasing out instrumental music in favor of vocal, and I wouldn't say that music with vocals is more "evolved" in terms of video games.  So no, I dispute your "facts". 

Humans vs. Pokemon:  I thought you had said or implied somewhere that a game with human characters would, all else being equal, be intrinsically superior to a game with made-up fantasy creatures done in a non-"realistic" style.  Similar to the instrumental vs. vocal/rock music.  Pokemon was just an example, I didn't mean that you specifically said humans>Pokemon.