If you want to discuss this further, Rol, get to me via PM. I don't have time to deal with the trash that litters VGC nowadays.

You are not understanding what I am saying. In the example of someone who is good at making first person shooters, an unbiased decission would take into account the option of creating a different kind of game, for a different kind of platform and do the ROI analysis on that option. Instead, they default to the biased opinion, we will do best making a FPS and that will do best on Sony and Microsoft hardware. That is a biased decission.

As for me being unreasonable and disingenious, that's borderline insulting, especially when all I am saying is that decissions are overwhelmingly made based on bias rather than rational thinking in the wast majority of cases, including in the videogame industry. Wheter you like it or not it is still a fact. In fact, the false belief that many people parade around in this thread that companies are less biased than people is another example of bias. In the real world, companies are run by people who are hugely subjected to bias. As a result, they make decissions like the one you outlined earlier: We should make first person shooters because that's what we are best at. It's not difficult to see how the board of directors will find that to be a perfectly reasonable policy, when it is not a rational decission, but a decission driven by bias.

So, accepting that bias plays a huge part in decission making it's not hard to see that there are currently huge negative bias against Nintendo in the videogame industry. There are already many examples of seemingly irrational decissions exposed in this thread, and predicatbly just as many biased attempts to explain them away. In fact, I would go as far as to say that anyone who can't see a clear anti Nintendo bias in many developers are opperating under a strong personal bias themselves.

The only argument I am refusing to consider is that compnaies are free from decission bias, and that is not because I am too biased to want to consider it, but rather because I know that statement to be completely and utterly false.

As for your last sentence: more hogwash. Just because a decission might be the right one, doesn't mean it was made after rational thought. There's no need to prove that 3rd parties are hurting themselves by their decissions, because it is irrelevant to the point of the discussion. You, like many others in this thread work under the assupmtion that because I expose the bias inherent in how many third parties approch Nintendo consoles, that I think they should be doing something else. As you will notice if you care to go back and read what I have said, I have never advocated for third parties to do anything. The assumption that I am somehow blaming third parties for anything, or trying to prove that they should act differently is a result of yours and others .... bias.

They are not unfairly bias though (not in most cases), which makes the point mute.

Nintendo doesn't offer platforms which support their ambitions. Its like saying Bethesda are biased against the Ipad because it has no buttons and will struggle to run many of the games they want to make..... sure, so what? Developers will however overlook that if money is on the cards, almost all publishers last gen released a wii exclusive title whereas there were very few 3rd party exclusives for son or microsoft. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Capcom.... Literally everyone released exclusive wii games. However money is not on the cards this time round, the Wii U has sold like crap and no one seems to see the appeal other then the fact that it will eventually have zelda, mariokart and smash bros. Nintendo made a shallow 1st party machine and this is the result.

First off, Calm down.

Secondly, you're refusal to consider the posibility that bias might not have much relevance in the decision making of large corporations is due to stubbornheadness. You claim that you know the statement is false, with zero supporting evidence of your claim. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your assertion, otherwise its simply argument from ignorance. Show me without a reasonable doubt, the effect of bias in the decision making of 3rd parties in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Don't bother, it is an impossible feat. 

Thirdly, You claim that 3rd party bias agaisnt Nintendo is significant enough to affect there treatment of their systems but you refuse to prove it and claim you don't need to prove it because you believe it is true. Despite the fact that you refuse to prove it and you haven't proved it. Just like the heliocentric model was "proven". Biases are inherent to people, Companies are not people however, they are made of people each of whom have conflicting biases. So to suggest that as a general trend 3rd Party publisher have some kind of universal anti nintendo bias among all of the multides of people working within them is completely insane.

Lastly, I already told you how you can prove bias. It is irrational behavior, so in order to expose bias as you say you must remove any rational behavior and evaluate whether or not a decision makes rational sense. If it does, then its impossible to attribute bias to the decision. Only if it is irrational, then the decision can be attributed to irrational prejudice.

Its that simple. 

It is pointless to throw around the world bias angrilly, when I'm talking about a method of rational proof of your claim. Bias has nothing to do with it because it is Objective, not-relative, it hold true for any observer, and the experiment can be reproduced an infinite number of times with no variation attirbuted to the observer.

Until then your claim of biases influencing significantly the decision making processes of 3rd parties is not verified and effectively false. Furthermore, support of the NES,SNES,64,GC,WII, GBA, DS, and 3DS show that at those marketshares, bias was not significant enough to influence the decision to port to Nintendo. If anything, 3rd party support of the GC shows bias in favor of Nintendo. Trying to find any biases with the situation the Wii U is as pointless as trying to find a needle in the Sun.

1. It has been mentioned before in this thread, what is a reasonable explanation (purely to maximise profits, and completely free from bias) for omitting any mention of a Wii U version alongside all of the others, for multiplat games in advertising?

2. I believe the counter-argument being made is not just specific to the gaming industry but to companies in general; that business decisions are made with bias. Whether it be conscious or unconscious, or with great or mild effect, bias exists even in large companies. To say a company is simply too large to be affected by bias, that it cannot exist, end of story, is asinine. Companies are run by people. People are subject to bias. It's really that simple.

http://www.cookross.com/docs/UnconsciousBias.pdf

Look specifically at "Confirmational Behaviour" and "The Organizational Unconscious", along with the case studies.

http://www.edpiccolino.com/workspace/articles/mckinsey-the-case-for-behavioral-strategy.pdf

"Our candid conversations with senior executives behind closed doors reveal a similar unease with the quality of decision making and confirm the significant body of research indicating that cognitive biases affect the most important strategic decisions made by the smartest managers in the best companies"

1. Calmer than you are

2. It's not stubbornness, it's merely the fact that I know what behavioral economics are and you don't

3. A systematic bias against Nintendo in the videogame market is easy to see. For one example, see the many articles about developers who make claims along the lines of "Don't want to sacrifice artistic vision', 'Wii can't hanlde the loadscreen of our game' etc. Are these rational statements? No. If you want me to come up with links to this bias (which is just a subset of the massive biases in the industry) then though luck, you and everyone else here know that these kinds of statements are plentiful.

4. Your last statement makes no sense. As I've already told you, just because a decission is not made based on rational though, but rather on an illusion of rational thought clouded by bias, doesn't mean that decission is not 'right'.  For example, many many thrid parties decided to support the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One over the Wii U while only one of the platforms were even on the market. Effectivly ignoring one platform based on a gut feeling that other platforms would do better. Did it turn out to be the right decission? yes. Was it a rational decission? No. It was a decission built on bias and assumption, and quite possibly a uniform bias that created a self reinforcing feedback loop.

I have never said Companies have no bias, nor have I said that bias has no effect in a companies decision making process. However, with regard to the topic title. I have repeatidely stated that any specifically anti-nintendo bias cannot be observed unless the system in question is succesful enough that bias is the only thing preventing ports. The bias is not significant enough to overwrite and rational force that exists as well. We are biased actors trying to analyze the biases of a conglomeration of people who form a buisness which must make good decisions in order to survive. You cannot just claim that because biases exist and because 3rd parties didn't support the Wii U, that 3rd parties are biased against the Wii U, especially when it makes rational sense. 

Consider a company run by computers without any biases whatsoever. If they acted exactly like these human companies, how would you know whether or not bias had a significant effect on the human company. See the problem? You know the biases exist but you can't understand them if it is not obvious.

Let's just air this all out in the open shall we:

Systematic Bias against Nintendo in the videogame market is easy to see is your claim.

Your evidence: Is various developer statements despite the fact that many publisher can overwrite developer decisions. E.G. Respawn wanted to develop for one platform, EA released the game on 3. Regardless of what these devs say, how exactly do you know whether these are the reason the wii u is not getting ports? How do you know whether any of these claims are either false or true. Especially, concerning last gen as many multiplats that made it to the Wii were significantly downgraded. But they still were ported to the Wii despite its lower end hardware. Obviously that Anti-Nintendo bias wasn't enough to stop them then. 

Furthemore, you claim that the Wii U's free year was its only year on the market. Despite the fact, that it was competing with PS360, consoles that we're not only much cheaper but much better understood then the Wii U. Nintendo designed the system the way they wanted, which was why they didn't get the fcking memo that nobody uses PowerPC any more. Why would third parties take a risk on a  system whose power they would only be able to understand after PS4/xb1.

As I've already told you, just because a decission is not made based on rational though, but rather on an illusion of rational thought clouded by bias, doesn't mean that decission is not 'right'.

What are you arbitrarily defining as right? Pro-Nintendo? Can Nintendo do no wrong? None of that is objective, so it is useless insofar as analysis goes. We are talking about biases which are strong enough to harm to company that has them. If you bring an impartial observer who know nothing about gaming, how in the hell would they know that 3rd parties were biased against Nintendo if the decision to refuse porting was made out of bias/fear/or any other irrational idea if it is in fact rational to avoid the system?

Did it turn out to be the right decission? yes. Was it a rational decission? No. It was a decission built on bias and assumption, and quite possibly a uniform bias that created a self reinforcing feedback loop.

How do you know this? Surely, its not proven by your inconclusive evidence? 

You can't possibly be trying to argue bias from a clearly biased point of view. You will prove nothing this way, only air out your frustations and leave having learned nothing or improved at all. If you are not objective, then how can you call out companies for being biased against Nintendo when the only thing you can see are the Nintendo Googles plastered to your eyes.

Obviously, you do not understand my biases because you incorrectly assume that I am biased against Nintendo, because I am disagreeing with your method of analysis. NOT your assertion. I have never said, 3rd parties have no bias for or against Nintendo. Simply, that unless you prove it, which you refuse to do because you cannot comprehend how any doubt could possibly exist, your claim is unverified.

Prove it. 

Show me the bias that is strong enough to make a company harm themselves just to spite Nintendo. All the money, they lost ignoring the Wii U while removing the porting and advertising costs. If you find 1 example, this is enough to disprove the counterargument.

However, your claim is not the contrapositive of such a 3rd parties being biased in favor of Nintendo, so it cannot be proven with contradiction.

1 example contradicting your claim is enough to disprove it as well.

You can chose to ramble as much as you like try as you might to utilize your biases to teardown my objective argument. It is futile however, I am simply repeating myself so that you understand, my stance has not changed at all.

If a decision benfits the company, regardless of whatever the decision consisted of whether or not it was rational thought, bias, fear, some combination of these things, it is impossible to prove unless you where actually in those boardrooms.

If a decision harms a company, then any rational thought was wrong, and only then biases and fear come to the surface and can be observed by an outsider.

It's market image of the product, Nintendo handhelds have owned the market since they came out. Nintendo consoles have been decline since the nes, you can say the same thing about the 360 in Japan it's image killed it, even though it had the games, price and everything going for it. Brand plays a huge role.