I entirely disagree. I think Nintendo's software this gen, so far, has been lackluster. This console is yet another radical change from the previous iteration, primarily the controller.

Nintendo went from traditional ergonomic controller in the Gamecube, to a one hand motion control remote in the Wii, now to a two hand motion control tablet. Even if you consider using the Wii Mote on the Wii U, that is _2_ different controllers for one console.

It's different. Compare that to basically the same controller with minor changes for 3+ generations on the PlayStation and XBOX. I am still holding my controller the same way I did over a decade ago. I can't say the same on the Wii U.

impertinence said:

So, to recap. Bias exsists, it effects all business decissions but to a degree that is insignificant to the rationality of the outcome.

In other words, you are contradicting yourself. What you are trying to assert here is that the market consists of rational agents as their bias has no significance on the decissions they make.

This is your assumption. If you actually paid attention you would realize I am not asserting anything. I have defined signifcance in the context of how it used in my argument of what an objective analysis is -> overwriting the rationality of a decision. If it fufills qualification, it is significant. Else, its is not.

This is the classical view of economics like I've said before, and it's also pretty much universally rejected by now. If you want to keep arguing this point, there's lot's of material to draw from, but be warned that there is not much there to help validate your point.

Clearly, the fact that you keep trying to link my concession to classical economics is indicative of the fact that you have not yet grasped it. 

Again, this boils down to a disagreement over behavioral economics vs, classic economics

It does not.

and the proof you are looking for is well established if you bother to look for it. Yes, proven using the scientific method that you randomly thought had any relevance to what you were saying earlier.

Your other attempts to try to frame the debate into your weird obsession with logical proof is also absurd as it relies on measurring the rational sense a decission makes.

Weird to you perhaps but not to anyone who is actually trying to prove something to an impartial judge. I will admit that this line of questioning is a bit extreme since it is an internet discussion, but you are the one who is flat out refusing to accept that the topic can be approached with any sort of objectivism

The whole point is that measurring rationality of a decission is extremely difficult,

Never said that, I told you how to measure the rationality of the decision. I said measuring bias is difficult without favorable conditions. Determing rationale as an outside observer is basically impossible to do objectively.

and the more complex the system is the more difficult to impossible it becomes. If there was such a thing as your hypotetical objective 'it makes rational sense' measurments, then people would not make incorrect decissons. Ever. The problem is that the measuring stick doesn't exsist. What appears to make 'rational sense' is ALWAYS colored by bias.

See this is how I know you don't understand/read my posts. I said in the event that a company has made the wrong decision, then biases are observable. My experiment is only impossible if companies are infalliable.

So, again, if you put away your bias that third parties always act rationally when dealing with the Wii U

i have never said this

and think about all the things you know about video games, publishers and developers you will be able to find instances of anti Nintendo bias. Here's a hint: you have parroted one of the common anti Nintendo biases earlier in this thread, just a few posts ago. If you can find it, good for you. If you can't, perhaps you are under a little bit of bias blindness.

evidence is missing, you claim it exists but you want me to find it -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Another point that might have escaped you: When you have to resort to contradictions, search for the 'hidden' meanings in things and move the goal posts all over the place it might be a sign that you are trying to hard to make an argument fit with your own bias.

If only, it was that easy. Instead, I constantly have to repeat myself:

You're refusal to openly consider opposing arguments, makes discussion with you purely just banter. You came into this thread already locked in your own opinion. I will agree that since the Wii U and HD twins are essentially the same hardware, a more accurate example would be the HD Twins as Diesel cars, and the Wii U being electric. 

Bias is inherent to human nature. But your bias is, ironically, clouding your judgement.

Company's are a lot more rational then humans, because they have to be to survive, and they are the conglomeration of all the biases of the people working in the company. Even if the CEO's mother died playing the Wii, EA would still make games for it because the profit overwrites any bias against Nintendo.

Unless you can prove undoubtedly that 3rd parties not developing for the Wii U is detrimental to themselves, then it is pointless to try to analyze any possible bias.

I am glad we could come to an agreement.

Thirdparties sometimes act irrationally when dealing with the Wii U. According to your formula that proves that there are third parties with a Nintendo bias. Not sure why we  had to argue for a whole two pages when I was right all along?