This post was so damn good -claps hands- I praise this man haha. Im not for the console war at all, i only play nintendo games, but doesnt mean i hate the other consoles or there games. Good job on your post

Without wanting to get into the actual meat of the subject

Reading:

"Unless you are vehemently against having a good time, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be playing this game."

"Right now, the best device to game on is not the PlayStation 4, nor is it the Xbox One. It’s not even the Wii U, even though of the three current gen home consoles, it has the best library of games. It’s the 3DS. Kid Icarus: Uprising, Shin Megami Tensai IV, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Bravely Default, and so many others. The amount of fantastic games on the 3DS is overwhelming, so much that it can be difficult to keep up with them all."

Dismisses your claim that it is an unbiased viewpoint.

Of course, Nintendo didn't intended to make shovelware dominant. But they do intented to make the casual market the dominant force in the industry and to change the gaming world to motion control schemes. That combination made it harder to create some genres of games for the Wii and it was just more interesting to 3rd parties to create games that were projected to motion controls, mainly party games and mini games collections.

Succeding to get the casuals on board forever (supposing that smartphones never existed this could happen), core gamers would be outnumbered. And the 3rd parties would make games focused on the bigger audience: dancing games, party games, fitness games, they would be the dominant force. Cheaper to make and would sell better. Why would I make a US$ 100M shooter if I could get 4 times more sales with a US$ 10M party game? Nintendo didn't intended to make a shovelware festival, but they did achieved an enviroment where shovelware could prevail. Looking at the mobile gaming scene, we can have a good idea of what a casual dominated gaming scene looks like. More complex games, like shooter, have hundreds of times less downloads than simpler, casual games.

It's a similar situation to Atari. They weren't pushing the 2600 as a machine for buggy unfinished games, porn titles and low quality games in general. But they did put an iron claw on games (publishing all of them) and didn't paid a dime to the developers. So we had guys making alone games that would sell 5M units and just getting US$ 10k for it. It was an enviroment that estimulated developer to jump ship and work by themselves, creating Activision. So they sued Atari and won the right to publish any game, a right that was exploited by all other developers to put games there without any interference from Atari. That led to massive damages to the console's image and indirectly created the crash. Atari didn't intended to, but they created the right enviroment for it to happen.

My point is that Nintendos pov is that their games are all that matter. 3rd parties are an extra. So their politics are always focused in what is best for them and they aren't worried with the results it will have on 3rd parties.

And just to finish, my claim of low quality is backed by sales. The top may be occupied by Nintendo titles, but the Wii sold almost 1B in software. Going down that list, we have a lot of shovelware and movie/cartoon tie-ins with millions in sales.

Region lock is a big deal for many people including me. Don't try to minimize the issue just because you are not affected. I do in fact remember complaining about the DSi having exclusive software but as there were never any high profile DSi exclsuive retail releases it did not turn into a big deal. I was not part of online gaming communities back in the GBC days so I could not tell you how people reacted back then. Still that is a poor argument, just becuase they were anti-consumer before does not mean it is okay to continue doing it.

I agree that online play should be free but providing the service has costs. In regards to backwards compatibility I agree that is best for gamers. I am disappointed that neither Xbox One or PS4 are backwards compatible but the lack of that feature is reflected in the price of the consoles that would be higher if it were included. Consumers have responded to the lower price points. The PS3 sold much better after Sony cut cost due to removing BC (Though my 60GB PS3 is full BC). Nintendo eventually dropped Gamecube backwards compatibility for the Wii and GBA BC for the DSi. I doubt it will happen with the Wii U though becuase the two systems are so similar.

Nintendo is not the only one to relase games at prices lower than $60. Sony lowered the price of The Last of Us Remastered before launch. Games like Puppeteer and Sly 4 were budget releases. Sony also made all the Starhawk map DLC free so the community would not be fractured. Sony also the only one that has Cross buy/ Cross Save/ Cross Play for some Vita/PS3/PS4 titles so you don't have to buy the same game more than once. Sony also spearheaded the movement to give PS3 gamers the chance to upgrade to PS4 digital versions for only $10. I call all of those fair shakes.

I am not saying Nintendo is worse than any other company or that Sony is better but I disagree that Nintendo is the only one who puts consumers first and that without them greed would run rampant.

Intention is not equal to results. The company must focus in the result and in that case it was shovelware and casual titles.

However, I agree that the 3rd party companis shouldn't have a free pass for making shovelware. But the problem is that they are focused in their profit. So they will take actions that aren't necessarily healthy to a plataform just for profit, not looking at the long run (which is reasonable, they have quarter reports to shareholders). Nintendo/MS/Sony are responsible for keeping their enviroment healthy, guiding 3rd parties and using measures that help them to thrive, while keping things going acording their interests.

Edit: in a pov, it's similar to economy. In the begining of the century, we saw a liberal trend to allow the market to be free and avoid the interference of the government. Without any guidance, investors and companies tried to profit fast with speculation and led to the 1929 crysis. In an opposite way, we had governments that tried a politic of an economy 100% controlled by the government, but we saw all socialist regimes fail (not counting China, they aren't socialist a long time ago). The general consensus now is free market but with the government puting some rules and directions to keep things healthy. It's exactly what a console company must do.

Simple, real gamers don't want nintendo dead.

Outside of indies, i really do not see any innovation in the console space that I am interested in, without Nintendo.

I'm sorry but after seeing how quickly Sony dropped the eyetoy, Morpheus is expendable. And Oculus Rift, good luck with facebook at the helm. If you like this kind of stuff though carry on.

Just skimmed the release pages on Gamefaqs for Wii U and PS Vita. Seems legit for Japan to the end of March.

Are you sure? Look what Sony's solution to the lack of backwards compatibility. PS Now with their rental fees. PS+ is required for online gaming and the free games that used to be so beloved by Sony fans has been reduced to indie games. But it goes down all the time and has tons of issues. Its not showing much improvement from what it was when it was free. Of course its not just Sony with issues. DLC, Season Passes, Microtransactions, Day 1 Patches, Releasing half games in order to make launch day etc. Almost none of these supposed improvements to gaming is considered a fair shake to gamers. This is what everyone but Nintendo have contributed to the evolution of gaming. Left to their own devices its only gotten worse and is likely to get even worse.

KLXVER said: Kerotan said: KLXVER said: A gaming industry without Nintendo? Would carry on as normal for many.  a lot of people don't play on ninty systems you know  Good for them...

No it's not good for them. It's neither good nor bad