Haha I think I know where and where I don't post and I don't post in every XCX thread. Youre right about the topic though so lets just end it here.

Correlation does not equal causation... though the stocks aren't even really correlated in the first place

It does for me.

Let me explain it. There's a strong correlation between the population of storks and the amount of human babies that are born. When stork population declines, so does birth rates of humans.

Why is this? Why do storks have an effect on birth rates of humans?

The simple answer is: they don't.

They are both affected by something else. Namely the increasing urbanisation. People have less children in the city then they do on the countryside. Increasing urbanisation has a negative effect on the stork population (pollusion, disturbed resting/mating place, etc.).

Correlation is just that: a correlation. It's not a causation. You need different statistical methods for that.

It's one of the first things they teach you when you follow a statistics course at university or college.

I'm trying to figure out how people are saying there is no correlation. Correlations can be positive or negative and in EA case, not investing in Nintendo for these four years, despite it being the 8th generation leader in total consoles, along with other factors have been net positives for them. Same for Activation, Ubisoft and Take Two. The discussions to be had is that if these companies had investment in Nintendo (3DS and Wii U), would they be doing well?

Read my post above you.

Correlation is not causation.

Have you run the numbers in SPSS? Are they statistically relevant? Have you studied the context? Have you done a regression analysis (which can determine causation)?

If the answer to all these questions is no then this thread is pointless and you should do the right thing and close it before people get banned. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but next time do your research better. Nothing pisses me off more than shoddy research.

I think they made the right decision. EA hasn't provided Nintendo systems with quality Madden/Fifa ports in a while so the market isn't there for high sales. 

Yes, because Vita means life.

They would be doing just fine. The thing is they did invest in Nintendo to some extent, but they invested unwisely and got burned. Take a look at the games the companies you named published for 3DS, the most successful dedicated gaming hardware in the 2011-2013 range. They did publish games for 3DS, which represents an investment. Those games were terrible and they were not what the market wanted. In the meantime, Japanese companies like Capcom, Square-Enix, and Atlus have had consistent success on the same platform. It is not because the Japanese market has saved those projects. These companies have been surprised to find their games selling much better in the West than they had anticipated. There is demand for rich experiences on 3DS in the West, but what do EA and Activision try to sell us? The Sims 3: Pets and SpongeBob HeroPants? Pass.

These Japanese games are not successful because they are Japanese. Notice that Brain Age, a first-party Nintendo title, failed to make even a small splash. Castlevania, a beloved Japanese IP with a long history on Nintendo platforms, completely bombed because it sucked. Word of mouth is important on 3DS and Wii U. The 'landfill of shovelware' strategy won't work for Western publishers like it did on Wii and DS, and it was their mistake thinking they could get away with it a second time.

I like this thread.