This place is so unpredictable, I can never tell and just when I figure there probably won't be any replies to come look at, here it is lol

Yes, the Nintendo fandom is heavy here, so I probably should have been a little wiser to that given the "answer to Zelda" stuff, but I do find some of the replies surprisingly depressing (and of course, it's pretty easy to tell who didn't watch or just skipped around in the video).

But I can reply to all the replies in one fell swoop:

If you think that companies being big and successful is ever good for you, you'll always be wrong.  Every single reply defending Nintendo probably hates some combination of Microsoft, or Apple, or Amazon, or Embracer Group, or Facebook, or Tencent, or [insert probably dozens of companies doing things you think are wrong or hate, or that you would not go anywhere near because of].

The appropriate reply in a case like this is to accept the very thing I said in the video: you don't care because you are simply a consumer.  I care, because in large enough numbers, we can keep these companies fighting each other to our benefit.  At least, that's my hope.  No one company should be sitting at the top, at least not comfortably.  That rug should always be pull-able, by us, the people.

Yes, I agree with this.

That's true.

I don't disagree with all your points, but I am not wrong about Nintendo's success with the Switch benefitting me.

Right now, I am practically drowning in great games for my Switch, to the point where I am shelving some for next year as I simply don't have time to play them all, and that is down to the system being so massively successful that it is worthwhile for third parties to bring their games to it.

I do not support them blindly or unconditionally. If they do what I like, I support that with my money, if they don't, then I don't. Right now, what they're doing is good for me, so I'm happy, it's as simple as that.

This is straight up false. If you really like a product, the company being successful with it is a good thing for you (provided it doesn't impact you in a significantly negative way). Companies HAVE to be successful to, well, succeed. Yeah, a ton of companies do awful things that I don't like. That isn't because the success of their product itself is the problem, but the overwhelming amount of control we allow these companies to have from a political standpoint. Rules and regulations are not created by not purchasing products, but by being an active participant in your government. 

Companies will only keep "fighting each other for our benefit" if they find success. So suggesting that success is always bad is just...ridiculous. Without success you get Sega or, worse, Atari. 

Also, Nintendo isn't sitting at the top comfortably, and they know that. 

Edit: I think the best example I can think of right now for how a companies success can be beneficial is YouTube. Without YouTube's success you literally wouldn't be doing what you are doing right now. 

"No one company should be sitting at the top, at least not comfortably. That rug should always be pull-able, by us, the people."

Really odd thread to point out 5th grade economics.

Nintendo successful or not makes no difference. They continue to strive by their standards and visions.

Not to turn this into a console war, given it isn't my intent, but people seemed to be worried Nintendo is doing well.... that is good, given in the home console world Sony has dominated for far too long. Sony having competition is a good thing.

Games you enjoy don't necessarily mean they're great.  In fact, there's a reason 3rd party support for Nintendo STILL remains so paltry, and some are tossing some ports at it because, well, the Switch sells so well that they figure they can make some extra money.  I mean, think about that 3rd party support overall: where's Scarlet Nexus, Tales of Arise, Elden Ring, or any number of good games that would surely do well with the Nintendo fans?  Why do most 3rd party games that do come just come SOOO much later than everyone else?  Granted, hardware is a part of this, but many "great" games skip the Switch entirely.  Nintendo's success isn't garnering the efforts they should be making to get 3rd party games because they'd rather put that money into *gasp* another Mario-branded game.

Naturally, it's good to not blindly support them, and truth is, I don't think you're sitting in this thread thrashing about like Nintendo NEEDS to win so you can feel good.  But the reality is that Nintendo IS making moves fueled by greed.  This can lead down courses that are very hard to correct.  In some ways, Apple getting overthrown by Samsung is a good example of what happens when competition shows up and enough of your fanbase gets fed up with your greedy shit lol... Of course, Apple chose to fight back.  Everybody wins because of that, though now I'm starting to feel like they're ALL winning and starting to ALL get greedy collectively... But I digress...

I mean, think back on the glory days (assuming you're old enough lol).  The GameCube was losing hard, yet it was one of their better hardware efforts and had 3rd party games and exclusives moreso than we've ever seen again since.  Hell, I still can't believe RE4 was an exclusive, and of course they secured one of the best REs ever made and set a formula that would later become the remake formula for RE2 and RE3 to great effect.

If you're happy, great, but I wouldn't toss out criticism of Nintendo just because of it.  No company is above reproach.  Ever.

I think you're mixing up success and profit.  Companies need to be profitable to match everything you just said.  Success is different, and you look at all the top successful companies in the world, and you're going to see a pattern.  However, the success leads to the stranglehold the company has on you when you have little other option(s).  This obviously led to anti-monopoly laws because SOMEONE had to step in, and you sort of realize that's the point: if a profitable company sees success and is left unchecked, you clearly can see that it took things at a GOVERNMENT level to stop what we both know would happen.  This is because success IS this dangerous.  Perhaps you and I are arguing chicken and egg, here, but then I'd argue that the effects of company greed came first, and it got to a point where there needed to be laws to keep it in check because, well, a successful company will just keep finding more ways to take advantage.

You're right: without success, you DO lose, and that's also the point.  When you're losing, you have two choices: either do nothing and simply lose; or start fighting and climbing back.  Nintendo was in its best form twice when it was losing.  I look back on the GameCube era and the Wii U era, and there's a clear pattern that starts years into the life of each of those when Nintendo ramps up and pushes harder because they recognize things aren't going so well.  That's the choice to fight back.  Either try or get out, and that's a healthy thing overall.

YouTube?  Oh boy, don't get me started on how much I shit on them.  YouTube's success has led to all SORTS of issues, a lot of which is the automation and algorithms.  Let's not go down that path, what I'm doing now using YouTube may shift anyway BECAUSE of what they've become.  I've already been ramping up streaming because I may eventually move to Twitch and just live stream.  Of course, Twitch is ALSO another set of issues due to how successful it is, but unfortunately, my money doesn't control either of them because I'm not paying either of them...  Content/ads control them, and that's apples and oranges to what we're talking about, here.

Really odd that I even have to point it out at all, right?  But here we are, "gamers" sitting around thinking if they throw money at their favorite companies, they're "winning".  Perhaps 5th grade economics needs to include financial advice.

I mean, they actually faltered with the N64 and GameCube, two systems with some of their best titles they've ever made and far more 3rd party support.  The Wii U was also another moment of falter, but of course they ramped up years in and brought us some good stuff.  Nintendo strives hardest when it's clear they're not seeing the sales numbers they want, though that applies to pretty much any company, heh.

Oh the irony… *le sigh* I actually did the opposite and spared you.  But hey, you asked for this, so I’ll humor you.

This video sucked ass. It made three major points to show that success makes companies worse.

Legal rights - Remember the Wii U days when Nintendo didn't make copyright claims on Youtube? No? Well, yeah, that's because Nintendo protects their IPs regardless of how well their console business is doing. Therefore anything concerning legal rights is not caused by Nintendo's success.

I said NINTENDO’S success, not the SWITCH’s success, so your timeline is off.  It’s like you completely forgot the literal massive sales success of the Wii that preceded the Wii U.  The literal thing that caused them to crawl into the Wii U so lazily only to ramp up HARD years into its life realizing they fucked up and that trying to ride on the success of the Wii didn’t work at ALL.  The Wii was literally what put Nintendo back on top and set them on a path to become legal giants because the massive success meant a massive increase in fanfare.  YouTube was also ramping up, too, though emulation, piracy, and fanmade projects were happening well before that and mostly flew under the radar.  The Wii’s success brought a lot of this to light, and Nintendo had a choice.  They chose to focus on legality (though remember, sometimes it IS a win when people try to profit, but that part should be obvious) rather than support.  Again, you should look at Genshin: they literally SUPPORT and encourage fanmade art and projects.  If you want another one, look at Warframe: they literally have designs in the game that can be purchased that are made by fans.  There are companies that know how to EMBRACE their fanbase, not POLICE them.  PlayStation and Xbox mostly ignore it, which is also fine: that's the "hands off" approach.

Take some time to look back, the “glory” days of Nintendo actually trying because they were losing is gone.  The N64, the GameCube, both pushed software harder than the Wii as they both were losing out to PlayStation.  I mean, let’s not forget that some of THE most iconic games came from those systems like RE4.  Then the Wii came, it launched with a good Zelda game and then also had THE best Mario game, but they saw all the success and took their sweet time.  As an enjoyer of the Wii and the peak games it had, it spent its final years barren and almost abandoned by Nintendo because they figured they could relax and move onto their next project.  There’s an identifiable pattern: some of the best efforts by Nintendo clearly came when they were losing (to PlayStation).

The GameCube was actually one of their better efforts: better hardware, stronger 3rd party exclusives, and far more effort in their releases.  When Nintendo is losing they do better, because that’s how it works with EVERY company.  That’s why Xbox is the most favorable towards its fans right now with Game Pass, something that’s proving by numbers that it’s a good thing.  Companies ALWAYS do their best when they’re losing, this is factual, because they either lose and go out of business, or fight their way back up.  When you’re losing, you can’t simply do nothing, or you will continue to lose.  This singular concept is why companies need to always be in competition with each other without ever there being a clear winner dominating everyone else.

Greed - The example cited here is Mario Strikers: Battle League Football which released light on content, but all we are seeing here is the latest incarnation of Nintendo employing the Splatoon model of unlocking already finished content to the players with regular updates. Splatoon was a Wii U game, so the second point does not support the assertion that Nintendo's success makes things worse for their consumers either.

Okay, so you just ignored that I also showed Mario Party Superstars?  You’re just going to ignore that I acknowledge XC3 as a good thing coming?  You’re going to recognize that I keep videos short instead of taking time listing knowns like Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Wii Sports, heck even the dreadfully short Metroid Dread?  You’re going to ignore the ENTIRE point of that section being that if you know a game is either shovelware or even just low effort, that it’s okay to NOT buy it day one and wait for a sale or buy it secondhand?  Yea, and ironically you bring up Splatoon where quite literally the sequel on the Switch was something many Wii U owners figured could have just been added to Splatoon as DLC (and I agree, I played it all, I LOVE Splatoon!).  And Splatoon 3 seems to be repeating this.  You ironically made my point: they started ramping up years into the Wii U and brought a new IP that was a smashing success.  Come to the Switch, and what have they done to really expand this IP?  That’s right, very little.  To the point where people with “sense” not only could tell Splatoon 2 could have just been DLC for Splatoon, but that Splatoon 3 is concerningly similar.  And yet each subsequent release is coming for full price.  But hey, you’ll lambast Call of Duty for this, but not Splatoon, right?  Yea, that’s what I thought.  CoD, one of the biggest franchises in the world, actually makes more changes between its entries than Splatoon does or probably will do, but here you are defending Splatoon and would NEVER keep that same energy for CoD.

Nickel and diming - This is about a paid online service, but the decision that Switch will have online multiplayer behind a paywall was already made before Switch launched, so once again, it's not a consequence of success. The comparison with other services is pretty bad too, because somehow Nintendo is the only console manufacturer which offers a family plan with so much leeway that people from different countries can pool their money together and can get a year of NSO for under $/€10 without any discount. When you hear nickel and diming, you'd first think of overpriced DLCs and games infected with microtransactions, but Nintendo games usually stay clear of this. It's actually the case that Nintendo's success has made them stick first and foremost with expansion passes as DLC, so there's less overpriced DLC now then there was back then on the 3DS and Wii U.

First off, Nintendo’s smarter than you.  They announced the plan beforehand, but they knew they had to wait things out to formulate the final pricing and structure.  If you think that it coming out 18 months, yes 18, after the launch of the Switch wasn’t part of “seeing how well this system sells to see what we can do with this online service” wasn’t part of the plan, then you don’t understand how these things work.  You are literally arguing with an oft downvoted and disagreeable service that many, such as myself, have little choice in subbing to if I want to play MHRise online (and of course, it came to PC a year later, ughhhh), and is LITERALLY the reason I even signed up for the service.  You think I’m the only one that begrudgingly uses it and recognizes how little it offers compared to its competitors?  Then, you never made it far enough that I even mentioned that I didn’t NEED to mention NSO+, a CLEAR moment of both greed and nickel-and-diming its fanbase.  Almost everyone (else) can see that except you.  But somehow, you think my comparison is bad because you love Nintendo rather than seeing all the things this “online” service simply does NOT offer except to gatekeep multiplayer.  Instead, it SHOULD have been called “Nintendo Retro Pass” and I guarantee it would be a VERY different thing if they left multiplayer free like it was at launch, and just focused on making THE best retro sub service possible to make up for ditching the Virtual Console.  Which leads to a point I had PLANNED to make in the video, but it extended well passed the 5 min limit:

- Even PSPlus is doing retro games better: they’re both in the sub service AND available for individual purchase (where possible, the PS3 thing is a whole different discussion!).  PSPlus is basically combining NSO and Virtual Console bringing retro games to the service but ALSO for individual purchase.  And that was actually something Nintendo SHOULD have done and that I kind of felt was a logical expectation as it would have allowed the import of Virtual Console.  By combining Virtual Console into NSO, people like me could still have my Wii U VC library on Switch, and could choose to simply buy more retro games or sub to NSO.  Logical, consumer friendly, even.  Shocker.

The irony of Nintendo fandom is how they often know very little of other platforms.  Xbox Live literally has a family plan, designed to be shared.  A friend of mine literally did this before Game Pass was a thing: him and both is daughters all used his Xbox Live, and could ALL PLAY ONLINE at the same time.  This potentially extends to Game Pass: there are plans to create a family plan version for Game Pass as well.  You really should try spending more time on other platforms, or just leave them out of your conversations.  The fact that you even have to TURN to doing "family" plans with non-family for NSO really is counter-productive to your argument, anyway.  That became a popular method BECAUSE reasonable people see it the same way I'm seeing it: poor value.  Humans adapt, congratulations, you found a way to make it "cheaper" BECAUSE it was unreasonable to begin with.

That's why this video sucks so hard, because it fails to make any correct point. I was actually expecting something sensible, such as "the greater Nintendo's success is, the higher the likelihood that they'll start to make games that you don't want." Which is still just a hypothetical, but at least it's reasonable.

So my failure is literally, to you, based on your love of Nintendo.  Well if THAT’S not representative of the “fanboy” rhetoric, I don’t know what is.  If you wanted a solid argument against me, because sometimes I have to help people argue, it’s that I’m still buying the games and signing up (begrudgingly) to NSO.  Of course, the response there is quite literally the reason for the existence of my channel: I’m trying to “find out” so others may not have to.  What most people don’t realize, and this has been brought up a few times, is that without the channel, my game purchases go WAYYYY down.  That’s because I actually practice what I preach, so I figure if I’m going to have a channel, I'd try to do something useful for others (and try to make it entertaining along the way), that I’d take the risk so others don’t have to.  This is my attempt to empower others through information, tied to why I fight myself hard to remain probably one of the only truly non-preferential people in gaming.  I really don’t care about who’s who, it’s either good or its bad.

The only other argument you’d have is, “well I’m having fun, I enjoy the games”.  Yea, that doesn’t make it good (or bad), that doesn’t make it a cash grab or a strong effort, it doesn’t define the quality or quantity of anything.  You can have fun playing CoD, and someone will shit on you for playing copy-pasta, right?  And then you’d say, “well, I enjoy it”, but that doesn’t change the fact, correct?  Millions out there are enjoying playing FIFA every year, but hey, they're having fun, that's all that matters, right?  You wouldn't DARE shit on them for supporting low effort copy-pasta, right? Right?!

You see, you think I’m about being “right”, but that’s just your projection (which is why you came at me being “wrong” when the video actually had nothing to do with right or wrong).  This is about how we handle our money in regard to companies vying to take it from us.  Perhaps it’s the Asian in me that makes me scrutinize where every penny goes, and maybe “money sense” isn’t something all that common, but I’d like to think that somewhere, someone is waking up to the idea that companies are here to serve us, we don’t serve the companies.  So every time you’re defending Nintendo, keep in mind they’re not paying you for it, they’re not thanking you for it, they’re just after your money and when they show their appreciation for you, it’s because they want more of your money.

Buy Nintendo games, enjoy them, be a consumer.  Just be a smarter consumer than to sit there and pretend Nintendo needs your “support”.  None of these companies need it, they WANT it because it means money.  When they have enough of it, they'll start to take you for granted, probably the part of my video you missed.

I agree with that and mentioned it at the very end.  PlayStation pushing games up $10 is not as defensible as it seems, and heck, the discussion around the TLOU1 remake is proving that some people are seeing the signs with PlayStation, too.

----------

AAAANDDDD that took me a whole hour, though I also have to respond to work at the same time... Oof.

I honestly couldn't care less about Elden Ring or Tales of Arise, those aren't my thing. Switch gets plenty of third party games that appeal to me, because of its success; games like Witcher 3, Doom Eternal, 13 Sentinels, Hellblade, Ori 1 & 2, etc. They're great to me, that's the only metric that matters to me.

I'm certainly not tossing out criticism of Nintendo; if I think they've fucked up, as they sometimes do, I will be the first to call them out, and if they make moves with games or systems that are bad for me, I won't support that. 

I'm a child of the SNES era so I certainly remember the Gamecube generation. Personally I found that their weakest era I've lived through, I much prefer the Nintendo of today to the Nintendo of 2001-2005.

I guess it all comes down to different things appealing to different people; for me the current era is the most I've enjoyed Nintendo since the 1990s, and if the Switch had sold similarly to the Gamecube, it almost certainly would have missed out on many of the games that make it so great for me.