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.

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.

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.

>Man makes dumb clickbait title
>Everyone gives criticism pointing out how dumb it is
>Man gets assblasted and writes a novel in response, that despite its length still barely touches on their actual criticism.
Lol, never change internet.

Worse there was some heavy intellectual slight of hand by using a vaguely populist argument 'the consumers should always be able to pull the rug' and overtly pro capitalist arguments praising 'competition'. 

Competition can be good and can be a bad thing. For example, Netflix. Netflix had a dominant position and had all the content I wanted to see = I needed only one subscription to see what I wanted. Now I have to pay multiple subscription and Netflix has to raise their price because they don't have the deep pockets of Disney or Amazon. 

Competition is not a magical word that fixes every problem. A dominant position can allow a company to take creative risks. Some companies thrive when they find success, others become greedy. 

It is as if, it is more complicated than "Success is bad for consumers"