By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo's Success Is Your Greatest Enemy!

Chazore said:
curl-6 said:

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.

I've owned a Switch since 2018 and I'm not drowning in games?.

Only time I was drowning in games as with my GBC, GBA, DS, and by the 3DS things started to lessen, and by the time of the Switch I own like 3 Ninty 1st/3rd party titles, the rest being a few indies.

I liked what the Wii U offered at the time, whilst you don't, so I think you're going to find different strokes of fans along the way, and I honestly wished Nintendo had to keep on fighting, because a constant fighter tends to put up a better fight than getting one lucky knockout punch and surfing the rest of the fight.

My issue with the Wii U was that it did have some great games, it only had a tiny number of worthwhile ones per year with long barren months in between, because it had no third party support after its first year due to poor sales.

On the Switch, there's copious third party games to fill out the gaps between Nintendo releases, due to it being successful enough to attract the investment of outside publishers.

Of course, personal preference is always going to be a factor; I own more than thirty games for my Switch for instance, and can't keep up with all the new ones coming out.

But the Switch wasn't a lucky punch, it was a premeditated, deliberately calculated and ingenious move, a killer concept sold with killer games and, once it got going, a plentiful supply of software from across the industry, from AAA titles like Witcher 3 and Doom Eternal, to a smorgasbord of indies, and plenty of AA fare in between.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 20 July 2022

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

Frankly, the greatest harm Nintendo's success with the Switch has done to me is how much it has emptied my wallet with all these awesome games I want to play.

Agreed. I've bought more games for Switch than for any other single platform I've owned. The RPGs alone are enough to keep me occupied for a long, long time. 



Why is this thread still alive?



curl-6 said:

My issue with the Wii U was that it did have some great games, it only had a tiny number of worthwhile ones per year with long barren months in between, because it had no third party support after its first year due to poor sales.

On the Switch, there's copious third party games to fill out the gaps between Nintendo releases, due to it being successful enough to attract the investment of outside publishers.

Of course, personal preference is always going to be a factor; I own more than thirty games for my Switch for instance, and can't keep up with all the new ones coming out.

But the Switch wasn't a lucky punch, it was a premeditated, deliberately calculated and ingenious move, a killer concept sold with killer games and, once it got going, a plentiful supply of software from across the industry, from AAA titles like Witcher 3 and Doom Eternal, to a smorgasbord of indies, and plenty of AA fare in between.

That was due to their level of hw, which made it difficult for 3rd party support, and it also did not help that Nintendo decided to wedge itself halfway into an already existing generation of consoles. 

Yes, they have had that newfound third party support, but it hasn't made late ports cheap or of their best quality, something that should have been pressed harder for.

Well of course, we all have our personal prefs from system to system. I prefer indies because I see them experimenting more than 1st party projects which cost millions to create.

I don't see how it was "premediated", that's like saying they deliberately designed the Wii U to look weaker and then come back strong with a timed and calculated knockout. That also means by that logic, that any failed system they are to release is also pre-calculated, to again, make themselves look weak, only to come back with a good system soon after. 

It's also very strange how everyone else in life can make mistakes and then learn from them, but with Nintendo that's not possible, everything is premeditated and calculated, so they win/lose entirely on purpose and not because they made mistakes and didn't read the room properly. 

Again, I do believe you are conditionally attached to Nintendo. Yes you have no real choice to point out their shortcomings, but at the same time you're denying any flaws and citing others as pre-calculated, which tells me that you are deeply attached to them.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:
curl-6 said:

My issue with the Wii U was that it did have some great games, it only had a tiny number of worthwhile ones per year with long barren months in between, because it had no third party support after its first year due to poor sales.

On the Switch, there's copious third party games to fill out the gaps between Nintendo releases, due to it being successful enough to attract the investment of outside publishers.

Of course, personal preference is always going to be a factor; I own more than thirty games for my Switch for instance, and can't keep up with all the new ones coming out.

But the Switch wasn't a lucky punch, it was a premeditated, deliberately calculated and ingenious move, a killer concept sold with killer games and, once it got going, a plentiful supply of software from across the industry, from AAA titles like Witcher 3 and Doom Eternal, to a smorgasbord of indies, and plenty of AA fare in between.

That was due to their level of hw, which made it difficult for 3rd party support, and it also did not help that Nintendo decided to wedge itself halfway into an already existing generation of consoles. 

Yes, they have had that newfound third party support, but it hasn't made late ports cheap or of their best quality, something that should have been pressed harder for.

Well of course, we all have our personal prefs from system to system. I prefer indies because I see them experimenting more than 1st party projects which cost millions to create.

I don't see how it was "premediated", that's like saying they deliberately designed the Wii U to look weaker and then come back strong with a timed and calculated knockout. That also means by that logic, that any failed system they are to release is also pre-calculated, to again, make themselves look weak, only to come back with a good system soon after. 

It's also very strange how everyone else in life can make mistakes and then learn from them, but with Nintendo that's not possible, everything is premeditated and calculated, so they win/lose entirely on purpose and not because they made mistakes and didn't read the room properly. 

Again, I do believe you are conditionally attached to Nintendo. Yes you have no real choice to point out their shortcomings, but at the same time you're denying any flaws and citing others as pre-calculated, which tells me that you are deeply attached to them.

While no hardware manufacturer sets out with the intentions of making a failed console, you can clearly see a difference between how Nintendo handled the Switch (and Wii) as opposed to the Wii U.  Both the Switch and Wii had heavy marketing campaigns from Nintendo.  The Switch was announced to the world via a Super Bowl commercial, an unprecedented marketing move for Nintendo at the time.  And Nintendo had the viral "Wii would like to play" ad campaign.  Meanwhile, the Wii U was released and sold with almost no marketing push whatsoever.  If you look at the overarching timeline of the 3 consoles, you get a sense that Nintendo was intending to move from the Wii to a console/portable hybrid, but technologically they couldn't get it done yet at a marketable price.  But since the non-HD Wii was rapidly getting long in the tooth and no longer a value proposition in the home video game space, they needed to replace it asap. 

That resulted in a stop-gap console like the Wii U.  A unit with a gamepad that would function like the Switch (on screen and off screen playability) but with unfortunately extremely limited range.  Very little focus was given to marketing the Wii U, because Nintendo was more focused on the R&D of refining the Switch, which they almost immediately began talking about publicly as codename NX.  A lot of people thought that Nintendo should have sold an HD-Wii instead, but how many end of life console upgrades would they have sold?  More than, less, or around the same as the 13.5 million Wii U's they ended up selling?  It's the same reason that the Wii was born as an add-on idea for the Gamecube, but instead became its own console.  Nintendo knew they would get more sales out of releasing new hardware than a peripheral for a system with flagging sales.

So, yes, I do think the trajectory of both the Wii U and Switch were calculated moves by Nintendo.  Just watch that very first Super Bowl ad for the Switch.  Nintendo had a very clear message on what the Switch was and how it would benefit gamers, compared to ads for the Wii U over a year after its release where they were still trying to explain to the consumer what the device was.  In reality, it was an unfinished Switch.

Oh, and it's only natural for a Nintendo gamer to get defensive whenever a Nintendo console's success is labeled as "lucky".  Both the Wii and the Switch far too often get written of as "happy accidents" for Nintendo.  The company isn't infallible, but they also aren't the only console manufacture to have survived in the video game console space since 1983 by sheer luck.



Around the Network
Chazore said:
curl-6 said:

My issue with the Wii U was that it did have some great games, it only had a tiny number of worthwhile ones per year with long barren months in between, because it had no third party support after its first year due to poor sales.

On the Switch, there's copious third party games to fill out the gaps between Nintendo releases, due to it being successful enough to attract the investment of outside publishers.

Of course, personal preference is always going to be a factor; I own more than thirty games for my Switch for instance, and can't keep up with all the new ones coming out.

But the Switch wasn't a lucky punch, it was a premeditated, deliberately calculated and ingenious move, a killer concept sold with killer games and, once it got going, a plentiful supply of software from across the industry, from AAA titles like Witcher 3 and Doom Eternal, to a smorgasbord of indies, and plenty of AA fare in between.

That was due to their level of hw, which made it difficult for 3rd party support, and it also did not help that Nintendo decided to wedge itself halfway into an already existing generation of consoles. 

Yes, they have had that newfound third party support, but it hasn't made late ports cheap or of their best quality, something that should have been pressed harder for.

Well of course, we all have our personal prefs from system to system. I prefer indies because I see them experimenting more than 1st party projects which cost millions to create.

I don't see how it was "premediated", that's like saying they deliberately designed the Wii U to look weaker and then come back strong with a timed and calculated knockout. That also means by that logic, that any failed system they are to release is also pre-calculated, to again, make themselves look weak, only to come back with a good system soon after. 

It's also very strange how everyone else in life can make mistakes and then learn from them, but with Nintendo that's not possible, everything is premeditated and calculated, so they win/lose entirely on purpose and not because they made mistakes and didn't read the room properly. 

Again, I do believe you are conditionally attached to Nintendo. Yes you have no real choice to point out their shortcomings, but at the same time you're denying any flaws and citing others as pre-calculated, which tells me that you are deeply attached to them.

The Wii U's hardware did not preclude third party support; systems like the Switch, Wii, and 3DS show that lower end hardware can still attract support if the sales are there to justify it.

Obviously Nintendo did not intend for the Wii U to flop as it did, but the Switch wasn't some random matter of throwing a dart at a spreadsheet of ideas; Nintendo looked at where they were failing, and learned from their mistakes, creating a much more appealing and well designed system to correct their problems of 2012-2016.

I'm no apologist for Nintendo; I criticize them all the time.

I could talk at length about their stinginess with information about key upcoming games, the times they miss the mark with systems like the Wii U and Gamecube and games like Metroid Other M, 1-2 Switch, Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival, etc.

Sometimes Nintendo are smart and win, sometimes they behave stupidly and lose. They're not imperfect or infallible. I like them in general, but I do not deny their flaws. Switch just isn't one of them.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 20 July 2022

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

Just gonna have to disagree with the both of you tbh, but at the same time, I don't think I could convince either of you in this lifetime, nor any other universe (OP certainly couldn't).

Luck does indeed exist, calculated or not, but whatever. 

Last edited by Chazore - on 21 July 2022

Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:

Just gonna have to disagree with the both of you tbh, but at the same time, I don't think I could convince either of you in this lifetime, nor any other universe (OP certainly couldn't).

Luck does indeed exist, calculated or not, but whatever. 

Luck exists, yes.  But going on 40 years now in the home video game space is a long time to ride on luck alone.  They have seen Atari, Mattel, Coleco, Phillips, 3DO, Hudson, and Sega all come and go from the same industry during that time. 



Ah sheeit, here we go, time for another novel! *rubs hands together*

JWeinCom said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

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.

Doctor_MG said:

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. 

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.

Azzanation said:

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

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.


Nintendo makes a shitty decision during a successful period- It's because they're successful. See? Success is bad.

Nintendo makes shitty decision during an unsuccessful period- It's because they were successful before. See? Success is bad.

Nintendo makes a good decision during an unsuccessful period- It's because they're unsuccessful. See? Success is bad.

Nintendo makes a good decision during a successful period- It's because they were unsuccessful before. See? Success is bad.

How exactly do you determine if a particular decision or occurrence is a result of Nintendo's success or lackthereof? Cause it seems like you're just interpretting things as necessary to make your point.

Edit:

ZyroXZ2 said:


I am absolutely mystified by this response. I have no idea how to connect the dots from Rol's statement to your response. I'm not necessarily agreeing with him, but that isn't even vaguely responsive to what was actually said. But... uhhhhh... thanks for your brave service I guess?

You mean... like how Nintendo decided to cut out the middle-man and make XC3 Special Edition only purchase-able from their own website? Which led to the website crashing and people not even sure if their purchase was valid? You don't see that and think, "someone at corporate figured they'd cut out the middle man [retailers] and get greedy", and recognize that they gave no shits about how much it pissed off their fans? The ACTUAL fans that WANT to buy things like a special edition? Come on, man...

Fortunately, it seems that they reversed course for Bayonetta 3, and though I didn't try for the special (masquerade) edition, at least people are able to get them at various retailers which spreads out the purchase load and availability (only so many are made, but when the orders are distributed across multiple retail chains, no one place has to deal with the overload, ergo less chances of errors/websites going down/etc.)

Perhaps something is wrong with the quoting, but what are you mystified by?  I think it's blank, or perhaps it's even on my end since this is probably a massively more complex quoting tree than was ever intended lmfao

SegaHeart said:
Azzanation said:

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

This, It doesn't matter It's not like as if Nintendo is killing Microsoft or Sony rn. All 3 platforms are doing great. If anything Sega should of been successful so we'd have a fourth console maker that still makes amazing JRPGs like Skies of Arcadia and Phantasy star main series etc ever since Sega went 3rd party their 3D sonic franchise has gone down hill and their other franchises have been shelved including Jet Set radio series but Sega will try one more time in the reboot but I won't count it beating the Original.

Technically, Valve is trying to enter as a fourth player with the Steam Deck.  We have yet to see how that pans out in the long run, as this is only their second self-developed piece of hardware, and the last one was a peripheral making this their first actual foray into making gaming hardware.  I don't count the Steam Machines, that was a third party exclusive hardware deal that, to me, made little sense.  It seems they were trying to create a "variable console hardware" market, but instead of doing the R&D themselves to create clear tiers of hardware, they left it up to third parties which just created an odd and unappealing market without distinct and clear lines the consumer could read and make easy decisions on.

The_Liquid_Laser said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

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, for one, think you should be hating on Microsoft instead of Nintendo.  Nintendo's success right now is due to people liking their games.  Microsoft's success right now is due to them being a gigantic company with around a $2 trillion market cap.  Microsoft fails upward.  They screw up big time, and then buy gigantic gaming companies afterward.  They are like that video game boss that you defeat and then still comes back stronger than ever before.

Basically for Nintendo to stay successful, they need to keep making great games.  That ultimately means the gamers are in control.  For Microsoft to stay successful, they just need to keep making major acquisitions.  In this case, gamers are not in control.  For example, if you think Mario Strikers is a bad game, then just don't buy it.  On the other hand if you think Starfield should be on every platform, well forget it, because Bethesda isn't a third party studio anymore. 

I think you should have been complaining about Microsoft instead of Nintendo.

I have my qualms with Xbox, though they reversed course on the doubling up on XBL Gold (and you can see the causation: Game Pass is doing really well, so they figured they'd "funnel" people by increasing the price on XBL Gold... *tsk tsk*). I made a quip about it, but since it got reversed, there's not a whole lot to talk about. But yea, greedy ATTEMPTED move right there...

I even talk in videos how Microsoft lacks overall exclusives, so that criticism also exists from me. I ALSO have griped MULTIPLE times about Halo Infinite: poor content drip, overpriced cosmetics... I eventually uninstalled Halo Infinite and have been waiting for a proper reason to install it again. I don't mean this in a rude way, but just because you don't see it in this thread doesn't mean I'm not doing it (my griping about Halo Infinite was in my stream of the Xbox Bethesda showcase). None of these companies are my friends: they do good, then good. They do bad, then bad.

Besides, complaining about Xbox creates a sort of duality: Sony is also doing acquisitions. People try to find the granular differences to make it "good" when Sony does it, and "bad" when Xbox does it.  The truth is, both are willing to throw money at each other.  The difference is Xbox has yet to fully pan this out because the acquisition is not even complete, nor have games had time to bake under their money, yet.  This is a time will tell, and believe you-me: if it doesn't pan out, count on my lambasting Xbox for buying up companies and doing jack shit with them.  It took them forever just to leverage Rare semi-appropriately with Sea of Thieves!

Now if you want me complaining about MICROSOFT as a whole company, then that doesn't belong in this thread, but I'll be damned that they managed a near-monopoly on PC gaming and business... I mean, I practically HAVE to use Outlook, or Windows, sheesuzzzzzzz... And I grew up on MAC!  Having to run bootcamp and stuff is just so unappealing, and they KNOW this, haha!

RolStoppable said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

(...)

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.

You are clearly all about being right, hence why you keep grasping for straws to defend a rubbish video of yours. That's why you keep trying to deflect from the fact that Nintendo is so successful right now because of all the great games that they've made. Great games, you know, are the most fundamental reason to be a gamer in the first place.

But you are hellbent on suggesting that everyone who likes Nintendo right now has to be a fanboy. You take offense to a perceived projection of mine, yet in turn you assume a lot of things about me. You just aren't any good at debating, be it about Nintendo or otherwise, because you can't help yourself from striking that tone of being that one enlightened gamer who sees it at his duty to guide others.

Your memory is also way off if you believe that the later years of the GameCube and Wii U were good times, because Nintendo supposedly tried to up their game. The wheels were coming off for both consoles, resulting in tremendous software droughts in 2006 and 2016, and that after the already not-so-special years of 2005 and 2015. But this particular memory of yours is like so many others where you arrange the pieces to make them fit your narrative. JWeinCom already summed up your thought process for which decisions of Nintendo are caused by success or lack thereof, so I don't need to do it again.

Sure, Nintendo is not paying me for defending them, but you know what? I don't mind doing it for free, just like I don't mind defending other things or people without compensation when I see bullshit being thrown at them. You don't necessarily make such videos because you believe what you say; it's actually more likely that you are just in for the money and it's well-known that it's easier to generate clicks and views with bullshit than with quality content. It shouldn't surprise anyone that this particular video of yours got a lot more replies than your average video on this website.

Lastly, I very much doubt that anyone here needs to be educated about how a responsible consumer should act. I am pretty sure that everyone here picks exactly the Nintendo games they want to play while they won't buy the ones that don't interest them.

You sure project a lot more than you think. Keep in mind: this video has nothing to do with you, your name isn't in it, and you're a complete stranger to me. But you are offended by it and making it personal, and sadly have ended up doing the very thing you're saying I do: you think I don't notice that you've tried your best to misrepresent the video? You think I don't see you cherrypicking the parts you want to argue with to discredit the whole thing?

I don't see myself as enlightened, nor even that smart. I've on many occasions discussed how the invention of the toilet makes me feel stupid. Every day that I haven't done something as meaningful towards humanity as simple as the toilet is every day that I feel stupid, like I'm just not doing shit with my life... which is every damned day. BUT, given your tone, I don't mind getting my hands dirty!

Speaking in terms you can understand, you and I have a very clear difference: I don't ever walk around trying to "call out bullshit" for my favorite company. You want to know what makes you and I very different people? You projected it for me: you really think that you're the "truth" sayer, the one that sees through people like me (albeit grossly incorrect and hilarious considering how much of what I've said is out there that I do NOT seek fame and fortune; I've had lengthy discussions with people in real life how I don't want that, and all the problems, stresses, and dangers that come with it; my goal is making a difference, not making money). You genuinely believe that you're defending Nintendo, you really believe you are "right" against the negativity you perceive as slights against a multi-billion dollar company. Instead, you are the very thing I talked about months back: toxic positivity.

You ARE the very issue with gaming communities in general. The very thing that has killed forum after forum, the living concept that disagreement is about "right and wrong" (it's not, just an FYI). Your reply to me has quite accurately pointed out who you think you are. It's kind of classic, actually.

But anyway, I can see that this will get nowhere, and much like some other dude's name I can't remember, I'm simply not going to continue replying to you regardless of what you think you've got or what battle you started all on your own that you need to feel like you've won.  I humored you, and that's it.

Doctor_MG said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

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.

You realize to be profitable IS to be successful, right?

Not quite: many companies are profitable but do not enjoy widespread success. Heck, I work for a small company, we turn a decent profit, but we are not successful. We don't at all have any effect on the market and have to literally move with the ebb and flow of where it goes. We enjoy zero visibility, zero success, zero influence, but turn a healthy profit and don't operate in debt.

If your definition of success is profitability, then you just defined probably another 40% of businesses as successful. Conversely, on a personal level, do you consider yourself successful? Or are you just earning money to be able to eat, have a roof over your head, and maybe feed your family? Success and profit are distinctly different things. Many people in this world are making money, but do not consider themselves successful, and companies fall under the same concepts.

Kai_Mao said:

I honestly don’t know why this is a thing. Nintendo has always done some odd or dumb things, regardless if they were successful or not. Didn’t anyone remember the Wii U/3DS days when they put stuff out like AC Amiibo Festival, in which you have to use amiibo to even play the game, which was negatively received due to its shallow gameplay and features? Or when they introduced the New 3DS XL in the Americas and didn’t include in a charger in the package and had a weird process of transferring data to the New 3DS XL? Or when they introduced the YouTube Partners Program? And let’s not pretend buying the same VC games on Wii U/3DS all over again was a fun process.

Nintendo will always do whatever they feel is right for them. But while they’re doing that, they’ve continuously do whatever they can to put out content that they think would be cool to play. They’ve been among the top publishers that have released the most games almost every year. Sure there are things that they need to work on in a management and a gaming aspect, but it’s always gonna be a work in progress.

Oh there are definitely bad moves even during the bad times for them, but adding handhelds into the mix follows a similar timeline. The DS was PEAK success along with the Wii, and this likely led them to the necessary profits to consider starting figurines which is why the Wii U and 3DS had NFT readers in them. This was also because they likely saw the profits of toys-to-life stuff at the time like Skylanders.

Granted, amiibo are an interesting thing. To some, it's a fun collectable, but to others, it's some weird physical DLC method (or both). I can't call it bad, but I can't call it good, either. It seems to simply exist somewhat outside the overall flow because it's a physical good. Ergo, I can't see any particular pattern in how they have handled amiibo, and I almost feel like internally, it's just an independently operating division. Granted, the success of said platforms preceding them likely had them thinking they could cash in on that Skylanders toys-to-life craze, turning some of us into man-children over plastic HOT ZERO SUIT SAMUS AND BAYONETTA AMIIBO *cradles plastic figurines gently* lol

psychicscubadiver said:

>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.

It's okay to admit you didn't read nor watch anything.

"We, here on a primarily Nintendo fandom forum, are outnumbering him, WE'RE WINNING!"

If that's what you think is happening, sure, attack the length of the reply since you've got nothing else. At least the other people are actually arguing the topic lmao

Nostaldub said:
psychicscubadiver said:

>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" 

There's no sleight of hand... *facepalm*

Though you make the valid point that not everyone finds more options convenient if there's something they want from ALL of the options (like that I've had to buy all three consoles to get what I want from all three which is FAR more expensive). Though, Netflix is starting to lose subs at continued pace, so there's a good chance they'll try making good on your increased sub price. If not, perhaps the idea is to take your money elsewhere: you may lose a few things you want, but that would be made up for in what you gain on another.  Netflix will try to get you back, and perhaps shows that you did want that they cancelled may come back.  That's kind of the whole point, here...

Though, your correlation is odd: it's not that competition ITSELF fixes anything, it's the loss of market share that does. Dominant positions rarely see companies take creative risks in your favor, it INSTEAD sees them take steps towards *dun dun dun* what the video is about: control over their market to ensure continued profits.  Successful companies try to find out what they can get away with, and even PlayStation is testing the waters with that TLOU remake as a full priced $70 game.  Not many companies use their dominant positions to take creative risks, they use their dominant positions to muscle and milk the market in their favor.  Like, ALWAYS.

JWeinCom said:
Nostaldub said:

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" 

Not to mention that the single biggest competitor for Nintendo is people not playing Nintendo games. 

There are some people like those in this forum who are devoted enough that they're always going to buy some kind of video game no matter what. But for the majority of people video games aren't an essential. And if the number one company isn't putting out stuff they like, they'll just stop playing.

The only situation where there is something even close to monopoly power is with NSOnline, because they're restricting access to a key feature for a product people already paid for. But, aside from that, the argument just doesn't hold water. Even if Nintendo is on top with 100 million consoles sold, they'd rather sell 120. If those 120 million people are buying 10 games each, Nintendo would rather they each buy 12 games.

In a world where people were each required to buy one and only one game console, and were required to buy a set number of games, then the argument might work. But in the real world, even there was no competition, Nintendo would stand to lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars based on their decisions. No matter how much money they make, they're gonna want more.

If there were such a world where only one game console existed, they would not stand to ever lose hundreds of millions of dollars because they'd only ever develop hardware and software at a profit.  The only reason PlayStation and Xbox lost BILLIONS during the PS3/X360 era was because they were both trying to one-up each other in hardware tech.  Without any competition, why would you?  No one would.  In this world of one gaming machine, we'd not be anywhere close to where we are now in graphics, gaming tech, online/multiplayer services, etc.  It would take far longer to get there.  Companies don't take risks for fun, they take risks to beat the other guy.

GoOnKid said:

More of these threads, please.

I actually +1 this, it's fun!  Time-consuming, but fun nonetheless lol

Kakadu18 said:

Why is this thread still alive?

Because they're trying to outnumber me and it feels good for them to think they're winning by ganging up lol

------------------------------------------

I'm actually rather glad we got some people all piled up in here. It's far easier to address a larger number of people than one-by-one... Then again, as the saying from MiB goes, "a person is smart, people are stupid". Or in other words, mob mentality is hard to curb.  But to those people, and you know who you are...

I'll drop a nice little nugget of knowledge: if you want people like me to drop off the face of the Earth, the real trick is to NOT get all riled up and just ignore/block me. You want to know why the actual toxic videos (because anyone with more than 10 IQ knows my video wasn't actually toxic aside from its two jabs at fanboys) do so well? Because it angers the mob mentality. You want to know why people purposely use REAL clickbait headlines (because my headline ain't no clickbait, either, it just offends Nintendo fanboys because it contains the words "Nintendo" and hyperbole with "greatest enemy"), misinformation, and general negativity to anger the masses? Because it WORKS. And it's not because of them, it's because of you all thinking you're winning and "right". This, this thread is why negativity thrives: toxic people beget toxic people. "Let's all gang up on this guy, yeaaaa, he's so stupid!" and all you've done is create the very conundrum many of you accuse me of. Of course, that's because you're LOOKING for it, and there's the real problem. It's not me, it's you. The good news is that I don't plan to take advantage of it, and never will. You THINK I do, but seriously, you're just weaving webs of meaning where there isn't any.

You want the real win? Do what you normally do: don't watch my stuff, block me, pay no attention to it. Otherwise, this behavior, it's what MAKES gaming journalism what it is today. It's what MAKES content creators seeking fame and fortune try extra hard to clickbait you into getting mad, to inject one-sided or highly opinionated statements into their articles/content specifically aimed to rile you up. Don't fall for it, because I know you do if you're in here in this thread fighting an invisible fight. You're the very thing it feeds off of. And while I made light of this mindsight with the "answer to Zelda" stuff, my actual expectations around here are the usual maybe 10 views I get. I mostly come here for the handful of good people here who aren't looking around for stuff to be mad about and just want some stuff to watch or talk about (I've proven I'm happy to have discourse with someone who isn't coming at my like their feelings are hurt). For the record, though, this thread has only resulted in about 50 views of the video, which is abnormally high and as I said, even a shock to me lol

Let's hope there is no next time because you're all going to wise up in unison. Mob mentality can be curbed, right? RIGHT?

OH SHIT, I have Steam Deck vs Switch videos coming... WELP



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/

Edit: I actually had a pretty good reply typed out. I only paid attention to your response to me, bolded what I was arguing and sent it. After I submitted the comment I read what you wrote at the bottom that was separate from the responses and noticed that you A) lumped me in with everyone else even though I'm not paying attention to what you guys are arguing about and B) suggested I was basically just a stupid fanboy.

I don't appreciate that at all. I'm going to take your advice and ignore you. Good day. 

Last edited by Doctor_MG - on 21 July 2022