If you lumped yourself in with that, that's on you.  I would have figured it was pretty obvious who the bad actors were, so even though I've got nothing against you (and was pretty clear in replies to you that I was having normal discourse with you) or really anyone else that doesn't do obvious personal attacks or straight up denigrates me, know that if you decide to reply, I'll still discuss it with you.

You're fine, I clearly said earlier in this thread I recognize you're not emotionally thrashing your replies.  It's funny because I have a video that's been planned for a month or so that will come months from now, but I discuss the core of "gamer" social aptitude, or often the lack thereof.  There's a reason most of the general public continues to perceive "gamers" a certain way, and while I clearly know it's not everyone that fits the stereotype, there's a core issue with how "gamers" handle socializing over videogames that is widerspread than most other communities.

I've been on a LOT of forums over the years: cars, tech, etc. and even though every forum has the usual nutjobs, gaming somehow has them in far higher relative numbers.  Have I had disputes over cars?  Yup.  Have I had disputes over sports or tech?  Absolutely.  But when it happens in gaming, there's some serious loss of objectivity that it's just videogames at the end of the day, and instead there's this lack of ability to handle social adversity.  Instead, "gamers" almost always use some form of extreme prejudice against a person, whether it's their console of choice, their criticisms, and relate it to who they are as a person.  I've watched dudes argue over sports, and it never looks like dudes arguing over videogames.  In fact, two dudes arguing over sports highly likely have more respect for each other than two dudes arguing over videogames.

For the record, I recall you and I have had disagreements before, but I think you're also an example of where I don't make it personal unless someone else does.  We can disagree all day, and I've still got no beef with you.  But if it gets personal, then I just jump right into the mud with them lol

I'm presuming you have chosen to lump yourself in with the other guy above and ignore me?  I can't tell, these quote trees got so massive...  Whatever it is, if you can't determine who the obvious ones are and who aren't, I'm not about to sit here and type out usernames

Chyeaaa, there's that reach to create meaning where there isn't any.  But just in case it wasn't clear to you: agreement and disagreement are not based on numbers or right/wrong for sane minded people.  The statement about the mob is that many people use or need numbers to feel safe in their thoughts, and that makes it VERY hard for that person to ever see otherwise.  It's called "mob mentality" because it represents an inability for a large number of people to think independently.  Now if you're out here thinking everyone disagrees with me, that's clearly not the case...

Yes, I know you didn't watch it, it was kind of obvious.  You're part of the mob, in case anyone wanted me to point someone out lmfao...  Because if you thought for yourself, you'd have something actually useful to disagree with and present some information on the contrary, but instead you just have to ride off what you perceive as things "everyone else" is thinking and go with it.  You have nothing to say on your own because you don't actually know what was said, but here you are riding along with the mob.

I mean, sheesh, talk about bone-headed... lol

To some extent, there is the presence of Nintendo fans who expect better.  But they clearly aren't in healthy enough numbers to make any real difference, hence the "Nintendo will do whatever they want anyway" thing.  That's because Nintendo follows the numbers, and so they work in ways that are impersonal because they're so big that they can.  That's also kind of the underlying point, here: there ISN'T enough criticism because the money keeps flowing from people who love everything Nintendo.

And that, of course, is the real criticism that I have a tough time arguing when people tell me, "okay, you say all this, yet here you are buying stuff, too".  I think that's part of why I even keep doing the channel: if I'm going to feed the machine, I'm going to make my decisions public so that someone else can make a more informed decision.  Of course, many people try to do that with "user reviews", but those are also... often... well, quite terrible and unreliable in gaming.  That's somewhat proven in this thread why user reviews are so useless: there's often a mob mentality with it which is why you see so many 10s or 0s because people are just out to attack or defend and lack the core logic to provide proper explanation or critique.  Instead, it becomes personal, and when it's personal, it becomes emotional, and when it's emotional, it becomes extremes lol

You're fine, I clearly said earlier in this thread I recognize you're not emotionally thrashing your replies.  It's funny because I have a video that's been planned for a month or so that will come months from now, but I discuss the core of "gamer" social aptitude, or often the lack thereof.  There's a reason most of the general public continues to perceive "gamers" a certain way, and while I clearly know it's not everyone that fits the stereotype, there's a core issue with how "gamers" handle socializing over videogames that is widerspread than most other communities.

I've been on a LOT of forums over the years: cars, tech, etc. and even though every forum has the usual nutjobs, gaming somehow has them in far higher relative numbers.  Have I had disputes over cars?  Yup.  Have I had disputes over sports or tech?  Absolutely.  But when it happens in gaming, there's some serious loss of objectivity that it's just videogames at the end of the day, and instead there's this lack of ability to handle social adversity.  Instead, "gamers" almost always use some form of extreme prejudice against a person, whether it's their console of choice, their criticisms, and relate it to who they are as a person.  I've watched dudes argue over sports, and it never looks like dudes arguing over videogames.  In fact, two dudes arguing over sports highly likely have more respect for each other than two dudes arguing over videogames.

For the record, I recall you and I have had disagreements before, but I think you're also an example of where I don't make it personal unless someone else does.  We can disagree all day, and I've still got no beef with you.  But if it gets personal, then I just jump right into the mud with them lol

To some extent, there is the presence of Nintendo fans who expect better.  But they clearly aren't in healthy enough numbers to make any real difference, hence the "Nintendo will do whatever they want anyway" thing.  That's because Nintendo follows the numbers, and so they work in ways that are impersonal because they're so big that they can.  That's also kind of the underlying point, here: there ISN'T enough criticism because the money keeps flowing from people who love everything Nintendo.

And that, of course, is the real criticism that I have a tough time arguing when people tell me, "okay, you say all this, yet here you are buying stuff, too".  I think that's part of why I even keep doing the channel: if I'm going to feed the machine, I'm going to make my decisions public so that someone else can make a more informed decision.  Of course, many people try to do that with "user reviews", but those are also... often... well, quite terrible and unreliable in gaming.  That's somewhat proven in this thread why user reviews are so useless: there's often a mob mentality with it which is why you see so many 10s or 0s because people are just out to attack or defend and lack the core logic to provide proper explanation or critique.  Instead, it becomes personal, and when it's personal, it becomes emotional, and when it's emotional, it becomes extremes lol

When Nintendo fucks up, people generally pass on their systems to a sufficient degree that they have to change course; see the Wii U, Virtual Boy, or Gamecube for example. So it's not like they can do whatever they want, the market will clearly punish them if they don't offer a good enough proposition.

As with any company, there are some times when stuff I don't like still succeeds, but all I can do is vote with my wallet. I didn't buy games like 1-2 Switch or ARMS or the Mario sports games for example because I didn't like what they were offering.

The WIi U was designed to make bank even if they fucked up, which they did end up getting both in the end. They fucked up, but they still managed to make bank on the system, enough to consider it a setback, but not a "oh shit we've made no money from the system at all this entire gen", so they still got something out of it instead of absolute "you fucked up, now you're gonna suffer the consumer wrath" style of punishment they should have gotten. Despite that setback, they were still rewarded enough to make money back on the system they didn't push hard enough on, which tells me that there was a decent size of the fanbase to help them get that far, instead of hardly any at all. 

Let's take babylon's fall for example, yes that's a game and not a system, but because of the way it was designed to be, and the lack of marketing, and exclusivity shit, it sold like utter crap and now has less players than it did on day/week one. That's how a game/system should be punished, or hell, the recent crap going down with VR chat has tons of folks requesting refunds and leaving negative reviews. That's basically become a big PR nightmare for VRChat, while Nintendo still got to slide by with the Wii U and make bank and still not have to worry all that much about PR, because they brought out the Switch.

Point is, the fans helped them get by, they just weren't punished hard enough, and with the Switch it's all magically water under the bridge, despite the joycon issue still looming over the system (and me having a 2nd pair busted, with Nintendo asking for another £70 from me if I ever want to play the system I bought ever again). 

You may have not bought much into the Wii U, but others did. You have to remember that one purchase doesn't make for a a greater snowball effect, it takes bigger numbers for a greater effect to happen. 

Also, how many other console manufacturers do you see personally take pay cuts at the executive level in response to the negative reception of their hardware?

Even if the Wii U made money from Nintendo, there is no doubt they missed their targets and there was hell to pay via the board and shareholders. I don't think business is as simple as some are making it out to be.

At the end of the day Nintendo makes some really god awful decisions.... but consumers love Nintendo games, Nintendo games are exclusives. Nintendo is doing Nintendo based on market desire. Nintendo's downfall will be if they stop making some of the best games in the industry. As long as Nintendo has great software, they aren't going anywhere. Perhaps I am part of the problem, but despite annoyances I have with Switch I am not missing out on Zelda, Metroid and Mario.

*Regarding your joycons, have you tried spraying Deoxit into the thumbstick?  In most cases, it's a buildup of dead skin/debris that get inside the controller which causes the drift.  I still have my launch day Switch joycons, and I've probably sprayed them with Deoxit twice in 5 years, and it eliminated the drift for a long while both times.  I'm not dismissing the drift as a controller quality issue, mind you.  Just mentioning something that has worked for me as a speedy and cheap fix solution.

I  agree with your post, but I think you tried too hard here. Why should we care for how a company handle their directors when business are doing bad? They could be fired if the sales are bombing and I personally wouldn't be really concerned. Or they could do nothing and keep the same staff, which I wouldn't care either