Double standards against Nintendo

[MysticSlayer]

If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

Keep in mind, people want to play Nintendo games but they don't want to spend the extra $300 on Nintendo's consoles just to play those games. They are forced to make a choice that requires a little more thought and potential planning than a single piss break. For that reason, they complain about the exclusivity of Nintendo's games, call them "anti-consumer" for that exclusivity, and find any way to argue for it coming to one of the other consoles. That way, on their next piss break, they can...fail to choose between Sony and Microsoft and repeat the process for them.

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Do you have any actual evidence of this happening, or are you just theorizing because you disagree with the review scores?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Perhaps you should revert the question to "why Nintendo is anti-game community" ?

Nintendo might not have forced microtransactions and always online DRM,but they have done their own anti-community things.
They are the only games company that actually deletes youtube videos of their games its own self.
In Europe it has been trialed and fined for anti-trust policies,and there are store chains who stopped doing business with them because they required the shops to pay to buy stock themselves instead of only asking getting paid when the store actually sells the stock.
Another thing they tried to do is to force all retailers to price the product on the same price, something that makes Nintendo act as a cartel and violates Europe's free market laws,that provide retailers the power to price a product they have at any price they want.
And I know at least one case where Nintendo stopped sending review copies of their games to a magazine,because an individual writer on said magazine expressed that he liked better PSP than DS.
And that's all recent things Nintendo has done in E.U.,let's not go even more in the past, in the NES era and how it tried to monopolize the USA market.

The fact that Nintendo doesn't try to screw the end consumer doesn't mean it's a Saint Business. They are like ninjas instead: they do the dirty work behind the scenes.They just try to screw their competitors,often in ways that its arguable if they are ethic or lawful,and to a lesser extent retailers that doesn't want to pay for a possible failure of Nintendo themselves,and journalists who are not giving Nintendo favorable reviews.
Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Nintendo is anti game community?Without them then there would'nt be a gaming community.And your opinion about their games being worse all around is obviously wrong since millions of people like them.

I love my new Wii U and my 3DS but let's not pretend that someone wouldn't have come along to revive gaming if Nintendo hadn't done it 28 years ago.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

Keep in mind, people want to play Nintendo games but they don't want to spend the extra $300 on Nintendo's consoles just to play those games. They are forced to make a choice that requires a little more thought and potential planning than a single piss break. For that reason, they complain about the exclusivity of Nintendo's games, call them "anti-consumer" for that exclusivity, and find any way to argue for it coming to one of the other consoles. That way, on their next piss break, they can...fail to choose between Sony and Microsoft and repeat the process for them.

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Do you have any actual evidence of this happening, or are you just theorizing because you disagree with the review scores?

I read an article in a video games magazine about it where they stated they would stop doing reviews of Nintendo products because Nintendo stopped sending them things to review because they didn't liked that in a comparison article the magazine had in an issue between PSP and DS the writer said he liked PSP better. It's been like 5 or so years by then. I don't even know where this magazine is now. Even if I knew though I wouldn't be bothered to make scans and upload them just to prove 1 guy on the internet that I'm not lying.
If you don't want to believe it,don't do it.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Perhaps you should revert the question to "why Nintendo is anti-game community" ?

Nintendo might not have forced microtransactions and always online DRM,but they have done their own anti-community things.
They are the only games company that actually deletes youtube videos of their games its own self.
In Europe it has been trialed and fined for anti-trust policies,and there are store chains who stopped doing business with them because they required the shops to pay to buy stock themselves instead of only asking getting paid when the store actually sells the stock.
Another thing they tried to do is to force all retailers to price the product on the same price, something that makes Nintendo act as a cartel and violates Europe's free market laws,that provide retailers the power to price a product they have at any price they want.
And I know at least one case where Nintendo stopped sending review copies of their games to a magazine,because an individual writer on said magazine expressed that he liked better PSP than DS.
And that's all recent things Nintendo has done in E.U.,let's not go even more in the past, in the NES era and how it tried to monopolize the USA market.

The fact that Nintendo doesn't try to screw the end consumer doesn't mean it's a Saint Business. They are like ninjas instead: they do the dirty work behind the scenes.They just try to screw their competitors,often in ways that its arguable if they are ethic or lawful,and to a lesser extent retailers that doesn't want to pay for a possible failure of Nintendo themselves,and journalists who are not giving Nintendo favorable reviews.
Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Nintendo is anti game community?Without them then there would'nt be a gaming community.And your opinion about their games being worse all around is obviously wrong since millions of people like them.

So yes,they showed people back in the 80s that gaming is not dead and it can keep be profitable.
Does that mean that we should allow this corporation to break the law ?
Or do we all have to overlook Nintendo's shady business and act like facts never happened ?

 

[Stavros Dimou]

If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

Keep in mind, people want to play Nintendo games but they don't want to spend the extra $300 on Nintendo's consoles just to play those games. They are forced to make a choice that requires a little more thought and potential planning than a single piss break. For that reason, they complain about the exclusivity of Nintendo's games, call them "anti-consumer" for that exclusivity, and find any way to argue for it coming to one of the other consoles. That way, on their next piss break, they can...fail to choose between Sony and Microsoft and repeat the process for them.

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Do you have any actual evidence of this happening, or are you just theorizing because you disagree with the review scores?

I read an article in a video games magazine about it where they stated they would stop doing reviews of Nintendo products for that reason. It's been like 5 or so years by then. I don't even know where this magazine is now. Even if I knew though I wouldn't be bothered to make scans and upload them just to prove 1 guy on the internet that I'm not lying.
If you don't want to believe it,don't do it.

If you make a claim then the burden of proof is on you.I have never heard of Nintendo blacklisting review sites which is something I can't say for companies like EA,Ubisoft,and many others.

The thing is I'm not trying to prove anything. It's not like I'm being trialed and I have to defend myself or something or I go to jail. Neither I try to brainwash people and have them all change their mind.
I said something that I know of,now if somebody doesn't believe me,I really don't care.
I won't move my ass of the chair to start looking in the whole house to see if there is still somewhere a copy of a magazine from so many years ago just to prove to a person on the internet that it's true. Too much hassle for something insignificant.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Perhaps you should revert the question to "why Nintendo is anti-game community" ?

Nintendo might not have forced microtransactions and always online DRM,but they have done their own anti-community things.
They are the only games company that actually deletes youtube videos of their games its own self.
In Europe it has been trialed and fined for anti-trust policies,and there are store chains who stopped doing business with them because they required the shops to pay to buy stock themselves instead of only asking getting paid when the store actually sells the stock.
Another thing they tried to do is to force all retailers to price the product on the same price, something that makes Nintendo act as a cartel and violates Europe's free market laws,that provide retailers the power to price a product they have at any price they want.
And I know at least one case where Nintendo stopped sending review copies of their games to a magazine,because an individual writer on said magazine expressed that he liked better PSP than DS.
And that's all recent things Nintendo has done in E.U.,let's not go even more in the past, in the NES era and how it tried to monopolize the USA market.

The fact that Nintendo doesn't try to screw the end consumer doesn't mean it's a Saint Business. They are like ninjas instead: they do the dirty work behind the scenes.They just try to screw their competitors,often in ways that its arguable if they are ethic or lawful,and to a lesser extent retailers that doesn't want to pay for a possible failure of Nintendo themselves,and journalists who are not giving Nintendo favorable reviews.
Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Nintendo is anti game community?Without them then there would'nt be a gaming community.And your opinion about their games being worse all around is obviously wrong since millions of people like them.

So yes,they showed people back in the 80s that gaming is not dead and it can keep be profitable.
Does that mean that we should allow this corporation to break the law ?
Or do we all have to overlook Nintendo's shady business and act like facts never happened ?

What shady businesses?Aside from the fact they have taken down LPs of their games what exactly has Nintendo donethat could be considered shady?What laws have they broken or are you just spouting conjecture in order to paint them as something they're not?

Didn't you read the first message I posted on this thread ? The one you keep quoting ?
Nintendo has been trialed and found guilty and fined with multi-million fines for breaking the law.

If that's what you are saying,that because a company made a sympathetic imaginational plumber we should allow it to break the law whenever it wants and never say a thing about it,then I'm sorry but I quit discussing with you.
I can't have a discussion with a person with that mindset.
If there is another school shooting and someone kills people,would you say "policemen are evil to want to put him in jail,because he made good drawings of elephants!!" ?
I'm sorry,I can't keep discussing on this conversation.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

Keep in mind, people want to play Nintendo games but they don't want to spend the extra $300 on Nintendo's consoles just to play those games. They are forced to make a choice that requires a little more thought and potential planning than a single piss break. For that reason, they complain about the exclusivity of Nintendo's games, call them "anti-consumer" for that exclusivity, and find any way to argue for it coming to one of the other consoles. That way, on their next piss break, they can...fail to choose between Sony and Microsoft and repeat the process for them.

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

Do you have any actual evidence of this happening, or are you just theorizing because you disagree with the review scores?

I read an article in a video games magazine about it where they stated they would stop doing reviews of Nintendo products for that reason. It's been like 5 or so years by then. I don't even know where this magazine is now. Even if I knew though I wouldn't be bothered to make scans and upload them just to prove 1 guy on the internet that I'm not lying.
If you don't want to believe it,don't do it.

If you make a claim then the burden of proof is on you.I have never heard of Nintendo blacklisting review sites which is something I can't say for companies like EA,Ubisoft,and many others.

The thing is I'm not trying to prove anything. It's not like I'm being trialed and I have to defend myself or something or I go to jail. Neither I try to brainwash people and have them all change their mind.
I said something that I know of,now if somebody doesn't believe me,I really don't care.
I won't move my ass of the chair to start looking in the whole house to see if there is still somewhere a copy of a magazine from so many years ago just to prove to a person on the internet that it's true. Too much hassle for something insignificant.

Then why did you try to claim Nintendo blacklists review sites that refuse to give their games perfect scores without proof?Most people would ask you to back up your assertions.

Well excuse me but I don't hold a record with everything Nintendo does in my house,I have better things to spend my time and my apartment's space with. But does that mean that I will stop talking about things I know and telling them ?
Really,your argument is so silly like if you told someone that human bodies consist of atoms, and he asked you to carry a microscope with you to show him that in fact atoms exist,or stop saying that atoms exist.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh a bit back on the original topic, MS and Sony don't get that doom and gloom like Nintendo because they aren't just game companies. They have things to fall back on if their gaming division start to fail and the ability to pull money from other division if they need to boost their gaming division.

Also Nintendo is on track to have a "Failing" console, It didn't get GTA, which there is NO reason the main game couldn't have been made on it, They didn't get any of the main stream sports or wrestling title, the other big shooter battlefield. Also note the mulit-platforms it did get sold substantially worse on the console compared to others.

While they have the 3ds to stand on still them owning a home console is looking to be a money sink.

 

[Ipsen]

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

You know, now that I think about it....

I have not.

Even taking a side not directly favoring Nintendo, I'd say they get great scores on games not only because they near co-authored the book on good games, but their recent games are rehashes[footnote]And really, that's the harshest term I have for them; while not novel in design, they improve the formula for an already fun game concept. Most developers can't manage that, even those with 3 sequels and multiple spinoffs under their belts.[/footnote] of said good games. Nintendo follows the quality, which just happens to be their own product.

I also didn't think we scored games on 'doing something new' (or sound, for that matter, for the past 1.5 decades). And cmon, the topic for discussion is consoles. How much novelty are you going to wring out of ANY of them[footnote]Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony[/footnote]?

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Have you ever wondered why all Nintendo games get almost always perfect scores even if they look worse,sound worse,and have or do nothing new in comparison to games that are better in all these and get way lower scores ?
Nintendo is pretty clear: If a reviewer says he doesn't like one of their products,they stop sending him products to review.

You know, now that I think about it....

I have not.

Even taking a side not directly favoring Nintendo, I'd say they get great scores on games not only because they near co-authored the book on good games, but their recent games are rehashes[footnote]And really, that's the harshest term I have for them; while not novel in design, they improve the formula for an already fun game concept. Most developers can't manage that, even those with 3 sequels and multiple spinoffs under their belts.[/footnote] of said good games. Nintendo follows the quality, which just happens to be their own product.

I also didn't think we scored games on 'doing something new' (or sound, for that matter, for the past 1.5 decades). And cmon, the topic for discussion is consoles. How much novelty are you going to wring out of ANY of them[footnote]Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony[/footnote]?

Sure,I agree.
The thing is,I didn't said that all Nintendo games are bad and that Nintendo 'buys' reviews or something.
Indeed many Nintendo games are quite fun and I like them myself. I even have a Wii. But the fact that I personally like some of Nintendo's games,doesn't make me want to defend everything they do,even if what they do is something I don't think is right. And sure Nintendo is not obligated or forced to give out free copies of their games to any reviewer.
But at least once,they do have stopped sending review copies to a magazine because someone said he liked PSP better.
But this part,of how Nintendo distributes review copies wasn't the main point of my first post,but an example of how Nintendo treats some parties not in the best way,which are not the end costumers.
Even if Nintendo made the most fun games ever,I would still not like it if they broke the law,or treated other people or businesses in a bad way.
The quality of a product a corporation makes is a different subject than the way it behaves as a company.
If an entity has done something that is good,doesn't mean it has the freedom to do bad things freely without punishment.
Hitler was a pro-animal rights person,which in its own is something good,but you know he was also responsible for the murdering of millions of people.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

They whine about how they casualized the industry, when the reality is that "hardcore" gamers do NOT in any way make up the majority of the gaming community.

Do you have any actual statistics, along with definitions for "hardcore gamer" and "casual gamer", to back up this claim?

If there's any evidence for this, I'd say that the success of the Wii is probably fairly telling, it's sold considerably more units than the Ps3 or Xbox.

If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

Keep in mind, people want to play Nintendo games but they don't want to spend the extra $300 on Nintendo's consoles just to play those games. They are forced to make a choice that requires a little more thought and potential planning than a single piss break. For that reason, they complain about the exclusivity of Nintendo's games, call them "anti-consumer" for that exclusivity, and find any way to argue for it coming to one of the other consoles. That way, on their next piss break, they can...fail to choose between Sony and Microsoft and repeat the process for them.

Wait, why is wanting less console exclusivity a bad thing? I'm pretty sure that just about every consumer would benefit from not having to spend around $2000 buying 4 different systems to be able to access every game they'd want. I know you don't need to get every console and most people probably won't, but the fact that you need to get one even if you just want to play a single game on it is ridiculous

 

[Something Amyss]

What is it with games journalism and the double standards it holds against Nintendo? If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.

I'm calling bullshit. I'm yet to see a significant number of journalists (note you said journalists, not random forum posters) say this.

When something bad happens to Sony or Microsoft, nobody says anything.

Except an almost identical thread from a week or so ago. Oh, do you still mean journalists? You're on a site which has speculated multiple times about the possibility of Microsoft getting out of gaming.

Actually, what is it with the gaming community being anti-Nintendo?

This whole thing reads like a case of "stop not liking what I like."

People are, as a whole, pretty much anti-every corporation.

We've had a bunch of "Nintendo is awesome!" threads popping up lately complaining about how everyone is so anti-Nintendo but I don't see these anti-Nintendo people popping up. Am I not paying attention?

In my experience, even the slightest criticism of Nintendo means hate of Nintendo, because either you are a loyal Nintendo fan or not. There seems to be this very romantic worldview that you think Nintendo is perfect or you're wrong. I've been called a hater in threads where I have said both positive and negative things about Nintendo. Sometimes when they were overwhelmingly so.

Nintendo might not have forced microtransactions and always online DRM,but they have done their own anti-community things.
They are the only games company that actually deletes youtube videos of their games its own self.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but don't they just demonetise videos? Still bad, but not the same.

Also, Sega has done this, and a few others. I just remember Sega because they seemed a step away from declaring a full-on war a while back.

In Europe it has been trialed and fined for anti-trust policies,and there are store chains who stopped doing business with them because they required the shops to pay to buy stock themselves instead of only asking getting paid when the store actually sells the stock.

Nintendo has been found guilty of price fixing before in the US as well. And allegations that they dictated the shelf space to stores in the past.

Fun times.

Unless you're a fanboy you should be able to see the pros and cons of each platform (yes every platform has cons).

You're doing it wrong. It's "every platform has flaws (Except the one I like)."

Honestly, though, it's fairly grounded. There is no perfect platform. At best, there's the perfect console for me. And that doesn't mean it's flawless. The problem comes in that there are fanboys of pretty much all companies, and certain ones (Nintendo, Apple, Steam) breed a sort of cult of personality around them. I say sort of because it's a very loose fit, but they establish a following that is so dogmatic that it will practically declare war on dissenters.

I didn't like the Wii. I didn't want many games for it. I actually feel different about the Wii U's games. That latter fact should be enough to count me out as a "hater," but it's not, because reasons. Or see above.

Apparently, Nintendo has lost market share on every console since the SNES.

Even the Wii? That sounds fishy.

Nintendo is anti game community?Without them then there would'nt be a gaming community.And your opinion about their games being worse all around is obviously wrong since millions of people like them.

Well, no. There's no evidence that gaming would have never been "saved" without Nintendo, only that Nintendo reinvigorated the industry. Besides, the argument that they can't be anti-community, the saved it 30 years ago doesn't track.

And honestly, are we going to stick with the line that popularity equals quality? So you think Call of Duty games are pretty much the pinnacle of gaming? Also, wouldn't that make the lagging sales of Super Mario 3D Land indication of his claim?