Double standards against Nintendo

Recommended Videos

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
As a Nintendo fan...to be honest, I'm not quite sure what your talking about here?

Yeah, there are a couple of things that I feel is unfairly cast against Nintendo, but most of the threads here are what...Wii U threads? Not something to get all that riled up about to the extent of making a rant thread.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
VG_Addict said:
What do you mean they're doing worse than they are? Nintendo has made more money in the console business.
You really need to learn how to quote people when discussing on here.

The button is there for a reason.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Nobody can say they have played a horrible Nintendo game and I'll be surprised if someone did.
Except for...you know...that Metroid game we never talk about.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
Dragonbums said:
the hidden eagle said:
Nobody can say they have played a horrible Nintendo game and I'll be surprised if someone did.
Except for...you know...that Metroid game we never talk about.
What one...I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sure it didn't try to retcon the Prime games or anything...XD
*wink* *wink*
 

Stavros Dimou

New member
Mar 15, 2011
697
0
0
Ipsen said:
Stavros Dimou said:
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 you like some of the games, and they get good scores, doesn't that count as at least a bit of validity in their scores?

To not pick your example apart any further, I'll just state that it's pretty shoddy, to the point of being humorous.

I also didn't think ethics was a part of the portion I quoted. I don't (and no one else atm) know about review blacklisting, but I do agree that Nintendo has some ethical...eccentricities, if not straight-up issues.

The amazing Rob Rath wrote a two-part article [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/criticalintel/10049-Conflict-Minerals-and-the-Game-Industry-Progress-and-Setbacks] on the use of conflict minerals used in console production, and the Nintendo portion was...disturbing, to say the least. So I can at least see a point in what you've mentioned.

Besides, the increasingly frequent doomsayings of the internet for Nintendo have little to do with their ethics, which are generally and pretty agreeably aversive when broken. People just like to think Ol' Ninty is dottering (to the tune of 'ANOTHER rehash?!?'), and will die soon (what with the poor Wii U sales).

Eagerly awaiting your next article, Mr. Rath.

Also had a fun time perusing the features archive. This site has some gems...
Anybody saying that Nintendo is going to die clearly doesn't have an idea what Nintendo is. Perhaps WiiU is going to die (arguable),but not Nintendo.
Nintendo has billions,it can even buy small countries. It could survive at least 2-3 WiiUs in a row.
It's not like they won't be able to make another console and will go 3rd party if they decide to stop the production of the WiiU.They will instead make another console,and if that other console doesn't sell well too,they will try yet another one... They still have plenty of money to make failed attempts.
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
That Eeyore said:
While you're right that it's not the consumer's responsibility to keep gaming companies afloat, bear in mind that if Nintendo doesn't make money, they can't make games. Nintendo went the way they did because they knew that trying to compete directly with MS and Sony as they did with GC wasn't gonna cut it. And while nobody can force anyone to buy games they don't want, I really don't like hearing people say that Nintendo "abandoned" them, because that makes it sound way more personal than it actually was, and it's not like they quit making the games they were famous for or publishing "hardcore" games wholesale, they just shifted their marketing focus.

See, employees and bills cannot be paid with the goodwill of the hardcore crowd.
Oh really? Cause Microsoft, Sony, and I guess Valve have been making plenty of money off of "us" since I must be hard core too. Nintendo's problem is exactly what that guy already said in this thread: Nintendo doesn't play nice with other companies. Nintendo could make a console with their first party titles and the kind of third party games we see on other consoles but that would require them to actually work with other companies. The Gamecube had decent 3rd party support, though nowhere near as much as ps2, with decent games like Second Sight on the console in addition to interesting and "hard core" Nintendo titles like Eternal Darkness. It's not impossible for them to compete, they choose not to

And they can do whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean I have to like them as a company
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Yet the former two have shifted to the casual crowd.Microsoft even more so since they made the XBONE to appeal to non gamers.
How so? Are simply talking about the features they added? Because the ps3's ability to browse the Internet and watch blue ray's didn't stop me from playing Fallout 3. Nintendo's current business model did stop me from playing it on the Wii (even if it was on the Wii, it would have been a completely gimped version). And I don't think Microsoft wants the xb1 to appeal to casuals. To me it seems like they want it to be some kind of ultimate home theater pc that also plays games
 

PoolCleaningRobot

New member
Mar 18, 2012
1,237
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
PoolCleaningRobot said:
the hidden eagle said:
Yet the former two have shifted to the casual crowd.Microsoft even more so since they made the XBONE to appeal to non gamers.
How so? Are simply talking about the features they added? Because the ps3's ability to browse the Internet and watch blue ray's didn't stop me from playing Fallout 3. Nintendo's current business model did stop me from playing it on the Wii (even if it was on the Wii, it would have been a completely gimped version). And I don't think Microsoft wants the xb1 to appeal to casuals. To me it seems like they want it to be some kind of ultimate home theater pc that also plays games
I'm pretty most of the XBONE's marketing was towards people who probaly have never played a gaming console in their lives or they did so sparingly.Afterall they did market the hell out of the XBONE's ability to watch sports or that stupid voice command shit,all the commercials I've seen were obviously geared towards casual gamers.
That it runs like a Windows 8 pc, Microsoft wants a "unified experience" across all their devices and the fact they recommended it to business owners cause of voice controlled skype makes me think they want some kind of "cool new type of pc" and thought they could just ride on the xbox brand's success.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,403
0
0
Aiddon said:
MS on the other hand has never made a penny off their console division even with Live subscriptions.
Fallacious, where do people get this from? The actual Xbox 360 itself went into profit per unit years ago, the Xbone is already in profit. Discounting warranty replacements (RRoD) and the development costs of the two previous consoles the hardware is still in net loss for the 360, peripherals like controllers and headsets have been making massive profit. When you factor in advertising revenue, XBLA revenue, gold subscriptions and the revenue from licensing and first party games Microsoft have pocketed billions.

Q3 Profits for just last year where $342 USD and have risen year on year. [http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250907/microsoft-profits-up-xbox-division-up-55-13m-xbox-360s-shipped/] Four quarters per year of profits ranging from half that to that figure, I am sure you can do the maths.

The resistance from the board stems from the fact the entire XBox enterprise is only worth between 20-25% of Microsoft's earnings yet it takes considerable investment, much more than even the hardware and devices division with products like the Surface. Some of the board wants to dump Xbox and concentrate on hardware and devices to compete with Apple, they see Xbox as too risky with the amount of investment it takes.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
...umm, where have you been for several months? Did you miss the Microsoft shitstorm? Nintendo couldn't get negative press like that if they tried. At worst the media treats them with mild neglect or contempt. It's regrettable, but I'd say most gamers have a positive outlook on them. They just aren't taken as seriously because they aren't nearly as successful.
 

MysticSlayer

New member
Apr 14, 2013
2,405
0
0
The Almighty Aardvark said:
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
Well, the comment mostly had to do with the fact that people are declaring doom for Nintendo because their desire to see Nintendo release their games on other systems, not because Nintendo is actually in any danger of going under. Granted, if they have one or two more generations where the console sells as badly as the WiiU has been, then we might see them starting to consider other options, but having one bad system is hardly going to harm them, especially when some of their recent systems (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been rather impressive regarding sales.

Of course, I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with wanting less console exclusivity. The problem I have is when gamers start calling the practice "anti-consumer" or "morally corrupt", as if the idea of wanting to make money off of your own console is suddenly a bad thing, and many of these companies have little more to sell their consoles on than the games that are provided. Unless gamers are willing to find solutions to help these companies while also helping themselves, then I see no reason to acknowledge their complaints as little more than greedy, self-entitled whining that will likely backfire on them in the future. However, if we also start thinking more about how these companies can benefit from less console exclusivity in a way that doesn't backfire on us, then I might be able to take it more seriously. Until then, just accept the fact that you can't have everything you want. After all, it isn't like less exclusivity will let you have everything, as you either don't have the time or money to enjoy everything you want to enjoy.
 
Sep 13, 2009
1,589
0
0
MysticSlayer said:
Well, the comment mostly had to do with the fact that people are declaring doom for Nintendo because their desire to see Nintendo release their games on other systems, not because Nintendo is actually in any danger of going under. Granted, if they have one or two more generations where the console sells as badly as the WiiU has been, then we might see them starting to consider other options, but having one bad system is hardly going to harm them, especially when some of their recent systems (DS, Wii, 3DS) have been rather impressive regarding sales.

Of course, I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with wanting less console exclusivity. The problem I have is when gamers start calling the practice "anti-consumer" or "morally corrupt", as if the idea of wanting to make money off of your own console is suddenly a bad thing, and many of these companies have little more to sell their consoles on than the games that are provided. Unless gamers are willing to find solutions to help these companies while also helping themselves, then I see no reason to acknowledge their complaints as little more than greedy, self-entitled whining that will likely backfire on them in the future. However, if we also start thinking more about how these companies can benefit from less console exclusivity in a way that doesn't backfire on us, then I might be able to take it more seriously. Until then, just accept the fact that you can't have everything you want. After all, it isn't like less exclusivity will let you have everything, as you either don't have the time or money to enjoy everything you want to enjoy.
Morally corrupt is definitely a massive over-exaggeration. Anti-consumer though? I'd say it's pretty reasonable to say that. The whole practice of exclusives is designed to make you buy a console you wouldn't otherwise be interested in buying. It makes the consumer less likely to buy the games they want, but more likely to buy a console they don't. You even mention this problem in your post, that some of these companies have "little more to sell their consoles on than the games that are provided". This is something that you're defending? Because those are definitely the consoles I least want to buy to play a game

Also, why and how is it the consumer's responsibilities to find solutions for a business practice that negatively affects them? They don't exactly have the power to change corporate policy beyond criticizing things they don't like. I realize that it's something that is difficult to change, if one console decides to give up on exclusives that will just make the other ones look better. That still doesn't mean I shouldn't think it's a shitty business practice
 

The Abhorrent

New member
May 7, 2011
321
0
0
If there's anything to complain about Nintendo's business practices, it's largely due to them not following suit with what the general (read: American) "follow the leader" approach; this generally means capitalizing on whatever's most popular at the time(multiplayer FPS, MMORPGs, and many others), marketing the hell out of it, and moving on (and subsequently cutting losses) as soon as the next big thing comes along. Essentially, to the "local" analyst Nintendo's business tactics could very well seem to be self-destructive.

The strange thing is... by sticking to their (metaphorical) guns, Nintendo could very well be saving themselves from the risk of being caught up in the potential "video game bubble" which has been forming over the past decade or so. This isn't to imply that the video game industry could crash like the early 80s, just that the "bubble" could easily pop in the near future; when that happens, most of the developers and publishers will either take a major hit or dissolve entirely (a "crash" being when all of them dissolve). The preferred approach for most American corporations is to abandon ship before, such that they don't take a financial hit (loss of cash-flow being inevitable) while gaining the most benefit.

Now, stop and think for a moment. Where is the "bubble" most likely to pop first? The "fad" genres, of course; the quick cash-ins. These are always transient, so they'll vacate very quickly; whomever's caught in the downfall will likely go under. Does Nintendo really bother with these genres? Not really. They will likely face some financial issues (all will), but it won't be as sudden or as decimating as those who have invested heavily in the fad games.

---

Assuming that the popping of the "bubble" doesn't result in a total crash of the video game industry, all (surviving) developers and publishers will be focused on recovering and rebuilding the industry; let us also assume that Nintendo is among them.

What type of games will those which revive the industry as a whole? My guess is that another "fad genre" won't be doing so, especially since that's where most of the losses will likely be incurred (quite possibly due to players becoming fed up with obvious cash-in games); got to start small, and provide some incentive for players to come back for the next product. There's also a very good chance the "best" games which will revive the industry will be remembered as classics; they'll be damned good games people will remember fondly (and replay for decades to come), regardless of who makes them.

Beside the obvious history of Nintendo being one of the prime contributors to reviving the industry from the crash which happened in the early 80s, they've amassed quite a library of venerable classics over the years. If there are no fad genres to dictate what's going to be popular in the industry, players will most likely flock towards the genuinely better games.

Another interesting thing I've noticed over the past few years is Nintendo has been absorbing ("saving", one could say) some very notable developers; for example, Monolith Soft and Platinum Games. These smaller developers will continue to produce good games, regardless of who is publishing their games; and if saved from dissolution and treated well, they could definitely be appreciative of Nintendo. Also, makes one wonder if Nintendo is reading the writing on the wall...

---

The one valid issue is that Nintendo may be faced with the necessity of dropping their consoles; these will always be a high risk, even if they do provide some benefits. This could definitely pose an issue in the (near?) future...

... but what about the phenomenal first-party developers? If Nintendo cuts console development, these guys will still be around; if they become a "third-party" developer and move onto other platforms (including the PC), how will this "shake up" the status-quo with ease. Nintendo's flagship franchises are revered for their quality, and other publishers may find their effective dominance on non-Nintendo consoles being threatened simply because Nintendo removed the "buy our console to play our games" requirement. People are more than willing to play Nintendo games, period; even if they bow out of future "console wars", their support will likely determine who ends up being the victor.

Looking even further, what if Nintendo did dissolve during the "bubble pop"? Again, the developers are still there; the leftover splinter groups (developers) can go to a third-party publisher and still churn out great games, and if they somehow manage to wrangle the rights to one of Nintendo's franchises they can definitely use the name to great effect (though misuse of the name will be met with very harsh disdain).

---

Video games probably aren't going anywhere, even in the event of the "bubble" popping; big budget games will go, but that'll be about it. Nintendo makes good games, even if they don't follow the fads; being relegated to a niche market again might not be the best situation, but Nintendo could very well be in the best position to survive (if not thrive) in it.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
because everyone treats nintendo with a double standard, they get harsher criticism but when EA does something repetitive they are killing the industry and when nintendo does it's charming and nostalgic(because they have been doing for the last 30 years)
 

balladbird

Master of Lancer
Legacy
Jan 25, 2012
972
2
13
Country
United States
Gender
male
teebeeohh said:
because everyone treats nintendo with a double standard, they get harsher criticism but when EA does something repetitive they are killing the industry and when nintendo does it's charming and nostalgic(because they have been doing for the last 30 years)
A fair comparison, if only for the humor one can glean if they imagined the insults leveled at EA's repetitive offerings being offered to Nintendo instead:

"Ugh, Pokemon Beige and Teal? Whatever, ninten-bros. enjoy paying full-game price for your pokemon roster update!"

"Another Mario? Who else but ninten-bros could possibly enjoy the latest rainbow-colored turtle-murder fetishism simulator?"



On topic, pretty much the only "double standard" I've ever personally noticed against Nintendo is in the form of people who say that nintendo games are niche and repetitive, then in the same breath talk about how awesome it would be for nintendo's IP to be available on other systems.

I should qualify that this only happens with a handful of individuals, and always on the "joe everyman" level. I've never seen vitriol and bias of the degree OP described in any official capacity.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm probably the least impressed person in first party nintendo games on the planet, which makes me apathetic at best regarding the company. As such, it's possible I just never looked around for it.
 

That Eeyore

New member
Aug 18, 2009
35
0
0
Thing about the whole "Nintendo is totally going third party" rhetoric is that I think it comes from people remembering what happened with the Sega Dreamcast. Problem is that the Dreamcast wasn't a just a single failure- there was plenty of failure by Sega leading up to it.

For starters, Sega tried to prolong the life of the Genesis, their most successful system, with the Sega CD and the 32X. The 32X in particular was a bad move, since, IIRC, Sega's next system was already on its way. Then, Sega fumbled the Saturn's release by choosing to release it at E3-months before it was scheduled to- and simply not telling anybody until the reveal. This made the third party companies who had made games to be launch titles very upset. After the Saturn failed to perform to expectations (despite some decent games being on it)

Sega tried to one-up its competitors (Nintendo's N64 and Sony's Playstation) with the 128-bit Sega Dreamcast. By many accounts, it was a good system: first to be able to connect to the internet out of box, games considered classics to this day released for it, it even dabbled in motion control. Third party support, however, suffered, thanks to the bad blood Sega had accumulated with third party developers, and the system was really easy to pirate games for, and then the Playstation 2 came 'round. At first, it didn't seem like much of a challenge, as the system, IIRC, didn't have a very strong start. However, it's DVD player functionality really gave it a leg up, and as we all probably know, its library greatly expended, with a lot of quality games. And with systems from their rival Nintendo and the up-and-comer Microsoft, Sega decided that there was no longer any point in continuing to support the Dreamcast, or indeed, making any new consoles at all. And that was all she wrote.

With Nintendo, the Wii was a runaway success, and their handhelds never stopped selling. Their situation isn't stellar, but from my viewpoint, they're not hurting like Sega was.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Going to sound like a bad echo here, but yeah, I've never seen this double standard from journalists. Regular board posters here, and in places like kotaku, sure, but people are ready to pounce and crow about anything that even looks like it might be an oncoming trainwreck. People were predicting Microsoft crashing and burning after E3, people loved to talk about the PS3 failing miserably in its first year, and people were predicting the Gamecube and xbox failing utterly and forcing them out of the market.

It's not hatred of Nintendo, it's that the people are not so far removed from the days of the gladiatorial games, we salivate at the thought of seeing these monolithic companies injured and shedding blood. It is Schadenfreude in its purest form, and we care not whether they wear the symbols of the mighty N, S, or M, as long as they bleed all the same, we will share some satisfaction at the thought of them suffering.

Besides, most of the criticism is at the Wii U anyway, people shut up about the 3DS when it turned out to be more popular than the Vita and still held on to a respectable chunk of the market amidst the rise of smartphone games. The WiiU is genuinely struggling, will it knock Nintendo out of the console market? No, probably not, but we may see Nintendo cut support for it sooner than planned, maybe launch a new system a few years earlier than originally planned, or maybe something else, Nintendo won't be forced out of the business, they saved too much money when the Wii sold like crack to let a single disappointing console knock them out of the market, but it could force them to take action to either get a new console out in the next 5 years or so, or try and redesign the one they have.

As for their games, I used to love Nintendo games, but as time went on, I felt less and less enthusiastic about buying each installment. The sense of boredom and apathy grew with each new title, and the interesting spinoffs seem to all be dead at this point. When I was younger, I would have shanked the President of Nintendo to get a new Mario RPG title, but that series was dead before it even began. The somewhat worthwhile replacement in the Paper Mario series has pretty much been dead since the gamecube era, the Wii Super Paper Mario, was pretty much just another platformer, so that's another series down the drain. Metroid Prime seems to pretty much be dead and gone, and Metroid as a whole (even the 2D sidescrollers) are in a coma at this point after the abomination that was Other M. Star Fox is pretty much MIA as well, joining F-zero on life support. What's left at this point? Another Mario game? No matter how tight the gameplay, there's only so many goombas I can stomp before the artstyle and setting start to intrude on my fun, even the platforming just feels like I'm going through the motions at this point. Another Zelda game? They at least switch up the story, but it all starts to blur together at some point, the window dressing changes, but it still feels like I've done this all before. Pokemon? Same issue, here, I can tell you most of the story for any Pokemon game before it's even released, and I've never been interested in the competitive metagame, so all I'm left with is a dozen iterations of the same story with a roster update every once in awhile.

I don't begrudge people for buying Nintendo games, I don't even dislike the company itself, I'm just bored of them at this point, I have to work up some effort just to think about buying another Nintendo game, much less buying a console just to play them.
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,727
0
0
Sounds like confirmation bias to me. Either that or you're completely unaware of the pathological bashing of the Vita and its low sales at every single opportunity. Or how much Microsoft was bashed by the media for months after E3 this year.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Dec 11, 2012
2,384
16
13
OP appears to be a no-show on pages 2 and 3, and they seem to have abandoned this thread.

Which is a shame, because I'd like them to provide evidence of this:
VG_Addict said:
If anything remotely negative happens to Nintendo, journalists claim that they're doomed and will go third party.
Which journalists? Some links would be nice.
VG_Addict said:
When something bad happens to Sony or Microsoft, nobody says anything.
I'm not sure if you're being serious here or not.

You obviously didn't see the huge negative reaction to the Xbone launch.