Nintendo, while aggressively litigious, do so to maintain the value and exclusivity of their IP.
Their games also never go on sale, and all sell really well over time, unlike many releases from other publishers.
The result is that Nintendo are able to release a solid cadence of high quality, first party games free of other forms of aggressive monetisation, maintaining the value of the games as art.
this is unpopular opinions, not wrong opinions
Tears was mid and not only did it ignore series lore, it ignored lore in a game it’s a direct sequel to, that and both games feel like “design by intern” when it comes to puzzles and direction.
Odyssey was… O.K. Not as tight as a Galaxy, but also not as enjoyable as the usual Mario linearity for every objective as Nintendo has more control over every experience the player has.
Samus Returns was good fun. Dread… Wasn’t a Metroid game.
Splattoon and Pokemon both fall into the categories of games they could tweak slightly and rerelease for $70 under a new title, as they do.
Other than that, what do we have to talk about, Animal Crossing? The 3DS version was better and had more to do.
…and… Then there’s Kirby. What do we even do with him!?
A+ work. They’ve never made a bad Kirby game. Bad and Kirby doesn’t exist. It’s like they could try and it would still be fun.
They did, it was canvas curse, and somehow it was still fun.
No one has any idea why.
Has Nintendo been interesting in terms of art or gaming innovation in the past ten years? Apart from pokemon when I was a child, I only ever played some small party games at friends and I was never impressed by the games depth nor feeling the desire to get them at home.
I think you’re in the right neighbourhood with that opinion! Remember folks: upvote if you think it’s unpopular.
Also, they do have games on sale from time to time, but it’s never more than 33% if you’re lucky, and only a few select titles. You’re better off buying second hand. No money to Nintendo and cheaper for you.
It’s easy to have an unpopular opinion when its just flat-out factually incorrect. Nintendo’s lawyers have literally no effect at all on the quality of their games.
They are saying the litigation is to maintain value and exclusivity, and that they are able to push out high quality titles without aggressive monetization because of that.
Not that the lawyers impact quality.
Just a fact.
