Bio not provided
This is silly. Nintendo's problem is that its games rely on its proprietary hardware. That strategy works when the hardware is successful (i.e. Wii or DS) and doesn't when the hardware is half baked (i.e. Wii U and to a lesser degree 3DS). Video game hardware is a high cost, high risk endeavor. This is why even Microsoft and Sony have moved to an 8-10 year lifecycle for their dedicated gaming machines. Nintendo has been unable to do that with its consoles because they are underpowered and rely on a combination of gimmicks and "nostalgia" (as in, love for their gaming properties) to sell.
Rovio and King (though I am not a fan of either) don't rely on proprietary hardware. They need new IP to survive. Creating a hit like Candy Crush or Angry Birds isn't terribly expensive really - its just completely unpredictable (as you note, gamers are fickle - and even fickler when the games are shallow and priced to be toss aways at 99 cents). They function more like a Pixar that has a bad year when their movie idea isn't a hit. Saying their success is somehow tied to Nintendo when their entire strategy is completely different is a bit ridiculous.
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Your salvation is in another castle: Nintendo’s decline spells doom for casual game companies
Where do you think the people assembling these newsletters get their links? More than likely RSS.
1 year, 4 months ago on Let’s retire RSS when they retire Google Reader
The kinds of anti or even pro corporate biases like the one you mention impacting Microsoft in this case are a major factor in tech blogging lately. Very little fact-checking is done on stories by "media" when the story reflects their inherent bias.
3 years, 1 month ago on The Internet Explorer IQ Hoax and the State of Tech Blogging