Zucas wrote:
Oh I see what this is. This has nothing to do with Wii. Instead its a rundown of how the company is being eviromentally friendly. Supposedly Nintendo isn’t. Which wouldn’t surprise me but it sounds like these people have never even been to Nintendo ensure this. Cause if NIntendo scored a zero an a real checkup like that, such as NoA, they’d be shut down. Making this score impossible for a company to get, without premptive bias or not even checking them on a one to one basis.
Personally I doubt the legitness of greenpeace and if they really do check these companies out, and not just guess.
Actually, if you read the Greenpeace’s PDF on why Nintendo got such a low score, its not based on what Nintendo actually does, but on what they
say they do. Apparently, Nintendo makes no references to what Greenpeace is talking about on any public information, so they’re basing this solely on what Nintendo claims, and only Nintendo of America at that, rather than actually investigating.
Its crap analysis. If you don’t investigate something like this, you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and need to go shit yourself, especially since Nintendo of America claims to be environmentally friendly, but they don’t
reference some specifics. Idiots.
Especially since Nintendo claims this:
Nintendo of America wrote:
We require that manufacturers not use any banned substances (such as lead, mercury, etc.) in components, nor use them in the manufacturing process for any components used inside of our products. This requirement also extends to suppliers of packaging, marketing materials, and other items used in the marketing and distribution of our products.
This contradicts some of the scores that Greenpeace gave them, and the very link to this is in the chart where they placed the scores!
I’m all for environmental friendliness, but not from radicals who make themselves look idiotic in this type of way.
First ]
»
Games
» Greenpeace part of Sony?
