In that context, I can understand why they wouldn't want to hear "it needs to have 'X' like PSN" and would rather hear more outside-the-box suggestions from the developers they were speaking to.
As a designer or engineer, sometimes you just want a proven, simple, effective system, and not some out-of-the-box idea which risks losing the functionality you're after. When a wheel works, use a wheel. eg.
"We want cross game chat."
"What's cross game chat."
"You can communicate across different games, like PSN and XBL..."
"La la la la. We don't want to hear what the rivals are doing and pollute our innovative thinking. We'll give you cross-game chat."
...several months later...
"So we understood you wanted players to be able to communicate across games. We've created this awesome virtual avatar system where players can choose one of their favourite Nintendo characters. Then with a press of a button, the game swaps out the left of the screen and the virtual video chat slides in from the right. With another press of the button you can instantly swap back to the game where you left off. It's completely new and unique to Nintendo!"
Human beings frequently use comparison to known quantities to help understand unknowns. In fact it's imperative in building neural networks of connected concepts. In requirement elicitation, one shouldn't deny the opportunity for clients to request, 'like such and such a website,' but instead to use their comparison to understand what it is that they like.
"Like that website? Okay, what in particular do you like."
"The look."
"Is that the clean edges, the layout, the colour scheme? The structure?"
"I dunno. It looks swish."
"The animated frames?"
"Yeah, I like that."
...leading to freedom to create a design using the desired feature and not anchored to a carbon copy.
It's very common for children to use simple terms like 'like' without going into detail or specifics, and if there's no cultural influence (home life, schooling) to expand on this level of communication, it's to be expected that as adults they lack the clarity of thought and communication. That's no reason to silence natural comparisons though.
Nintendo should be well aware of the competition (they must surely have access to non-Nintendo consoles, or are they banned from owning and using rivals??), and they should have an understanding of what the rivals do and their own vision, and work to bring it all together. Some online features
will be cookie cutter because they work, having been refined over a couple of decades by the industry at large. Being different for the sake of being different is just being awkward.
The Nintendo Way has such an overbearing influence on Nintendo products that technical discussion has trouble getting noticed.
