By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 06 August 2019
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

I think it'd be a win for MS; in the same way as Nintendo putting their IPs on smartphones, not only do they gain revenue, but as Puggsley says, having the older Halos on Switch could be a taster that could peak the interest of some and get them to invest in the new ones on Scarlet.

And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable.

Again though, it's not equivalent, selling gaming hardware is central to Nintendo's business, whereas Microsoft's business wouldn't be disrupted at all by the legacy Halo titles going to Switch.

Chazore said:
curl-6 said:

MS and Nintendo simply aren't the same. Nintendo only does gaming, and their IPs are the central pillar of that. The same simply can't be said of MS. It's apples and oranges.

MS putting some games on Nintendo is good for MS, they earn revenue without suffering ill effects. Nintendo putting their games on other platforms undermines their core business.

Comparing Halo on Switch to Nintendo IPs on Xbox/PS is a false equivalency. 

And yet, you want to take from the other, without giving in return. You try to excuse a one way street to benefit your platform of choice, but not the other. I mean, at least I game on PC and I don't mind games I play on PC going elsewhere. My only one requirement for that, is for the game to be made for PC first, and consoles second, so my version of the game isn't hindered in many ways.

The way a company operates isn't in relation to 1st parties going to other systems, because Sony already dabble in other areas themselves, yet their first parties are on PS now. 

Yeah, good for MS, in a way that supplies another competitor their library, yet once they "die" out, it becomes "oh well, they served us for a time, I'll go back to doing what I've always been doing" kind of gig.

It's not "false equivalency", and don't you dare pull that on me. MS came from PC, the very platform that makes your consoles and all games, and they also had a second market within the console space, just like Nintendo now have their second market in mobile, so no, they aren't radically different, not when both mobile and PC markets are so large, and end up using the same platform to get things done.

It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 06 August 2019