Microsoft should put Halo on Switch

[DonFerrari]

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

If Switch isn't a big competition to X1/Scarlet the opposite is also true, but OP wouldn't want Nintendo SW going to Scarlet. So you are basically defending MS give away but don't receive back. That is a very clear case of second class citizen or colonial relationship.

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.

Let me clarify, MS's "receive back" would be revenue from selling MCC on Switch, potentially finding new fans for their IP and encouraging people to play newer Halo games on MS platforms.

Nintendo sells more 1st party software than MS or Sony. But its MS that has been most open to allowing their content on other platforms. MS even said they want xCloud on competing hardware. If Nintendo allowed any content on Xbox I imagine it would probably be some 3rd party exclusive like Bayonetta.

Are you MS shareowner? Because we are discussing what MS gamers receive not what MS receives.

PSNow is playable outside of PS HW as well. Which doesn't mean Sony would port Uncharted Collection to Switch.

curl-6 said:

DonFerrari said:

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:

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.

It is an one way street when looking as customer, MS get the money, but the gamer get nothing.

MS was on the business of selling HW until very recently. Nintendo was on the business of HH and console separated until very recently. Core business of Nintendo is selling games not HW, the HW is just a mean. Just like Coca-cola core business was selling beverage not Coca-Cola, one just is the biggest market. So I'm sorry to say your reasoning is just you putting deliberate boundaries to say one is ok and the other aren't even if they are the same thing. Because you want MS titles without buying MS HW, but don't like when people suggest Nintendo become third party so people can get their SW without buying their HW. Nintendo business isn't disrupted by emulators on PC playing current Switch games almost at the same quality, isn't disrupted by putting some of their IPs on phones, but is going to be disrupted because a 10 year old game from Wii got ported to Scarlet (but MS won't be affected when doing it)? Seems like a lot of inconsistency.