I think supporting Switch with Halo:MCC wouldn't be seen as a big leap because its old content, maybe it could be seen as a marketing decision to bring people to Xbox somehow. Switch isn't a direct competitor with Xbox like PlayStation is. If anything, Switch is bigger competitor to Playstation given Switch can steal some of their audience especially in Japan.

Halo on Switch would come with Xbox Live software in it and potentially used to encourage users to play more Halo games on Scarlett. It would be profitable and could create more fans for the IP, without helping a direct competitor per se. I personally see it as good move for the IP.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"symbiotic", by giving and not being allowed to take?.

You're only using money here, not games.

Why can you not accept that you're narrow minded in allowing Nintendo to do the same in exchange, since that benefit both companies and gamers alike?. 

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.