"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?.
Because, again, and as Rol just outlined quite well, swapping games would not be an equal exchange given how differently MS and Nintendo operate as businesses and how much more reliant Nintendo is on their IPs.
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.
I own an Xbox and an Xbox 360, and I own Halo 1/2/3/4/Reach on them.Last edited by curl-6 - on 07 August 2019