No, it still makes sense. I am saying WWHD, Pikmin 3, TPHD and a few others could boost Switch sales. Given not many people owned a Wii U. So I wouldn't port those. But older titles that wouldn't push Switch sales, might as well port those. I am holding MS to the same standard. I think they are safe porting Combat Evolved, but I wouldn't port newer titles. Just the older ones.
As for Halo on the ps5, sure. Why not? To be clear I mean Halo 1. I wouldn't port Halo 5 or 6. Those can still push Xbox Two sales.
The short version is, system sellers stay exclusive. Titles that are no longer system sellers, sure port the crap out of them. Nobody is going to see Mario 64 on the Switch and say "finally, a reason to buy a switch!!" So **** it, I don't care if Mario 64 goes to everything.
Understood your point. I would say that in your previous post you were more brief so I didn't got it.
Basically you wouldn't port let's say TLOU to X1 because it releasing in the end of the life of PS3 it could be used to push PS4 sales (and it sold a lot on it), but you would see no issue porting Uncharted 1 that was already old (or any other PS1/PS2 title).
Some of these old titles (and you can see that Halo MCC have pushed sales) still have power to sell consoles (FF VII remake if skip PS4 and go for PS5 will probably contribute to sales), but most are safe... and considering most customers don't know who is the publisher or dev wouldn't even know it was exclusive that would never change platform.
I still wouldn't like the hallmark of the platform holders being ported to one another (if we take Sega as an example, the games that were the trade when they got a platform were all lost with the show in other platforms... the games that are doing well are new IPs) but I can see most not taking issue on it outside of gaming forums. And my main grip is with giving away without receiving. Halo 1 ported and getting Mario 64 or Zelda OOT would have been a much easier deal for me to accept as fair and equivalent.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"