Nintendo vs Microsoft/Sony Styles (Pure Games vs Multiple Product)

[Bodhesatva]

I largely agree with Entroper as well. An interesting point of contention, however:

Several people have noted that a company entirely devoted to a specific field or arena tends to work exceptiionally hard at excelling in that arena. While I agree that in reality this often ends up being the case, is there any theoretical limitation stopping a single company from making exceptional products in several different fields at once? For example, if Toyota and Nintendo merged, would this automatically reduce the quality of either of their products? I think one could make an argument that both are exceptional in their separate fields right now. How or why would this change in a merger/buyout?

I suppose I'm marking a distinction between a practical problem (it's difficult to maintain exceptional output from varied products when you are a conglomerate) and a technical, unavoidable problem -- such as cash flow. Which is to say, I believe I could make the argument that the Sony/Microsoft model is superior. There is no question that having more money to devote to specific projects at specific times is an advantage; there is no avoiding that problem, and Nintendo doesn't have non-video game resources to fall back on if and when it is needed. Conversely, Microsoft and Sony could theoretically excel in exactly the same way Nintendo does, without outside funding. I know that in reality that isn't the case, and that both the Playstation and Xbox brands have relied heavily on financial support from other sectors of their company. But isn't it... possible, at least, that they shouldn't have to do that?

Does that make sense?