| Gnizmo said: Disclaimer: I actually agree with you on this one, but someone should play devil's advocate. There can be a case made for them as a third party. Their games sell bucket loads. Well beyond anything remotely reasonable. The PS2 had all of zero games that sold over 20 million on that platform alone, and the Wii has 4 already, and 2 more definitely on the table for getting there one day with a third likely on the table if we count Wii Fit separately. The access to an expanded base clearly aids them, and they can dominate in software in a way that should terrify all third parties if the worst happens and they do drop their hardware side. There is an amazing caveat in all this though. Nintendo integrates hardware and software. Unless the hardware manufacturers gave them unprecedented access and influence over their hardware it would never work. Now, if it were my call I'd naturally ok them getting as detailed access as they like along with seriously considering their input in exchange for exclusive franchises X, Y, and Z. Nintendo has enough to go around too. |
Not only would they be sacrificing profits from hardware itself, not only would they be giving up the royalties that they get from third partiesp ublishing on their hardware, they would also be paying royalties to whatever hardware manufacturers they published their titles on. The fact that they would need to pay royalties on every single one of their 20 Million sellers in the console and handheld space makes this whole discussion absurd.
If any other company could move as many 10 million games as Nintendo does on a single system, they would be justified in making their own hardware if only so they wouldn't need to pay royalties to other companies.
