| ultraslick said: This question is assuming there is no Nintendo? Then PS3. But what a sad world without Nintendo. A different hypothetical would be: If Nintendo dropped its hardware line, and sold equal portions of all of its IP's to both Sony and Microsoft, which console would you buy? But even that is hard to answer, since for me it would come down to whichever has Mario. This is why questions like this are hard for me to answer. there would never be a world without the wii. if it wasn't the wii, it would have been something else that took the consumer friendly low price point route. For the PS3 and 360 to be the consoles they are, a wii is needed for contrast. |
WOW! That is a very interesting question that I never thought of--what would they do with their classic IPs, console-wise, if they only made handhelds? Personally, I believe that they would be more inclined to sell them to MS, who would be more than happy to pay $250 million each for Mario and Zelda, $150 million for Metroid, etc. The reason I say this is because they are looking for any way they can to increase their casual appeal, and having Mario in their stable would skyrocket their 'stats' in this area, and all the Nintendo fans who don't have a 360 right now would definitely be getting one. I don't think the games would be as good, however--they would still be very fun, because they'd likely be developed by Rare, but they wouldn't have a Miyamoto level of quality. Either that, or they themselves would still develop the games, but MS would have to pay them for each one.
Also, they wouldn't sell them to Sony, because they hate each other's guts. The two companies have completely opposite views when it comes to gaming. Sony likes to make expensive powerhouses, Ninty likes to make cheap funboxes. Sony relies on TP support, whereas Nintendo lives on excellent first-party games. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but they wouldn't sell their classic IPs to Sony--the two just have totally different outlooks on gaming.
