Screamapillar said:
Osc89 said:
Screamapillar said:
Sometimes I ask, but no one ever answers me lol. Apparently it's off-limits. I have no idea, other than that it's clearly a double standard |
Probably no one answers because it is a silly question. Sony and MS would sell off everything first party before getting rid of their hardware because it isn't worth as much to them. Playstation and Xbox are more hardware brands, and would stay afloat with cheaper timed exclusives. Nintendo is both, but the software is more valuable. They would be more likely to go third party than become a hardware only manufacturer.
|
I don't agree. Nintendo is only as successful as they've been because they marry their in-house software with their in-house hardware. Sony and Microsoft, making so little on their consumer video game divisions as they do, would be more likely sell of their game divisions completely. Hardware is expensive to make, and Microsoft's Xbox division makes almost nothing from games and hardware. It's a tiny fraction of their company. Sony makes more money on games and hardware, but they take huge losses compared to Nintendo, during hardware transitions.
If Nintendo were to dump hardware and only make software, like Sega, they would lose half of their business.
|
I wasn't saying it was at all likely, I was just saying Nintendo are the only ones who could (or would even try) to continue as third party. It isn't a good scenario for them at all.
If each console lost every first party game and had to rely only on third party games, which console would be most successful? Now if each stopped making hardware and released their own games only on the Steam Box or something, who would sell the most games? I can see Nintendo being answered for the second question far more than the first, so I still believe their software is worth more than their hardware.
