Would Nintendo be more profitable as a third party publisher?

[Jon-Erich]

Purple said:

Jon-Erich said:
When people ask this question, I often think of Sega. If anyone remembers, Sega did not want to go third party. They had to. They had no choice. I think Isao Okawa understood the consequences of Sega going third party, even though he knew it would have to happen eventually. Nintendo is not in that situation and most likely won't be In that situation for a long time. Culturally, Sega was no more. Without their own hardware, they lost the competitive edge they once had. People left and all Sega is now is just a name. I think Satoru Iwata understands this better than just about any stock owner.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Going third party didn't kill Sega. Trying to compete in the hardware space is what killed Sega. The company has recovered wonderfully since going third party.

Have you played their games over the last decade? Most of them suck. Also, do you know why Sega is profitable again? It's because they were bought out by Sammy. That's the moment they returned to profitability. The problem is they weren't Sega anymore. They refuse to exploit most of their classic franchises except when they're re-releasing old games. They refuse to create anything refreshingly new. A lot of their talent has left including Yu Suzuki and both of Sonic the Hedgehog's creators. As much as I loved Sega as a kid and as much as I would hate to say it. Sega isn't Sega anymore. They're just another wannabe Western publisher who occassionally reminds people who they once were. They're just a name.

Again, I understand why Sega left the console market. They had to. It wasn't a choice anymore. With Nintendo, they don't have to leave. They still have a choice and unlike Sega, Nintendo knows how to moke money from their hardware.