Would Nintendo be more profitable as a third party publisher?

[Jon-Erich]

Purple said:

Jon-Erich said:

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.

Okay, I hate to go off topic and make lists but this myth that Sega makes games that suck ever since they went third party is so far from the truth.

Jet Set Radio Future, Skies of Arcadia Legends, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle, Sonic Advance 3, Nights: Journey of Dreams, Sonic Colours/Generation/Secret Rings, Valkyrie Chronicles series, Yakuza series, Super Monkey Ball series, Rhythm Thief, Football Manager series, Hatsune Miku series, PSO 2, Total War series, Resonance of Fate, Mario and Sonic, Bayonetta, Madworld, Vanquish, Sonic and All Stars and Company of Heroes 2.

Oh and I'm very much looking forward to all the Persona goodness Sega has waiting for us in 2014.

Sega currently have more software devs with more ability than they ever had during their console making days. Sega has changed for the better.

 

On topic, Sega's financial performance shows that it is possible to be more profitable going software only. It in no way provides any evidence that going third party makes a company less profitable.

Jet Set Radio Future was made at the beginning of their transition and most likely started out as a Dreamcast project. Skies of Arcadia Legends and Sonic Adventure 2: Battle were ports of games that were already released on Dreamcast. So that proves nothing. Bayonetta and MadWorld were only published by Sega, not developed by them. Sonic and the Secret Rings wasn't that good. it only appeared to be good at the time since Sonic '06 was so unbelievably bad. The Mario and Sonic series was never that good either. I will agree that they've had some good games, but not as good as they could have been if Sega was still Sega. It should also be mentioned that a lot of the good games bombed because Sega has lost their ability to aggressively market their products they way they used to. Also, like I said before, it was around the time of the Sammy buyout when the quality of their games took a turn for the worst. Sega got new management that could have cared less about the company's properties and legacy.

As far as Sega's financial performance goes, how would they have fared had the Sammy bouy not taken place. From what I remember, they were not in a good position at all. They were looking for a partner for sometime and had come very close to merging with Namco, which probably would have been a better choice.