Nintendo would fail as 3rd party, and here's why!

[DanneSandin]

lucidium said:
You're wrong, and here's why.

Wii sold 100m, that's 100m potential customers.
PS3+360 sold 162m and still selling strong, that's 162m+ potential customers.

And a lot of those 160m+ gamers aren't interested in Nintendo games - they're more into CoD, Fifa, Madden and such "casual hardcore" games. Nintendo also made A LOT of money from the actual console and different accessories. I hardly think NSMBWii would have sold as well on PS3/X360 as it did on Wii. Besides, the dev costs would rise exponentially, porting would cost as well, the quality would probably suffer (mostly due to the difficult architacture on PS3 - which, as it so happens, has the biggest audience for Nintendo like games between it and X360). A decline in quality (in ports) would mean less sales, which would mean less profits. Lost profits. And on top of all this, you have the royalties. So really, would Nintendo have been better off last gen as 3rd party? No.

Now let's look further back.

GC sold under 22m
PS2+Xbox+Dreamcast sold 190m

Where do you think Nintendo would have sold more games if they had been third party during these times, and remember, had Nintendo not been around in the hardware business these numbers would be even higher.

HERE you have an actual point, but as my list showed, it doesn't seem like the PS2 crowd were too keen of platformers, but the Nintendo crowd would probably move to one of the other consoles - but that doesn't necessarily translate to much higher sales. And remember, back in these days, there weren't a lot of multiplats around, games usually stayed on ONE console. So let's say they had a market of 150m. A lot of those had moved away from Nintendo consoles because they had "grown up and grown out of Nintendo games". Does THAT sound like an eager market wanting you games? So let's not pretend that Mario Kart DD would have done as well as Mario Kart Wii. But yeah, had Nintendo had two gens in a row like this, it might have been smart to go 3rd party.

Digging deeper,
N64 sold 33m
PS1+Saturn sold 113m

Please see my answers above. A lot of PS gamers moved away from Nintendo because they were "too kiddie". And the industry would have suffered as a whole if Nintendo were 3rd party during this time: no anallog stick or rumblepack. Standards of todays consoles. And that in turn would have meant that both Mario AND Zelda wouldn't have had the same impact as they did, and that in turn would mean less copies sold. So... yeah.

In all of these instances Nintendo would have sold significantly more than they did on their own platforms as their own fan base would be there along with the canvases of both other systems.

Nintendo could keep going with their handhelds while being third party if course but even that is bound to change as markets shrink and others expand.

You can argue that they won't and give numbers for none Nintendo games all you want, but the fact remains these numbers are for non Nintendo console exclusives without factoring in the increased rates a larger install base and multiplatform nature would have.

3rd parties go multiplatform because that's where the money is, unless a first party holder subsidised the exclusivity well enough to negate the loss.

Of course, if you're trying to tell me GC games would have sold worse on consoles with 168m potential customers then I don't even know what to say to you.

Oh and just for fun?
WiiU 5.3m
PS4+XOne 7.5m
PS4+Vita+XOne+360+PS3 177m (if they did what current games are doing and bridging the generation)

Where would wiiu games have sold better?, 5.3m install base or 177m? Plus the sales of Nintendo branded peripherals for these games.

And frankly your argument that Nintendo fans don't want to pay 400-500 is absurd, most of them have a second console along side their Nintendo console anyway, so the majority would be saving money, money better spent on games.

Most Nintendo fans have a second console? I would very much like to see where you get that from. I'm not saying you're not right, I just haven't heard any numbers of that. And we both know the regular forum goer isn't a regular gamer.

Being realistic about Nintendo and the WiiU doesn't mean I'm a Nintendo hater like you claim, it just means I am not a blinded Nintendo fanboy who rejects reality to suit his opinions.

Well, there is a difference to being realistic and spewing acid comments about ONE particular gaming company. I've NEVER seen you complain about ANY other gaming company, but as soon as it comes to Nintendo, you're oozing of spitefulness. So is there any wonder why I think you're a Nintendo hater, when all you do is bashing them (and NO ONE else)?

There's a huge difference.