A surprising claim to make. I guess it could work, but it'd have to be done carefully to keep the brands separate and distinct. Think of it this way. Did you know that Keeblers cookies and Pringles chips are both owned by Kellogg's? Yes, the cereal company. They're making Kellogg's more money than cereal is, in fact. I know this because I worked there and heard it straight from higher ups. No one really identifies Pringles or Keebler with Kellogg's, they just happen to own it. The companies mostly run themselves, with some direction from Kellogg's, but still offering the same brand image they did before they were bought out. If Nintendo did something similar, where they let Xbox be Xbox, kept the Nintendo name off of it, and made none of the gaming decisions, just some business decisions, then maybe it could work. Nintendo wouldn't have to balance it's family friendly image with appealing to the hardcore, and could instead focus the Nintendo brand on family friendly stuff and the Xbox brand on the more hardcore audience the Xbox has built up. Heck, I bet they could even get Xbox to be successful in Japan. It wouldn't be total ownership, of course, it would likely be more a partnership between Microsoft and Nintendo, with Microsoft handling the marketing, which they do much better, and seeing a good chunk of the profits. I could see it work, but chances of it are astronomically bad, and it just seems weird to see a fairly reputable site like Forbes say something like this. They are a site about business more than games, though, and from a business perspective, it makes sense. From a gamer perspective, it's a weird suggestion.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
