Of course it makes a difference. On a 1st party you know the dev style, type and quality of the game, the chances for sequel and that it will remain exclusive. On 3rd party exclusives there is a lot more variation in style, quality and others depending on the choosen studio. And you will dependant of them on sequels releases and exclusiviness keep.
On a second note a 1st party can be counted indepedent of the market or console situation and easier to manage release window. 3rd parties will be harder to get exclusivity if your console is doing bad.
Nintendo can do great even when selling few consoles because their IP sells great. Sony would strugle with no 3rd party multiplat, but don't need exclusivity to do good. MS with no multiplats would die, with no 3rd exclusives they wouldn't differentiate from competition.
And this is why Sony can make comebacks and/or dominate a gen, Ninty can be relevant even on reduced HW sales and MS struggles to compete if they don't get all the advantages they had last gen and have thrown away this gen.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
