fatslob-:O said:
This is not about whether or not giving Sony an egde over Microsoft ... This is about been a benefit for Nintendo or Sony! Sony gets little from this deal as the size of their console customer base is ideal enough as it is whereas Nintendo has nothing to lose on by putting their games on a console with a large userbase. For starters Nintendo doesn't have to take losses on making hardware like they did with the WII U plus there's a potential benefit for selling significantly more software too and what's more is that those are console games which have a much higher margins than their handheld games. Sony would get jack for making software on Nintendo's handheld since it's pretty clear the market doesn't value their handheld games. If anything there's more possible returns for Nintendo than there is for Sony in this ordeal ... |
But Sony is in competition with Microsoft and any business is profit-maximizing. Having Nintendo games on their hardware would increase and cement sales even more than it already does (remember Sony isn't infallible: see PS3.) Not only that, but it would also keep their platform active. The only risk is that Nintendo games being on the platform might alienate other third parties, as they are so competitive sales-wise.
Considering Nintendo would have to pay a platform royalty and wouldn't have full control over the hardware so that they can reduce costs of software development, there is still a burden of proof on those people who think sales would increase so much that it would make up for theis opportunity costs. I think the sales of games on the Wii is proof enough that a larger install based doesn't necessarily imply greater sales for certain franchises.
