The financials behind Nintendo going 3rd party

[sc94597]

vivster said:

sc94597 said:

Nintendo owns the Fatal Frame IP now. And nobody was picking Bayonetta 2 up, it was left to die. But even then with their smaller IP's there will be opportunity costs involved, which tell them, for example, that making another Mario spinoff game will net them more profit than making a new IP like Splatoon or a fourth Pikmin game. Since they have to care much less about market saturation in this case (as long as the games play differently) you should expect a few uses of their smaller IP's and more uses of their best-selling IP's. Capcom does it. Activision does. EA does. Square-Enix does it. Sega does it. Ubisoft does it. Practically every big named publisher does this. We'd probably see Metroid, Star Fox, etc once every five - ten years or so (assuming sales remained at their current lows) meanwhile Mario and Pokemon would definitely get two (or more games per year.) 

That's the first time someone said that Nintendo is as greedy as Ubisoft and EA. I present you with the Medal of Equality for that statement ;)

But back to my first point; I don't really care. All I want are the main Nintendo IPs on a platform the games deserve. Only Mario on PS4 without the smaller stuff is still better than no Mario at all.

It is either delusional or an ignorance of basic microeconomics to believe that corporations are not profit-seeking firms. Of course Nintendo seeks to maximize profits. All companies do. 

As for your first point, that is only for you. I like having diverse IP's from Nintendo, as their ideas are fresh and creative. I like playing Nintendo's smaller IP's like Metroid and Xenoblade Chronicles. I like that Nintendo invested into Bayonetta 2, a highly aclaimed game by users and critics alike, and I look forward to playing it. Good for you =/= good for gamers, as you stated in the original post I quoted.