I hear a lot of people saying Nintendo can't afford to compete with a traditional console...

[Robert_Downey_Jr.]

artur-fernand said:

Soundwave said:
Sony isn't the problem. I think Nintendo would be OK with competing with Sony.

Microsoft is where they get the problem. Because it would be one thing to just compete against Sony, which is a much smaller company than MS, but when you have two already doing the same exact thing more or less, then Nintendo trying to butt in and be the third just comes across as hopelessly "me too".

And Microsoft has had in the past no hesitance to turn things into a pissing match over money.

MS just overcrowded everything too much.

MS has some sort of infinite war chest, yes. But quite frankly, in 3 generations, I never saw this changing things DRAMATICALLY. They made GTA4 and FFXIII go multi-platform (...which was pretty huge I guess), and got the deal with CoD (which they lost already) but I don't know, it seems to me Nintendo is perfectly capable of competing.

MS got timed-exclusivity on Tomb Raider and Sony (with less money than Nintendo) got the same deal with FFVII and full console exclusivisity with SF5. Nintendo could surely do something like that too, and they have the benefit of really strong first-party IPs. Regardless, it's been proven that the consumer wants just traditional gaming consoles. That's it.

Sony is getting deals now because they own over 50% of the market and are outselling their nearest competitor 2:1 on a weekly basis.  They have all the leverage because if your game sells more on PS4 it will sell a LOT more.