Why do people think that Nintendo could go or should go third-party?

[Ruler]

pokoko said:
I'm not saying I want Nintendo to go third party but I will never understand the mindset of, "it didn't work for SEGA so it cannot work for Nintendo." There is really no reason to assume that consistency would fall off a cliff at Nintendo the way it did at SEGA.

Now, in order to really analyze this, we'd have to list the positives and negatives of both positions. That's a daunting task, to be honest. Most people, when they discuss the possibility of Nintendo going third-party, they simply decide based on what THEY want and rationalize the logistics to support that. That's useless.

I think they'd be successful as a third party developer but I'm not quite sure that the increase in available user base would make up for the loss of a consistent revenue stream. Becoming software dependent would mean fluctuating revenue, which can be difficult without the evergreen franchises of the sort EA and Activision have. More pressure to have a consistent release schedule might result in even more series fatigue for some of their biggest IP.

It's a complex situation that would need an in depth study to document all the advantages and disadvantages.

Its not just Sega (jointventure with Sammy) look also at SNK (bought by chinese), Atari (bought by french), NEC/Hudson (bought by Konami).

Everyone who gave up hardware will fall lower and lower history has proven. Do you think Sony and MS would keep making and publishing games if they would stop making hardware? They would sell off their studios and completley leave gaming the way NEC did.

Ounce Nintendo would go third party you wouldnt see franchises and games being published and funded by them like Bayonetta, Fire Emblem or Xenoblade. They would be pretty worse than they are now with new IPs. More Amiibos, Remasters etc.