Kai_Mao said:
They would have to cut down a lot of staffing. They may not necessarily burn money like Sega did, but I'm not sure if they can maintain the staffing if they are losing money (at a greater rate than they did a few years back). Plus, there would be even LESS incentive to revive other IPs or create that variety, which is a luxury that they have as a first party. Also, they want the freedom to create intuitive experiences that allow their hardware to mesh with their software. Wii Sports, Splatoon, Skyward Sword, Nintendogs, and even much older games worked not just because they're good to great games in general, but also due to the fact that they interact with their respective hardware, which Nintendo has full control of. While Soundwave has mentioned that they could negotiate for control and avoid paying royalties, I'm not sure if they could have that leverage or would Sony or Microsoft would allow them to. |
How much staff are required to design and make their hardware? I think most of their staff is tied into their software.
You're acting as if nintendo would be coming to microsoft or sony as an indie developer looking for funding for their games. Nintendo is a publisher and they could make games in any way they wanted. Sony nor microsoft wouldn't be picky about the games because they don't lose any money on them. Of course, nintendo would pay royalities like the other big publishers but that's no big deal. As long as their games sell, nintendo would be very good.
