Can we agree Nintendo should go third party, now?

[Vertigo-X]

BraLoD said:

So, this has always been the cause of some serious attacks to people who said this here over the years, but now after the Switch reveal, I really feel some of you are now more open to the idea, realizing what does that really always meant and where it came from.

Nintendo going third party means you don't need to be tied to a Nintendo hardware and save some serious buck, even more now that it also adopted online pay, so you'll have ones less to pay (if a PS/XB owner) or none (if PC), you'll actually be buying more capable and valuable for your money hardware, you'll have access to Nintendo games AND most other games, Nintendo itself will have better hardware to work with, Nintendo games will have a way greater reach, Nintendo stubborness will have to go away as they won't have covers for it so they will have to learn better how to behave in line with their fans expectations, some of you'll realise there is A LOT of games out there that you actually enjoy but never paid attention to.

It's a win-win situation, Nintendo doesn't actually have any direct competition or a built envyronment around services, so they lose nothing and can gain a lot doing it, and gamers just as well.

So, what do you think now?

Ugh. This boils down to "I don't want to buy Nintendo hardware, so them going third party would be more convenient for me. Don't you all agree?"

Your middle 'paragraph' says it all: it's really one big run-on sentence. In addition to being unintelligible, there's not a single actual reason why a console manufacturer *should* go third party (i.e. financials as in Sega's case). You conveniently leave the 30% tax Sony/MS take off the top, as well as lost profit thanks to zero accessory/console sales.

Want me to actually go through each of your poorly articulated points? I will be glad to; just ask.