| Superman4 said: add to this the user base would be much larger. Instead of game sales depending on console sales of their own hardware they would open themselves up to both Microsoft and Sonys user base. While I like Mario, Zelda etc. I will never get to play them again unless they go third party. I wont be wasting money on a Nintendo console that isnt supported a few years after launch. |
Except that strategy has never really worked out well. When Sega and Atari went third-party not only did they lose out on a major source of revenue from hardware, but they had spend extra resources on porting because their userbase fragmented across different platforms. Yes they picked up a higher userbase but the additional cost to reach that new userbase has not exactly left them as being success stories (Atari has gone bankrupt, and Sega has restructured several times and abandoned franchises that sold well on a single platform but were no longer viable after fragmentation of the base)
As for not buying a system that will not be supported a few years after launch. That is pretty much the case for any console or any piece of technology. Consoles generally have 5-10 year life cycle. Although the Wii U's life cycle was less then that (around 4 years(. However, The only two systems that Nintendo has not really supported in the usual life cycle have been the Wii U and Virtual Boy, so what you are describing is not a pattern with any of their other systems. In addition, both MS and Sony have had system that they either discontinued or did not provide first-party support for before the usual 5-10 year. In the case of Microsoft, it was the original Xbox which got a shelf-life similar to that of Wii U (around 4 years). In the case of Sony, it has been the Vita which has not recieved a first-party game since 2015 (around 4 years)
