potato_hamster said:
Soundwave said:
That business model doesn't actually make Nintendo more money IMO.
It's actually a pretty fucking stupid model when you think about it ... you have your best games (Breath of the Wild, Splatoon, etc.) locked off from your majority audience. There's no one in the entertainment business that operates like that. You can still sell multiple iterations of IP on the Switch, it'll just be Mario Kart 8 and 9 on Switch, instead of needlessly split apart on two hardware.
If they need a lower price handheld, the Switch can easily accomodate that through a simple die-shrink of its chip.
The old way was done that way because in the past it was neccessary. A DS or Game Boy could not run the console version of Mario Kart.
|
Yet, that's the model they rocked for decades. In fact, since they made a handheld, this is the exact model they have deployed. I remember when I got my original gameboy, I had to go out and get a new copy of Super Mario Land even though I had Super Mario Bros for my NES. Why should we expect much different now?
Besides, who says they have to lock these games away? They just need to put them into a different form factor. People would just have to buy two copies of the game if they want to play it on both platforms, just like they've done for decades.
|
The reason they did in the past is not neccessarily because they wanted to "force" people to have to buy different hardware. I'm sure Nintendo wold have loved to have 100 million players be able to play Mario 64 for example ... it would have maybe doubled or tripled the sales of the game.
It just wasn't possible then. You could not have the architecture/hardware neccessary for the higher end Nintendo experiences where their majority audience (portables) was. I'm sure they would have liked to have had Mario Galaxy on DS too.
Unified platform in the long run will actually make Nintendo more money than the old model.
