VAMatt on 28 July 2017
| KrspaceT said:
What other option did Nintendo have? |
None that make sense.
| Green098 said: Pretty much, unless Nintendo went out and fully funded a bunch of AAA million dollar third party projects, it was either build up an install base with a lot of 1st party content or have system which lacked both 3rd party and 1st party. Nintendo's best chance at getting 3rd party support is with a large install base, and their best chance at getting that is with really popular 1st party games like Mario, Zelda and Pokémon. |
Yes, this is obviously correct. Funding third party AAA or making it in house is essentially the same thing.
| SpokenTruth said: Why do so many people feel that Nintendo needs 3rd party parity with Sony and MS? |
I'm not aware that anyone says they need parity. But, it is a stone cold fact that gamers that only want, or can only afford to own one console are more likely to choose XB or PS, because of the larger variety of games, and the fact that the mega-blockbusters like CoD are not available on Nintendo consoles. So, the more third party content they get, the more single-console buyers will choose Nintendo.
