The first to third party plan: backfiring or not?

[VAMatt]

DonFerrari said:

VAMatt said:

That sounds like a great idea.  However, I imagine they'd be scared of setting a precedent.  For example, if they said "Hey, EA, we'll pay for you to port Madden to Switch", then EA might say "How about you pay for us to port FIFA?"  Whereas, without the subsidy, EA went ahead with a Switch version on their own.  

There sure is a risk on that. Nintendo would have to calculate very well. And perhaps make deals like "if we don't put any money our royalties are 5% (supposing it's 25% of other manufacturers) if we put XX royalties are 10% and if we put this much royalties are 25%", something like this that assure Nintendo will get not only the game but also good royalties that will be bigger than the expenditure and it sharing the risk with the developer may show a lot of good will.

Yes, I think some sort of risk share makes the most sense.  I wonder if anyone has ever done this.  And, if so, how successful it was.