DonFerrari said:
And it would be the same win for Nintendo to go third party. They would have 100M PS4, 45M X1, 100+M PCs to sell to. And I'm sure you won't accept. As you already tried to caveat that putting old content on Switch would be marvelous to MS, but putting older content from Nintendo on anything besides HH would be unacceptable. |
Again though, it's not equivalent, selling gaming hardware is central to Nintendo's business, whereas Microsoft's business wouldn't be disrupted at all by the legacy Halo titles going to Switch.
Chazore said:
And yet, you want to take from the other, without giving in return. You try to excuse a one way street to benefit your platform of choice, but not the other. I mean, at least I game on PC and I don't mind games I play on PC going elsewhere. My only one requirement for that, is for the game to be made for PC first, and consoles second, so my version of the game isn't hindered in many ways. The way a company operates isn't in relation to 1st parties going to other systems, because Sony already dabble in other areas themselves, yet their first parties are on PS now. Yeah, good for MS, in a way that supplies another competitor their library, yet once they "die" out, it becomes "oh well, they served us for a time, I'll go back to doing what I've always been doing" kind of gig. It's not "false equivalency", and don't you dare pull that on me. MS came from PC, the very platform that makes your consoles and all games, and they also had a second market within the console space, just like Nintendo now have their second market in mobile, so no, they aren't radically different, not when both mobile and PC markets are so large, and end up using the same platform to get things done. |
It's not a one way street. MS gain revenue from every copy sold on Switch. It's a symbiotic exchange from which both benefit and neither suffers.
Last edited by curl-6 - on 06 August 2019