I was thinking about this in the talk about Sony and their in-house output concerns from the smaller teams, as well as the old Jimqusition video on how the Xbox launch titles helped establish micro transaction in the paid games these days.
It makes sense on paper that games that the console provides itself in turn affect what games that console/maker has do well on it. Xbox's historic shooter dominance would have come as a result of the foundation of Halo, while the casual market of the Wii came from how big Wii Sports was. Inter-first party links certainly exist, see the Fire Emblem and Smash relationship for that one. But beyond that....I wonder how much of a relationship there is.
(Mostly Nintendo fan here, so the following are more Nintendo examples)
Meanwhile I can see an argument on how the type of exclusives Nintendo makes would dampen the appeal of 'mature' games on the platform in comparison. Does the fact that Mario games do well and Knack games struggle affect the viability of platformers on both systems? Do games like Mario Rabbids and Three Houses boost games like Warframe and X-Com? Is the success of Zelda games helping the Zelda-like indie titles? Does Splatoon make games like Fortnite and Overwatch do better on Switch than if it didn't exist?
...IDK, you guys have any thoughts?
The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?
