RolStoppable said:
I mean, the additional intent you've stated in the OP is motivate these third party publishers to do their best to make the Nintendo console succeed. This is something that's never going to work because the amount of money they demand is far above what they are actually worth, so Nintendo is not going to pay them on this scale in any possible form. Regarding the Wii U it eventually came to light that Sega refused to put their Virtual Console games on it because they weren't going to get the money they demanded from Nintendo; they were only going to get what gamers paid them directly, minus the royalty fee they had to pay to Nintendo. Now that VC is a paid service on Switch, Sega is getting some money from Nintendo, but certainly not a ~10% cut of the subscription fees like you suggested in your OP. Nintendo knows how much each Sega game sold on the Wii VC and the vast majority of Sega's back catalogue is unlikely to have sold a significant amount. So the flat fee Sega gets now from Nintendo is probably a better deal for Sega than actually selling their games, hence why Sega is back on board. But none of this means that Sega will up their support for Nintendo when it comes to the new games they make. |
Well thats something we will never really know I guess. I mean Sega is supporting the Switch like crazy compared to the Wii U, but that of course have something to do with the install base of the Switch. All four would have big reasons to make the console sell as much as possible in order to get new subscribers. I think that would be motivation, but I dont know how much these older titles really impact gamers of today.
