javi741 said:
Some people may want to discredit Yamauchi by stating he was anti-3rd party and allowed Sony to enter the games industry.
But imo, should people really discredit him for that? Nintendo even after Sony & Microsoft entered the games business has been more profitable than both of them despite not appealing to 3rd party developers. Nintendo not letting 3rd parties dictate their business has done more good than bad for them. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about money hatting developers to get certain games for their platform, 3rd party sales also make less money than 1st party sales, Nintendo wouldn't need to worry as much about 3rd party games stealing their 1st party sales and profit since they're not known as a 3rd party game platform.
I think most importantly though is that Nintendo being anti-3rd party means that they're free to make a platform that goes a completely different direction and creates it's own market anomaly. This adds so many benefits, Nintendo wouldn't need to worry about making a console that's similar to PS/Xbox in architecture and worry about pricing it at a competitive price point which can be detrimental since Nintendo would more than likely have to take a bigger loss on each console sold. There's no way imo that a competitive Nintendo console would sell close to what the Switch is at right now. Some people might argue that PS/Xbox wouldn't even exist if Nintendo was 3rd party friendly with N64, but that is false.
So tbh Yamauchi not being overly reliant on 3rd parties could be seen as a benefit. |
But Nintendo hasn't really been "anti-third party" since Yamauchi retired. In fact, Iwata spent much of his career at Nintendo trying to clean up Yamauchi's mess on that front. In some cases it worked (DS, Switch, and to an extent the Wii) in some cases it didn't (Wii U and to a lesser extent, the 3DS).
