"Nintendo makes consoles only for Nintendo games" Myth or fact?

[Mummelmann]

The synergistic approach to hardware and software is well known from Nintendo, but I would flag "only for Nintendo games" as false. It's more "mostly for Nintendo games", which makes sense. Since the 90s, they've had a bumpy relationship with 3rd party developers and publishers. A lot stems from olden days, when Nintendo had all the power on the market and adopted a strict regimen of rules. However, after the SNES, a lot of the trouble is also down to their hardware choices - it's a sort of chicken-and-egg proposition: Nintendo made hardware more suited to present their own brand of gaming design, or, Nintendo realized they would be left much to themselves in keeping their machines afloat.

Regardless, I would say that "Nintendo makes consoles mostly for Nintendo games". Many members on this very forum will maintain that horsepower isn't an important factor in a console, I would be inclined to agree. The problem with that sentiment is that developers think differently. Nintendo's solutions and ideas are sometimes difficult for 3rd parties to adjust to, prime examples would be the Wii U controller, which became a hindrance more than anything, and the format choice of the N64, which severely limited storage capacity for games (and lost them Final Fantasy, among others). In addition, Nintendo were famously slow on the ball when it comes to supporting UGC (they even battled it outright for a long time), smaller developers, and offering middle-ware solutions, as well as fairly mainstream tech features. With the Switch - we're seeing a form (rather: forms) and function that's more traditional, especially compared to the Wii and Wii U. This, paired with them making an actual effort around UGC and Indie and other smaller efforts, has helped a great deal, and support has improved. The greatest challenge with the platform is the internal storage and relatively small size the game format offers (32GB max), but it's a huge improvement overall.

In contrast, Sony and Microsoft adopted a strategy pretty much the opposite; build and sell machines purposefully designed to appease developers and consumers alike. Formats, tech, controllers, dev-kits, marketing aid for smaller developers, and the very hardware components chosen, make for an easier time. Is it a bit boring? I think so. But it's been a successful strategy. As above, it's also one built from need, historically speaking, both Sony and Microsoft had weak 1st party offerings. On paper, this is no longer true, but in Microsoft's case, we're seeing 1st party software struggling to make an impact in spite of the massive purchases they've made in the past few years.