Even though I'm not a Nintendo fan (note: that does not mean I hate them) I don't think it would feel right to have them as a third-party publisher. I just couldn't see myself playing Zelda or Smash Bros on a Microsoft or Sony platform. I'd feel like I was performing a blasphemous ritual that would anger the gaming gods and get us all killed.

I thought it would spark some good debate. Very touchy topic for all sides. The only way I would want to see Nintendo as a third party would be if the alternative was that there was no Nintendo at all.

atleast they offer them cheap, could you imagine paying 15 bucks for some expansion levels in pikmin? XD

Jet Set Radio Future was made at the beginning of their transition and most likely started out as a Dreamcast project. Skies of Arcadia Legends and Sonic Adventure 2: Battle were ports of games that were already released on Dreamcast. So that proves nothing. Bayonetta and MadWorld were only published by Sega, not developed by them. Sonic and the Secret Rings wasn't that good. it only appeared to be good at the time since Sonic '06 was so unbelievably bad. The Mario and Sonic series was never that good either. I will agree that they've had some good games, but not as good as they could have been if Sega was still Sega. It should also be mentioned that a lot of the good games bombed because Sega has lost their ability to aggressively market their products they way they used to. Also, like I said before, it was around the time of the Sammy buyout when the quality of their games took a turn for the worst. Sega got new management that could have cared less about the company's properties and legacy.

As far as Sega's financial performance goes, how would they have fared had the Sammy bouy not taken place. From what I remember, they were not in a good position at all. They were looking for a partner for sometime and had come very close to merging with Namco, which probably would have been a better choice.

Profitable? Of course. More profiable? Of course not. People buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games. I think most of the people who grew up with Nintendo (like I did) would feel unconfortable playing Nintendo games on rival consoles. That having been said, I wonder where Nintendo would be right now if they decided to accept Sony's proposal of a joint venture between the two corporations in the mid 90s.

Just the thought of playing Nintendo games on anything but a Nintendo system evokes feelings of extreme taboo. The video game world would definitely be different animal had the merger actually taken place. Who knows what might have been.  Maybe we would all be gaming on the Atari Jaguar 5 right now.

Nintendo would not be more profitable as a third party. They make money on their hardware as well as third-party software published on their platforms. On another platform they'd just be one developer in a sea of many.

"Should Nintendo go third-party" threads are little more than thinly-disguised port-begging. You want to play Nintendo games, buy the hardware. If you don't want to buy the hardware, quit whining.

I would think Nintendo would probably have enough clout to dictate to both companies the conditions in which their games and revenue would be handled.  It would be a unique situation to say the least. For them to stay exclusive to one console would defeat the purpose of going third party in the first place.

Yeah.....I just read your comment on my WII U GAMEPAD!  No one here is begging or whining. Nice try though.

Depends. I'd pay expansion pack price for, say, some side-story missions featuring a new type of Pikmin. But not for challenge maps alone. In that case, I guess my preferred price is $1 maximum for each map.