If Sony owned Spyro and Crash I garuntee you they wouldve been making those during the PS2 era. Instead they bought the companys who made them and got them to make new platformer ips in their stead. Then during the PS3 they decided to change their market and had to make these new IPS to appeal to a different market. Sony can also afford to make IPS that aren't likely to explode into the sales charts as third party sales are really where the bulk of their money comes in. Im also positive the order will get multiple sequels unless it absolutely bombs.
Nintendo on the other hand have to make Mario, Zelda, Pokemon as they don't get this buffer from third partys, something they desperately need to fix. Not only that you often see comments were people are waiting for these franchises to come before they buy the console. I mean what is Nintendo supposed to do? They need to push their new IPs more, its a travesty how little effort theyve put into promoting them, but this cannot come at the expense of the bulk of their cashflow which is currently keeping them afloat.
Completely agree. Nintendo needs to create more new IPs and put substantial effort into marketing them. They also need to strengthen their relations with third-parties (though mostly for exclusives and multiplats with exclusive content).
People really don't seem to understand the difference between Nintendo and Sony/MS. NIntendo built themselves on big first-party blockbusters. Their philosophy has always been to grow massive brands to attract consumers and if they do that, the third parties will come. That doesn't, of course, mean that you don't push new IPs , have bad relations with third-parties, and tailor your hardware solely to your own needs. Those are miscalculations/mistakes. But I think the core strategy is a viable one if properly executed. Some people may not like it, and I think they have a lot of credence in what they say.
But it doesn't change the fact that changing such a strategy would cost a lot of time, money and effort. They could radicallly change their strategy, invest millions into third-parties and new IPs, marketing, and R&D, and kill some of their existing franchises. Many gamers would love them for it, but would enough be willing to buy their products for it to have been worth it? How long would it take for those gamers to take Nintendo seriously, and how much will have changed by then. Can they, as a medium-sized, publicly-traded corporation, even afford to make such changes while not becoming even more unprofitable than they are right now? (This is why you see shareholders saying to go mobile rather than third-party). Would it even work (what do they do if they lose traditional NIntendo fans due to focusing less on beloved franchises)? And at the end of it all, can they say it would have been worth it? What if they don't want to take the company in that direction? And before people say that it doesn't matter, imagine how a AAA dev might feel when he's taunted for not joining the more profitable mobile game industry, or when a man who makes men's clothing is told to make women's clothing because they'll buy more. For the record, Nintendo would rather see their company go up in flames than develop for their competition (you'd MUCH sooner see them go handheld-only). As stupid as it sounds, that's the ideology that Yamauchi built the company on and I think it's quite amaiable.
Sony and MS, on the other hand, are very different in nature. They're divisions in large multinationals that have far more resources. Since they're just divisions, they can afford not to be profitable it means the company makes more money as a whole due to the commmercial purpose that the brand serves. They were built on third-parties and a variety of different games. As long as they have strong third-party support, they can afford to invest money in games they think will make their brand more popular even if they're expensive. Sony/MS and NIntendo may compete, but to hold them to the exact same standards given their differences is a bit disingenuous.
A lot of people own a Playstation and/or an Xbox without really caring much for first-party games, despite the success of games like TLoU or Halo 3. People who don't particularly like NIntendo games aren't going to suddenly start using their consoles as third-party boxes and to think that they realistically could in even the next ten years is flat-out delusional. And that's especially considering that their games target a very different crowd. Do people really think anyone but a small, tight-knit circle of hardcore gamers would play Mario, Zelda, Mass Effect and GTA on the same console anytime soon?
I think the right path for Nintendo is to play to their biggest strengths while patching their biggest weaknesses. Improve online, take adavantage of their wealth of IP( make new and innovative IP; revive old ones), make a unique achievement system, reward loyal customers with game discounts, leverage mobile platforms, invest in third-party exclusive and exclusive "Nintendo-like" content for the biggest multiplats, and make consols components fall closer in line with industry desires.