It wouldnt be niche games. Have you seen the backlog of these companies? Hundreds of great games. 

Not sure what you mean about paying to play older games are somehow not acceptable? Thats what we are doing now. Why would they suddenly become free?

And yes, I didnt put that much thought into it. I just thought it would be a great conversation piece

If Nintendo get like 30 million subsribers, that would mean 150-300M a year for each company. I somehow doubt anyone makes that much off their older games.

No, Nintendo wouldn't share that amount of money, because that would be way more than all of those games combined would bring in. It's not realistic at all.

Fair enough. Maybe a lower amount to each publisher or do you think it would never work out?

Thanks, I hate it. No to everything. No, it doesn't make sense. Also tired of price increases. The cost of living is going up but wages are not. So then more sub services increasing their prices and wondering why they are losing subscribers.

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 you would have all those games in one place though, for one price. Instead of individually paying for a fraction of the games on several different consoles. NSO prices are probably going up next gen no matter if they add content or not, so I think this would be a great way to make it have good value for your money.

Of course I understand that many dont care about older games and dont want to pay for it, but I think theres enough of us to make it very profitable for everyone involved. 

Maybe two tiers? One for like 10-20 bucks for online play and cloud saves and the 60 bucks one for that and the older games?

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.

Nintendo would prefer to keep most of the cash to themselves. In addition, those publishers would probably be pretty miffed if, say, Final Fantasy is played millions of times where Contra is only played thousands of times but they are still getting the same cut of the pie.

But you just said their big games like Sonic, Mega Man, Final Fantasy, Castlevania could remain multiplatform so give me some examples of the games that are big enough for Nintendo to spend millions/billions on.

I was talking about Nintendo, not consumers. How is Nintendo paying for old games to be exclusive on their platform thinking ahead?

Your numbers make no sense, in this hypothetical scenario sure Konami, Sega, etc are probably making more money on these games but why in the hell would Nintendo spend ~$1 billion/year on a bunch of 20-40 year old games? People aren’t going to buy Nintendo hardware or subscribe to Nintendo services specifically for these games so it doesn’t make them any money.

Yeah, that could become a problem. But you know Konami could also offer the PC Engine/Turbografx 16 and Hudson Soft games, so thats something. But that is definitely a thing to consider for sure.