While it may not pursue parity with its competitors or AAA graphical standards, the Switch is actually a fairly third party friendly system; it uses completely standardized hardware with no exotic or difficult to leverage architecture, it supports all the industry standards engines like Unreal and Unity out of the box, it's strong enough to handle ports of most PS4/XBO games, it offers a reason for people to buy third party games on it, (portability) Nintendo even increased its RAM prior to launch in accordance with third party suggestions.

While Nintendo definitely went their own way with the Switch, they also clearly recognized that getting third party games to fill the gaps between their own key releases was important, and took steps to make it happen. As a result, the system has the best third party support a Nintendo system has had since the SNES.

The N64 was definitely the biggest case where lack of third-party support was a major killer. That being said, launching two years after the PS1 (and Saturn) was also a major hindrance.

As far as the GameCube's concerned, having stronger third-party support would have helped the system out after Nintendo's own release schedule all but dried up after the end of 2003... but given that the PS2 had such a ridiculously huge sales lead, and even carrying on into the late generation third-party developers usually didn't bother giving any graphical upgrades to Xbox versions of games that were on the PS2, I doubt that doing more to attract third parties would have made much difference this generation. Might have helped avoid the embarrassment of slipping into third place, but even then we'd probably just be talking finishing slightly ahead of the Xbox instead of slightly behind it.

The Wii... let's face it, two-thirds of its sales were just to people buying Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and/or Mario Kart Wii. And its third party support in general actually was there, though arguably more by accident than design, given that the PS2 carried on selling and getting games right up until the end of the 2000s, meaning it made financial sense for publishers to still keep on turning separate Wii/PS2 and 360/PS3 versions. It was really only the top-tier AAA games that it was lacking due to hardware restraints, so the real question is, would it have done even better still had it offered motion controls along with the power of its two HD rivals? Maybe, but considering how many gamers bought a Wii and one of its two rivals, I don't think we'd be talking PS2-level sales.

As for the Wii U, well, the lack of third-party support was just one of a laundry list of things wrong with this system.

This, they dont care anymore about curation.

At this point I think they'll take anything in but wont pursue it via moneyhat, etc.

As long as the first party line up is strong like the Switch, they'll be okay. I think the third party support will come like the first Switch which I'll be okay with it.

Buy a Steamdeck or an Ally ROG or a Legion Go if you want GTA6 portable.

Rockstar has never been a big supporter of Nintendo.

I think it's both a positive and negative thing

The lack of 3rd party support is what help Nintendo to sell and grown their 2nd tier franchises

In a world where Nintendo get major third party support those games will be steep competition in Nintendo consoles, which will lead to reduced software revenue overall

This is the key for Nintendo high profits. We can see their revenue is much smaller than Sony's in any given year... ever? Sony sells much more games, earn more from add content and subscriptions, but their slice in each of those is so small they often have pretty bad profit margins

Nintendo sells less than Sony, yet their profits are consistently higher because even if people expend less money on Nintendo, Nintendo still earns full revenue from everything they sell. In this sense they are much more cost efficient and more importantly have high margins, earning more than Sony in every given year... since ever too?


The negative side is Nintendo position can be really dangerous if they made bad consoles, which already happened a couple of times

Sony in other hand having every major third party is king of player engagement and mindshare. That's why generation after generation Playstation sales are high, consistent and with the most loyal userbase of the 3 by far, despite all echhoes of them making bad decisions, the worst possible outcome for Sony as of today was selling over 80 million units, which is just nuts to think about


I'd say Sony strategy is low-risk, produce safe profits and secure long-term stability in the market. Honestly I just can't see Sony out of the market unless people really stop caring about consoles (which I can see happening in few generations, when Boomers and Gen X were no longer playing games anymore)

Nintendo strategy is high-risk high-return, this explains why Nintendo is so conservative with their budgets and rather leave markets entirely than keep operating at loss. They know if their decisions are bad they are essentially out of the market, because they have nobody to rely on. Nintendo have secure a humongous amount of cash to support their own vision on how to sell games, so in case they get another Wii U or Game Cube they are able to bounce back without major issues

I think in hindsight it did pay off but really it was about achieving the sweet spot which the Switch hit much closer. The Wii U tried to get 3rd parties back on board because the Wii declined in the later half when 1st party games weren't enough and the hardware began to look outdated. Wii U's hardware was a big hindrance though for 2 main reasons:
1. It made developing 1st party games tougher with longer development cycles as they got to grips with HD and modern games
2. It was still significantly weaker than other consoles so 3rd parties didn't bother with porting new gen games

The Switch had a much better sweet spot, however it also benefitted from Nintendo taking the decision to unify the handheld and home consoles development teams allowing them to have way more resources to develop strong 1st party titles that could drive those sales. 3rd parties seeing the success dived in - albeit not on PS or Xbox levels. Going back to the main point, Nintendo's stubbornness in holding onto their philosophy of focusing on 1st party games and IP development gave the Switch a big edge as they delivered AAA games back to back.

With the Switch 2, the challenge will be different. The Switch benefitted from the dying Wii U to focus early on the Switch which I think is the main reason of the Switch 2's delay, as they definitely feel they need to get a strong launch window to support sales early on and bring that momentum, especially with Zelda not being possible for release, which imo was the initial catalyst for the Switch's success. Still we are going to get a 3D Mario and new Mario Kart in the first year + I would assume Metroid Prime 4 as the more "mature" game all for launch which should set it up nicely.

What is clear though is that I think this will be the most 3rd party friendly console for Nintendo since possibly the SNES days. Apart from games like GTA6 we will probably see a lot more titles across all platforms with much closer visuals and performance than Nintendo has had for a while.

The Switch greatly benefited from games originally targeting the Wii U that were then canceled and released on the Switch instead. It also benefited from the already existing Wii U library and the fact that Nintendo teams already knew how to make the most of HD development. For many people, Nintendo was still perceived as being stuck at PS2-level graphical fidelity, so having games that finally looked good on a platform that was actually desirable became a huge selling point in itself

With current technology and a team experienced in HD development, Nintendo was able to release many games in a short time. By 2019, the Switch's destiny was all but sealed. However, the Switch 2 will face challenges. On one hand, the hardware will likely be a continuation of the Switch, which is a selling point in itself and is expected to be backward-compatible. These two factors alone could ensure the Switch 2 sells at least 50 to 60 million units, as people will want to continue playing their library in portable mode

What remains to be seen is whether Nintendo will provide good value with their new games. Will they finally embrace PS4-level graphics? Will their game worlds become more alive and expansive? Will performance improve? Developing better and more refined games will naturally take more time, potentially increasing the gap between releases. If they don’t secure strong third-party support to fill these gaps, this generation could resemble the N64 era for Nintendo: great games, yes, but with longer development times, players might feel there aren’t enough games to play

Another possibility is that Nintendo may create better hardware to attract third-party developers while continuing to focus their first-party efforts on smaller-scale projects, maintaining 2- to 3-year development cycles for their B-tier IPs. This could help mitigate their lack of third-party support

The real question is: in 2030, will people still be willing to pay $400 to upgrade and play games that, at their core, feel like they’re from the Wii U era? This is what makes me curious. I want to see how much the public is willing to pay premium prices for games that still seem rooted in the past

Yeah I agree, specifically as the Switch in 2025 is almost 15 years behind in graphical capability. I think the Switch 2 to be fair has close this gap somewhat but it still will be behind. They still have the option of a pro-Switch 2 down the line but like the Switch that might be tricky as it alienates earlier buyers. 

Anyways, these challenges are what makes it exciting to see what works out and what doesn't! 

Wow. The problem is that on this website almost everyone thinks Nintendo is the market leader, so they believe everything they've done has been the right move. In terms of revenue they're third and bottom, so no de-prioritising third party was not the right thing to do. Also, I know people are going to come and say "but the profit margins". Profit margins alone do not determine whether someone is market leader or not because, profit margins are affected by so many factors. 

It was never a fully conscious (or foresighted) move until the Wii generation (or Iwata’s era) where they started playing to their strength.

Until then, Yamauchi acted and reacted mostly on ego and took very risky decisions based on pride. Which slowly but surely put off third parties, who found much better, way less greedy deals elsewhere. Nintendo wouldn’t be where it is if Yamauchi was still at the helm.

And you really haven’t changed. "Nintendo forever!! 😎😎😎"

The situation in which Nintendo currently is has never been expected by any of the higher ups running the company, and was certainly not a long gestating strategy. That’s a hilariously silly proposition.