I do think Nintendo would do it in a way where only games that are old like over 5-10 years old would be considered since Mario and Zelda fans and so on aren't gonna wanna wait that long. The PS5's first party lineup hasn't been as well received as the PS4's so a lot of people will be just fine waiting a year or so for things like Yotei and Saros. 

There's also that a lot of people still won't even know yet that their games aren't exclusive any more. Some months ago I saw a post on Resetera where someone said that some people he knew still had no idea their games were getting ported to PC till it was brought up so with them seemingly going harder in this direction by the time the PS6 launches this shift should be really well known about so we'll see just how much it impacts Playstation hardware sales that gen. I think the brand would start declining that generation regardless but this will probably speed up the process.

Nintendo's hybrids have more distinct features that will set them apart from other hardware even if they hypothetically lacked exclusives. People keep making the assumption that most Nintendo fans will skip the hardware entirely if Nintendo supports other platforms. Let me ask you this: what makes a Playstation 3rd party fan more loyal than a Nintendo 1st party fan? If there is little harm in Playstation games going multiplatform (1st or 3rd party), then why would it play out differently on Nintendo's side? This theory is completely baseless.

Nintendo's handhelds never failed, and their "hybrids" are handhelds on steroids that combine the entire Nintendo output. People should stop using "failed home consoles" as examples of things going horribly wrong for Nintendo. Hybrids are inherently >>> handhelds, and Nintendo's handhelds are historically >>> their home consoles.

A 30% decrease in Playstation's active playerbase over the next 7 years would be more devastating than the same decrease on Nintendo's platforms. Because Playstation gamers are bigger spenders, and if they transition to Steam, all of that spending will go into Valve's pockets instead. And I'm of the opinion that Nintendo's own software have a significantly greater growth potential than Sony's, so by expanding they stand to gain more and lose less in comparison.

Playstation's power primarily stems from the following:

1. Gaming growth across the industry.
2. The brand's glorious history (of which exclusives, 1st and 3rd party, played a huge role).
3. Competitors being morons.
4. PC and handhelds being "indirect" competitors.

At least two of these reasons are about to vaporize. Playstation's "true" exclusivity game is now decidedly weak. Steam and Nintendo are becoming more direct competitors. Sony fails to perceive this, but they will or should soon enough.

Tens of millions of future gamers will just go for the hardware with the best reputation. And if you can't see that Playstation's reputation is declining, I honestly don't know what to tell you! This thing is walking a fairly similar path to Xbox, and millions of people are taking notice. It's the new "no-games" platform. It might be doing more than fine now, but the long term consequences are disastrous.

Nintendo sticking with exclusives is obviously the right thing to do, I'm not at all suggesting that they should go full multiplatform. But Sony should take notes and stop taking their current numbers and fans for granted.

Pretty much.

Just to point: Playstation already has their games on all those platforms listed, so it is in fact nothing new, but even so, if the plan is to have most if not every game everywhere, they are the ones that have the most to lose... which makes no sense, long term risk massively outclasses the short term profit increase.

I only quoted this post but in yout next ones you cover the difference to Nintendo, and it is pretty much what I think as well.

Nintendo IPs, specially Pokemon, could grow so much outside their systems that it could have been worth a try before the Switch, as I said back way then, but since its success, it would be far too risky for them now. Why do it while you make so much money with your own games there? Sure, Pokemon could go from selling 25M to selling 75M being available everywhere, but letting go of 100M+ potential sellers at 100% profit nowdays sure sounds stupid. Plus, they also don't even needed to ramp up their game developement budget as much as other companies because their hardware was weaker and couldn't benefit or be judged far too much for it.

Microsoft was forced to do it, the quality of their games has always been hit and miss and has been way more miss than hit since the Xbox One, everybody moved to PC or Playstation, the brand is in ruins, so letting go of Xbox now for more profit at least starts making sense.

Playstation is a way different case from Xbox, they have always been successful, like Nintendo on the handheld market, but they have been successful as the go to place to play NEARLY ANY GAME on your home, since they started with the PS1, on top of their own games. Owning a Playstation always meant you would have access to some of the best exclusive games + pretty much any relevant game. Why would they let it go for like 2M or 3M more sales for their own games? They get 30% profit from every single major game release out there, and they just forced out their biggest competition on that front too making it an even more easier choice to go for a Playstation.

The thing is, if people move out, they will have a very hard time to make even a small part come back, so if it fails, it REALLY fails and it's game over, and if it succeeds... cool? Not really a big change.

They have been doing great, made more profit on PS5 than the other 4 consoles combined up until now, so... just why would you even think about it?

Again, it might mean nothing, Helldivers is on Xbox, Patapon on Switch, had games on mobile, a lot of games on PC, so it is already the case, but if major franchises start moving to other dedicated gaming systems... so will the players.

Uncharted on Nintendo would be cool in a "Sonic on Gamecube back in the day" kinda way. I already own UC1-3 on PS3 and UC4 on PS4, but I'd double dip on the latter to play it on Switch 2 just for the novelty.

Stuff like Gravity Rush, Ratchet and Clank, or Sackboy I can also see finding an audience on Switch 2.

Xbox represents a smaller base, (long term anyway) but porting from PS5 to XBS shouldn't be too difficult so you'd probably only have to sell like 1m or even less copies of something like Spiderman or TLOU or Gran Turismo on there for the port to be profitable.

They are doing it because of tariffs. Like you and Kyuu have pointed out it just doesn't make any financial sense. But if nearly half the Playstation base can't buy a console for under $800 due to tariffs then it would make sense to go 3rd party. You can sell a console at a $100 loss and make profit from 3rd party revenue but you can't sell a console at a $400 loss and make nearly as much profit from 3rd party revenue. 

Also, it's going to be frustrating to watch both Sony and Xbox consoles experience sales cliffs during 10th gen, while market analysts like Pachter claim that consoles were always on the way out. It's going to be a repeat of when analysts claimed that smartphones would kill handhelds, but what happened instead was that handhelds priced themselves out of the market and made several boneheaded decisions. 

Porting a AAA video game doesn't cost much at all. Playstation already puts their games on PC which has a very similar architecture to Xbox. Maybe costs a million dollars at most to port.

$50 for each game means they need to sell around 30k (factoring Xbox cut) just to break even which should be easy. Not to mention Xbox has a good foot hold in North America which is the biggest region for AAA video game sales.

The development cost of AAA video games that Sony wants to make went up 2 to 4 times as much. Yet their install base isn't growing and can be argued it is slightly shrinking compare to the PS4. They have no choice but to put their exclusives on PC and Xbox. Switch 2 if the console can handle it.

Spiderman 2 cost around 300 million to make and sold over 10 million copies within four months of release. At $70 per copy that's 700 million dollars of revenue in four months. 400 million of that would be pure profit. That's before we factor in that Spiderman 2 would have pushed 2 to 3 million people to buy a PS5. And every 3rd party game those 2 to 3 million people buy on PS5 nets Sony a 30% royalty cut. So, we are talking even more hundreds of millions long-term here. 

Sony's leadership didn't do this because "development costs are ballooning". They are doing it because of pure greed and tariffs threatening to destroy the traditional console strategy in the USA. 

P.S. Marvel charges a lot to license out Spiderman. So other PS titles will have around 20% less in development costs. 

You are forgetting retailers like game stop takes a cut as well and I'm sure there are other things we are not factoring like bundles and discounts.
Oh, all of that profit was wiped away with Concord alone. Not including all of the Sony failed GAAS attempts they poured billions of dollars into.

Sony first party studios isn't doing as well as you think it is. That is why they are remastering and now porting their games to other platforms. They have no choice or else share holders will get involve and start forcing Sony to close their studios down and take less risk.

PS Studios digital ratios and revenues both went up considerably over PS4's era, which more than make up for the rising development costs. Playstation's games are more expensive and also hold their value much better these days, ranging from 2-3 times the price on average (25-$35 for PS4 era 1st party games vs $60+ for PS5 era). This means that past the breaking even point, Sony is more than doubling profitability per copy sold.

You're exaggerating how much Sony wasted on GaaS. Concord bombing and GaaS cancellations didn't stop Playstation from increasing their profitability. Had it not been for these failures and short term losses from acquisitions and other investments, the profitability would've have been higher. This indicates the core console business is currently healthy, and adjustment can be made elsewhere to improve efficiency.

I wouldn't penalize Spider-Man 2, Ragnarok, and Gran Turismo 7 for the failure of another game. Instead of porting every game to PC and other platforms to mask the problem, they can solve the problem directly by betting and spending less on inexperienced or newly formed studios. Concord in particular was a once in a decade disaster. It's not the kind of mistake that Sony or anyone can easily repeat lol.

A big part of why PS5 is barely keeping up with PS4 (despite Xbox's apparent death) is the lack of exclusivity. Had Sony never supported PC (which is easily the fastest growing platform) and now other platforms, not as many people would be trolling the PS5, and the brand's reputation would have held up better.