Why do gamers want to see Nintendo go multi-platform?

[Araksardet]

I loved the Pokémon games when I was younger, but I am no longer willing to fork out hundreds for the hardware and the games. If they were released at a premium price for my Nexus 4, though, I'd be on them in a heartbeat.

That said, I realize the odds of that happening are about nil. I just wish game companies and hardware companies were not so deeply intertwined; I think consumers would all be better off for it.

 

[Negatempest]

So your argument is for Nintendo to go multiplatform so that you can play it with your ps3. The reason for that has nothing to do with graphics, but the dream that Sony will not in any way influence the direction the game would go. My argument in the OP is that such a thing is a pipe dream. Nintendo would no longer create a product under Nintendo quality, but one that would make Sony happy. I just don't see any improvement because every great Mascot character Sony did have is long forgotten or abandoned. You know, Crash, Spyro, Jak and Dexter, these were freakin great IP's that do not see the light that they used too.

I was advanced upon on the purchasing a console I don't want or need front and I fought that advance off masterfully, so I was advanced upon on the I'm a graphics whore front and I destroyed those troops as well. Now watch as I skillfully and elegantly parry this attack like a master swordsman.

What the fuck?

Sony and Microsoft would cream their shorts if Nintendo said they wanted to put Mario or Zelda or Metroid on their consoles. Sony and Microsoft couldn't possibly fuck with production of Nintendo titles because they'd be too busy swimming in all the money. Big developers don't bow to Sony and Microsoft to get a game on the Xbox and PS3. Developers develop a game and publishers publish it. Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with it. The only devs who may have to beg are indies and indie Nintendo aint.

Nintendo can make their games and port them over with zero input from Microsoft or Sony if they ever chose to do so.

Nintendo hardware owners lose nothing and MS/Sony owners gain everything. So I'm back to the whole "are you guys just so petty that you won't let anyone else play with an exact replica of your ball even though it doesn't change the fact that you still have your ball" idea.

Wait, wait wait.. haha no, nope and negatory. I was as hell not trying to sell you the Wii or Wii-U. I personally took gamble on a system for the first time and "I" am enjoying the games. Do you have too? Heck no. My main force was saying, "Enjoy your stuff and I'll enjoy my stuff." When you go multiplatform you always risk something going wrong. Even though there are great 3rd party games on PS3 and 360 like Skyrim, Dishonored, CoD, Tomb Raider, etc. the chances of bugs increases because you are creating software for more than one console. Are they game breaking? No, but they get annoying, funny, or silly depending on the game or the developer. We accept such a thing, but Nintendo doesn't. Most of their own personal IP's don't have a history of buggy games because they focus on their own console.

My main argument is this: There is no hard evidence of "kiddy" games lasting long on the present and past generation on the other consoles with the same quality they used to have. Crash is gone. Ratchet and Clank (though the games were great) is not that far from being forgotten soon, Spyro is nowhere near as good as he used to be, Jak is gone, Banjo didn't go where the consumers wanted it to go. These were all great IP's lost in the sea of shooters of the past gen.

I didn't say you mentioned buying a wii or wii U, just that it did come up in this thread and I shot that down quite skillfully.

And the fate of Sony's mascots is irrelevant for the same reasons that are quoted in this very post. Sony would have zero impact on making Nintendo games.

Bugs? Are you serious? This is the corner you've chosen to back into to make your stand?

The number of games with bugs of note on the Xbox and PS3 is minimal. Sure they exist but a horse falling through the earth from time to time is no reason to not publish on every platform.

You've gotten to the point where you're just sticking to your argument because it was your argument and you'll be damned if anyone is going to change your mind. Logic be damned!

You've lost here. There is no GOOD reason why Nintendo games should not be released on multiple consoles. It would boost Nintendo's profits, it would make some very good games available to a much larger audience, and once again detracts in no way from your enjoyment of Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

Are you so blinded by your rabid fanboyism that you can't see your own rabid fanboyism for what it is? Blind loyalty to a brand and a refusal to let others into your exclusive little club unless they make the same decision you made despite the fact the decision was not the right one for them.

Take your gamecube and your wii and your wii U and play in your corner and let me play Zelda on my PS3. I promise not to come over and yank your plugs if you promise not to yank mine. Deal?

You gotta remember, there was a time when the player or object falling through the floor when it wasn't programed to was unacceptable. There would be alot of pissed off consumers if consumers had to reset the game because they got stuck sometimes in a game, especially when getting close to a boss.

My argument against Nintendo going multiplatform is simple: No need to pay money to non-Nintendo console makers, means more profit to them. (Are you imagining that the console maker won't take a good chunk of the profit?) Exclusive means they can focus on making it work great on their console of choice with knowing how to easily fix bugs or glitches. Has no other company to respond too. (Again your assuming that Microsoft and Sony are just gonna stay quiet, cause you know these companies have been perfect recently).

And the last Nintendo console I ever owned was the NES. I have psone, a large library for ps2, have a ps3 and an Xbox360. The Wii-U was a gamble because I decided to give Nintendo a chance at impressing me and that was before any leak of DRM got out. Considering the BS the other two are trying to pull recently. I made one hell of a choice.

Your argument is just that somehow more money will be made where they don't have to sell more than they already do. They will get no pressure from Microsoft or Sony. They won't lose any money to the other console makers and somehow keep all the profit. The games won't be buggy since Nintendo has a long history of knowing how an Xbox and Playstation hardware works. You knowing all of this with no evidence that Nintendo profit will rise and no evidence that all the stuff I am saying is a lie. Give me a single good evidence of a Publisher like Nintendo not needing to make a stupid amount of profit to keep themselves afloat since a good portion of the money they make will go to Sony or Microsoft.

Nintendo did not lose faith in their core audience because they treated them like thieves or called them stupid. It was because they do not have the same 3rd party support as the other console makers. But now with those other publisher in more control what did we get in the end? Over priced DLC, Online Pass, Season Pass, DLC on the disk itself, and Micro-transactions. The worst you can say about Nintendo now is that they have no real 3rd party support and you don't like their controller.

Nintendo is what it is today because they answer to no other publisher or console maker other than their own.

 

[Dragonbums]

Being a closed system is not the same thing as having DRM. Digital Rights Management is where publishers actively try and control your 'license' to play the game, by mandating if, when and how you can play it. None of that applies to consoles, given that you can buy used games, play offline and give them to friends anytime you like.

ahahahAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Can I play Nintendo games IF I buy a PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games WHEN I want to on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games HOW I want to on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I BUY USED NINTENDO GAMES for my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games OFFLINE on my PS(X) or my Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games MY FRIENDS LEND ME on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Nice try though...

The people who are lusting over Nintendo going third party for their own benefit are the ones that are egotistical. Especially around this generation. Nintendo is about the only one of the big three that focus more on games than anything else. They are the only ones that don't revel in the nightmare that is online passes, over priced DLC, ridiculous patches for games that weren't properly fixed because the KNOW they can just fix it later with patches, and whining about used games.
Yet despite everyones' perpetual whining about those issues, they want to see the one hardware and videogame company that doesn't do these things fall into third party status because they want to play Mario without "degrading" themselves by owning a "kiddie console"

No no no. Now hold right there. I never said ANYTHING about "degrading" myself by owning a "kiddie console". So you better stop that nonsense right now.

People buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo products, and those people do so in the droves of tens of millions. And Nintendo knows they are guaranteed that for every 10 consoles sold 8 of them will have a Mario game to go with it. Not as a bundle, but as a separate purchase. Their games on average rival or surpass COD and Elder Scrolls levels of sales.

No, people are FORCED to buy a Nintendo console to play Nintendo games. I just rolled up my sleeves... This shit just got real... Let's take a look at the economics of the situation. Nintendo knows that if people want to play their games they have to buy their console. This means that Nintendo is collecting all profits on console sales related to Nintendo products as well as all profits on Nintendo IPs. However, the question becomes if Nintendo went cross platform would people still buy their system? I don't know, but if the system is as good as you continue to praise it as being it shouldn't be an issue. So the next issue is could the revenue earned from cross platform sales cover, or exceed, the lost revenue from the lack of console sales? I would argue yes because I would buy a fair handful of Nintendo games for the Xbox, but I can't justify buying another console for that same handful of games. This is a very common trend among the 20+ friends I have asked over the course of the day.

So I (and my admittedly small sample of friends) end up being a net loss for Nintendo. I (we) would not buy their console anyway so I(we) am(are) a non factor in that equation, but I(we) WOULD buy games if they were made available. This is known as a "potential sales loss" and factors into a net loss (0+{-x}={-x}). The only reason Nintendo would not want my(our) business is that they don't believe their console could compete in the market without having a monopoly on the Nintendo games market.

Now there are other factors and costs at work, but this is the short version. -.-

I never said you called the Wii and WiiU a "kiddy console" but there sure as heck are a lot of people who use that as a legitimate reason to not touch a Nintendo hardware product with a 10 foot pole.

If people want to play their games, they have to buy a Nintendo console. You want to talk about economics? Alright, let's go.

If Pokemon X and Y sells 10 million copies when it releases- of those 10 million copies 7 million of them were from people who bought a 3DS specifically for the game, they are making MUCH more money selling both hardware and Software then if they just sold software. $35.00 multiplied by 10 million copies is a lot of fucking money. $235.00 multiplied by 7 million? Shit, your sitting on a tower of gold, and that is just for A SINGLE NINTENDO IP. That's not even their first juggernaut of an IP.
Animal Crossing is coming out today. The sheer AMOUNT of people who are going to buy a 3DS for that game alone is going to be crazy. Not only for the game sales itself, but for the 3DS sales people are willing to buy just to get their hands on the game. They would never make that kind of money going third party. Don't even kid yourself. This is just their handhelds ALONE. Once these two bad boys are out of the gate, the 3DS already has, and will now certainly be far from struggling to make ends meet.
Now let's get with the WiiU. The WiiU is doing better historically then a lot of consoles that come right out of the gate. Let's clear something up right now. It will take a miracle for any console to reach Wii level of sales ever. That was huge. I don't even think Nintendo thought they would wipe the floor with this generation. A decent Mario and Zelda game can clear through 12 million copies easy. EASY! The amount of people that have stated that once a good Zelda game comes out for the WiiU they will buy the console just for the game is huge. So let's say 20 million people bought the WiiU just for the newest installment of the Legend of Zelda. That's $300.00 multiplied by 20 million on top of that you have $60.00 multiplied by 20 million. Those are big numbers something that if they were just software alone they could never make.
That is a pipe wet dream for gamers who are seem to be content with having a choice between two companies that revel in the DRM orgy fest, and can't stand that Nintendo is doing their own little thing, making their own games for their own products.

People go into economics blah blah blah, yeah right. That's a shoddy excuse to cover up the fact that you just want Nintendo to FAIL so you can play their games on your terms. Using economics. You aren't business majors. You aren't economic analysts. What do you know about Nintendos finances? What do you know about Sony and Microsofts finances? Nothing. Nintendo has been around for over 100 years. A company doesn't live that long if they were stupid with their money. Sorry that Sony and Microsoft don't make their own in house games and rely on buying out studios and developers to make their own first party titles. You don't want Nintendo products? You don't get Nintendo games. Simple as that. Sony and Microsoft would do the same thing if they could.
And you know what else? For all the whining from third party developers from them, they should be grateful that Nintendo stays on Nintendo platforms. They should be encouraging it. Nintendo has so many AAA titles that if they were to go third party (and not just shut the whole thing down and do something else like Iwata said) they would completely cannibalize the third party industry. Who can compete with them? Let's get real here. Who, aside from Bethesda, Valve, and EA could legitimately compete against Nintendo? Most third party developers have one big hitter, and the rest are "eh" When Skyrim came out many devs made sure their game DIDN'T release when Skyrim did, but Bethesda has a few big sellers. Nintendo has a whole cast of them, and they can basically choke third party release until they either fail or take Nintendos' offer to work with them.(Why do you think Sega is still kicking despite all their crap games?)

I'm sorry, but this thread just reeks of entitlement and selfishness all in one.
I don't demand Microsoft go under so I can play their IPs on the Wii. I don't demand Sony fails so I can play their games on the Wii. However it's fine to demand Nintendo to go third party for other peoples' benefit?
Really? The one game company that still gives gamers something new to play, no DRM Online passes bullshit, and you want THIS company to go third party?
Sometimes I think we deserve to get served garbage like the Xbox One. Because quite frankly we really don't know we are losing until it's gone.

 

[2HF]

You've lost here. There is no GOOD reason why Nintendo games should not be released on multiple consoles. It would boost Nintendo's profits, it would make some very good games available to a much larger audience, and once again detracts in no way from your enjoyment of Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

Are you so blinded by your rabid fanboyism that you can't see your own rabid fanboyism for what it is? Blind loyalty to a brand and a refusal to let others into your exclusive little club unless they make the same decision you made despite the fact the decision was not the right one for them.

Take your gamecube and your wii and your wii U and play in your corner and let me play Zelda on my PS3. I promise not to come over and yank your plugs if you promise not to yank mine. Deal?

If this is guaranteed to boost profits why don't Sony or MS just put their games on ALL consoles, is there a good reason for ANY game not to be released on all consoles?

Maybe you don't think Nintendo exclusives justify the cost of their consoles, some people don't think Sony or MS's exclusives justify a purchase of their's.

Why is it ALWAYS Nintendo that everyone says NEEDS to go? Don't you think we'd like to play Uncharted on Wii U? Maybe Rachet and Clak or even Halo? All of the above maybe? There's no real justification that it HAS to be Nintendo. And it's absurd the amount of (and this is probably too strong a word but...) "hate" they seem to get for NOT dying.

Now don't get me wrong I do wish all games could be available on one console, but let's face it; at this point in time Nintendo is the LEAST likely of the 3 to go third party. Even if their hardware failed they've made it clear that they'll be taking their IPs with them.

Until and unless all 3 just converge onto one single console there will always be exclusives and there will always be people who'd rather not buy them. Obviously Nintendo gets to have its own games, like Sony and MS get theirs. Pick the ones whose exclusives you like the most and if you can't afford the other(s) or don't care enough to get them you can't just say you want them to go 3rd party. That's more than a little unjust. Anyone can say that about any exclusive title.

It's equally immature to wish ill fate to ANYONE'S (in this case nintendo's) business endeavors as it is to not want to share it.

I never said other console's exclusives shouldn't be multiplatform as well. I will say it wouldn't matter nearly as much. The amount of exclusives on the PS3 and Xbox don't justify the cost of either console in my opinion. I have a PS3 because of the free online multiplayer and PS plus. I don't own a PS3 for Killzone, there are plenty of shooters on xbox. I don't own a PS3 for Infamous, Prototype is on the xbox. I don't own a PS3 for Uncharted, I hate Uncharted.

And I never said I wanted Nintendo to die either. In fact I've made frequent reference to the fact that Nintendo hardware owners would lose nothing if Nintendo went multiplatform. Meaning they wouldn't lose their hardware.

 

[2HF]

Being a closed system is not the same thing as having DRM. Digital Rights Management is where publishers actively try and control your 'license' to play the game, by mandating if, when and how you can play it. None of that applies to consoles, given that you can buy used games, play offline and give them to friends anytime you like.

ahahahAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Can I play Nintendo games IF I buy a PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games WHEN I want to on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games HOW I want to on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I BUY USED NINTENDO GAMES for my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games OFFLINE on my PS(X) or my Xbox? Nope!

Can I play Nintendo games MY FRIENDS LEND ME on my PS(X) or Xbox? Nope!

Nice try though...

That is ridiculous. Are you seriously trying to say that's the same as locking a consumer out of a game he/she already paid for? Are you saying that's the same as banning a user from playing his/her games? Console exclusives are NOWHERE NEAR as bad as the bullshit DRM going on. Also, if you have a problem with the Playstation not being able to play Nintendo games, that's on Sony. Sony would have to make their console able to read the coding on the Nintendo discs. Sony has not done so...and you blame Nintendo...yeah, that makes sense...

Oh, and the Playstation came out before Nintendo switched to discs, so it wasn't even compatible with Nintendo's format.

The number of games with bugs of note on the Xbox and PS3 is minimal.

Cool story, bro. At least half the PS3 games I bought bugged out at some point.

There is no GOOD reason why Nintendo games should not be released on multiple consoles. It would boost Nintendo's profits, it would make some very good games available to a much larger audience, and once again detracts in no way from your enjoyment of Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

That is bullshit. There isn't ONE mutliplatform publisher that can get anywhere near Nintendo's game profits. You can tell yourself that going multiplatform will magically make Nintendo more money, it will never be so.

And there are actually several very good reasons for Nintendo to host their own games. First of all, developing games for someone else is a pain! If Nintendo went multiplatform, they'd have to make deals with Sony and Microsoft and have to meet their demands. They would be at their mercy and have less time to actually develop games. Nintendo releases more games a year than any publisher. This is because they programed the consoles themselves.

Then they wouldn't make as much profit. Microsoft and Sony get a cut of every game they sell, even if they don't own the developer, so profit per game would be down. They'd have to expect to sell 50% more than on their own consoles to turn more profit than they are making now. Didn't people say it was crazy to expect a game to sell over 5 million units because that how much money they needed to make back? The number of games Nintendo would need to sell to maintain it's size would be insane.

And to end it all off, what about all those people working at Nintendo's console divisions? They wouldn't be useful and Nintendo would not be making enough money to pay them all. Nintendo dropping out of the console market would put hundreds of hard working men and women out of jobs.

Take your gamecube and your wii and your wii U and play in your corner and let me play Zelda on my PS3.

Why can't Nintendo do what I WANT!?
http://www.perform.org.uk/images/uploaded/whining.jpg

You are not the center of the universe and none in it exist to follow your whim. You don't care who would suffer in the process. You don't care if hundreds will lose their jobs. Grow up! If you can afford a PS3, you sure can afford a Wii. Buy one and stop whining.

I never said I wanted Nintendo to stop making hardware... Nintendo would make all the same money they make on their hardware and copies of their games on their hardware + whatever money they make from me and anyone else like me.

Money that you have now + money from me = more money than what you have now. It's a simple equation.

 

[2HF]

So your argument is for Nintendo to go multiplatform so that you can play it with your ps3. The reason for that has nothing to do with graphics, but the dream that Sony will not in any way influence the direction the game would go. My argument in the OP is that such a thing is a pipe dream. Nintendo would no longer create a product under Nintendo quality, but one that would make Sony happy. I just don't see any improvement because every great Mascot character Sony did have is long forgotten or abandoned. You know, Crash, Spyro, Jak and Dexter, these were freakin great IP's that do not see the light that they used too.

I was advanced upon on the purchasing a console I don't want or need front and I fought that advance off masterfully, so I was advanced upon on the I'm a graphics whore front and I destroyed those troops as well. Now watch as I skillfully and elegantly parry this attack like a master swordsman.

What the fuck?

Sony and Microsoft would cream their shorts if Nintendo said they wanted to put Mario or Zelda or Metroid on their consoles. Sony and Microsoft couldn't possibly fuck with production of Nintendo titles because they'd be too busy swimming in all the money. Big developers don't bow to Sony and Microsoft to get a game on the Xbox and PS3. Developers develop a game and publishers publish it. Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with it. The only devs who may have to beg are indies and indie Nintendo aint.

Nintendo can make their games and port them over with zero input from Microsoft or Sony if they ever chose to do so.

Nintendo hardware owners lose nothing and MS/Sony owners gain everything. So I'm back to the whole "are you guys just so petty that you won't let anyone else play with an exact replica of your ball even though it doesn't change the fact that you still have your ball" idea.

Wait, wait wait.. haha no, nope and negatory. I was as hell not trying to sell you the Wii or Wii-U. I personally took gamble on a system for the first time and "I" am enjoying the games. Do you have too? Heck no. My main force was saying, "Enjoy your stuff and I'll enjoy my stuff." When you go multiplatform you always risk something going wrong. Even though there are great 3rd party games on PS3 and 360 like Skyrim, Dishonored, CoD, Tomb Raider, etc. the chances of bugs increases because you are creating software for more than one console. Are they game breaking? No, but they get annoying, funny, or silly depending on the game or the developer. We accept such a thing, but Nintendo doesn't. Most of their own personal IP's don't have a history of buggy games because they focus on their own console.

My main argument is this: There is no hard evidence of "kiddy" games lasting long on the present and past generation on the other consoles with the same quality they used to have. Crash is gone. Ratchet and Clank (though the games were great) is not that far from being forgotten soon, Spyro is nowhere near as good as he used to be, Jak is gone, Banjo didn't go where the consumers wanted it to go. These were all great IP's lost in the sea of shooters of the past gen.

I didn't say you mentioned buying a wii or wii U, just that it did come up in this thread and I shot that down quite skillfully.

And the fate of Sony's mascots is irrelevant for the same reasons that are quoted in this very post. Sony would have zero impact on making Nintendo games.

Bugs? Are you serious? This is the corner you've chosen to back into to make your stand?

The number of games with bugs of note on the Xbox and PS3 is minimal. Sure they exist but a horse falling through the earth from time to time is no reason to not publish on every platform.

You've gotten to the point where you're just sticking to your argument because it was your argument and you'll be damned if anyone is going to change your mind. Logic be damned!

You've lost here. There is no GOOD reason why Nintendo games should not be released on multiple consoles. It would boost Nintendo's profits, it would make some very good games available to a much larger audience, and once again detracts in no way from your enjoyment of Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

Are you so blinded by your rabid fanboyism that you can't see your own rabid fanboyism for what it is? Blind loyalty to a brand and a refusal to let others into your exclusive little club unless they make the same decision you made despite the fact the decision was not the right one for them.

Take your gamecube and your wii and your wii U and play in your corner and let me play Zelda on my PS3. I promise not to come over and yank your plugs if you promise not to yank mine. Deal?

You gotta remember, there was a time when the player or object falling through the floor when it wasn't programed to was unacceptable. There would be alot of pissed off consumers if consumers had to reset the game because they got stuck sometimes in a game, especially when getting close to a boss.

My argument against Nintendo going multiplatform is simple: No need to pay money to non-Nintendo console makers, means more profit to them. (Are you imagining that the console maker won't take a good chunk of the profit?) Exclusive means they can focus on making it work great on their console of choice with knowing how to easily fix bugs or glitches. Has no other company to respond too. (Again your assuming that Microsoft and Sony are just gonna stay quiet, cause you know these companies have been perfect recently).

And the last Nintendo console I ever owned was the NES. I have psone, a large library for ps2, have a ps3 and an Xbox360. The Wii-U was a gamble because I decided to give Nintendo a chance at impressing me and that was before any leak of DRM got out. Considering the BS the other two are trying to pull recently. I made one hell of a choice.

Your argument is just that somehow more money will be made where they don't have to sell more than they already do. They will get no pressure from Microsoft or Sony. They won't lose any money to the other console makers and somehow keep all the profit. The games won't be buggy since Nintendo has a long history of knowing how an Xbox and Playstation hardware works. You knowing all of this with no evidence that Nintendo profit will rise and no evidence that all the stuff I am saying is a lie. Give me a single good evidence of a Publisher like Nintendo not needing to make a stupid amount of profit to keep themselves afloat since a good portion of the money they make will go to Sony or Microsoft.

Nintendo did not lose faith in their core audience because they treated them like thieves or called them stupid. It was because they do not have the same 3rd party support as the other console makers. But now with those other publisher in more control what did we get in the end? Over priced DLC, Online Pass, Season Pass, DLC on the disk itself, and Micro-transactions. The worst you can say about Nintendo now is that they have no real 3rd party support and you don't like their controller.

Nintendo is what it is today because they answer to no other publisher or console maker other than their own.

I'll try this again.

Take all the money Nintendo makes by selling their games on their hardware, now add all the money they'd make from selling to me and every other person like me tell me which number is larger. All your money or all your money plus my money?

A horse falling through the ground is a small price to pay in order to boost income and let me play Zelda.

 

[rob_simple]

Because I like their games, but not their controllers.

It has nothing to do with better graphics, I just like my Playstation 3 and I don't like the Wii or the WiiU.

And yes, I know there is the option to use the classic controller with the Wii, but there are still parts of the games specifically designed for Wiimote waggles or touch screen tapping and that just doesn't interest me: I want full control over the game with a normal controller or not at all.

And just to make clear it's not a Nintendo bias, in the few games that ever used the PS3's six-axis control, I always turned that off as well.

 

[GAunderrated]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

 

[Negatempest]

So your argument is for Nintendo to go multiplatform so that you can play it with your ps3. The reason for that has nothing to do with graphics, but the dream that Sony will not in any way influence the direction the game would go. My argument in the OP is that such a thing is a pipe dream. Nintendo would no longer create a product under Nintendo quality, but one that would make Sony happy. I just don't see any improvement because every great Mascot character Sony did have is long forgotten or abandoned. You know, Crash, Spyro, Jak and Dexter, these were freakin great IP's that do not see the light that they used too.

I was advanced upon on the purchasing a console I don't want or need front and I fought that advance off masterfully, so I was advanced upon on the I'm a graphics whore front and I destroyed those troops as well. Now watch as I skillfully and elegantly parry this attack like a master swordsman.

What the fuck?

Sony and Microsoft would cream their shorts if Nintendo said they wanted to put Mario or Zelda or Metroid on their consoles. Sony and Microsoft couldn't possibly fuck with production of Nintendo titles because they'd be too busy swimming in all the money. Big developers don't bow to Sony and Microsoft to get a game on the Xbox and PS3. Developers develop a game and publishers publish it. Microsoft and Sony have nothing to do with it. The only devs who may have to beg are indies and indie Nintendo aint.

Nintendo can make their games and port them over with zero input from Microsoft or Sony if they ever chose to do so.

Nintendo hardware owners lose nothing and MS/Sony owners gain everything. So I'm back to the whole "are you guys just so petty that you won't let anyone else play with an exact replica of your ball even though it doesn't change the fact that you still have your ball" idea.

Wait, wait wait.. haha no, nope and negatory. I was as hell not trying to sell you the Wii or Wii-U. I personally took gamble on a system for the first time and "I" am enjoying the games. Do you have too? Heck no. My main force was saying, "Enjoy your stuff and I'll enjoy my stuff." When you go multiplatform you always risk something going wrong. Even though there are great 3rd party games on PS3 and 360 like Skyrim, Dishonored, CoD, Tomb Raider, etc. the chances of bugs increases because you are creating software for more than one console. Are they game breaking? No, but they get annoying, funny, or silly depending on the game or the developer. We accept such a thing, but Nintendo doesn't. Most of their own personal IP's don't have a history of buggy games because they focus on their own console.

My main argument is this: There is no hard evidence of "kiddy" games lasting long on the present and past generation on the other consoles with the same quality they used to have. Crash is gone. Ratchet and Clank (though the games were great) is not that far from being forgotten soon, Spyro is nowhere near as good as he used to be, Jak is gone, Banjo didn't go where the consumers wanted it to go. These were all great IP's lost in the sea of shooters of the past gen.

I didn't say you mentioned buying a wii or wii U, just that it did come up in this thread and I shot that down quite skillfully.

And the fate of Sony's mascots is irrelevant for the same reasons that are quoted in this very post. Sony would have zero impact on making Nintendo games.

Bugs? Are you serious? This is the corner you've chosen to back into to make your stand?

The number of games with bugs of note on the Xbox and PS3 is minimal. Sure they exist but a horse falling through the earth from time to time is no reason to not publish on every platform.

You've gotten to the point where you're just sticking to your argument because it was your argument and you'll be damned if anyone is going to change your mind. Logic be damned!

You've lost here. There is no GOOD reason why Nintendo games should not be released on multiple consoles. It would boost Nintendo's profits, it would make some very good games available to a much larger audience, and once again detracts in no way from your enjoyment of Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware.

Are you so blinded by your rabid fanboyism that you can't see your own rabid fanboyism for what it is? Blind loyalty to a brand and a refusal to let others into your exclusive little club unless they make the same decision you made despite the fact the decision was not the right one for them.

Take your gamecube and your wii and your wii U and play in your corner and let me play Zelda on my PS3. I promise not to come over and yank your plugs if you promise not to yank mine. Deal?

You gotta remember, there was a time when the player or object falling through the floor when it wasn't programed to was unacceptable. There would be alot of pissed off consumers if consumers had to reset the game because they got stuck sometimes in a game, especially when getting close to a boss.

My argument against Nintendo going multiplatform is simple: No need to pay money to non-Nintendo console makers, means more profit to them. (Are you imagining that the console maker won't take a good chunk of the profit?) Exclusive means they can focus on making it work great on their console of choice with knowing how to easily fix bugs or glitches. Has no other company to respond too. (Again your assuming that Microsoft and Sony are just gonna stay quiet, cause you know these companies have been perfect recently).

And the last Nintendo console I ever owned was the NES. I have psone, a large library for ps2, have a ps3 and an Xbox360. The Wii-U was a gamble because I decided to give Nintendo a chance at impressing me and that was before any leak of DRM got out. Considering the BS the other two are trying to pull recently. I made one hell of a choice.

Your argument is just that somehow more money will be made where they don't have to sell more than they already do. They will get no pressure from Microsoft or Sony. They won't lose any money to the other console makers and somehow keep all the profit. The games won't be buggy since Nintendo has a long history of knowing how an Xbox and Playstation hardware works. You knowing all of this with no evidence that Nintendo profit will rise and no evidence that all the stuff I am saying is a lie. Give me a single good evidence of a Publisher like Nintendo not needing to make a stupid amount of profit to keep themselves afloat since a good portion of the money they make will go to Sony or Microsoft.

Nintendo did not lose faith in their core audience because they treated them like thieves or called them stupid. It was because they do not have the same 3rd party support as the other console makers. But now with those other publisher in more control what did we get in the end? Over priced DLC, Online Pass, Season Pass, DLC on the disk itself, and Micro-transactions. The worst you can say about Nintendo now is that they have no real 3rd party support and you don't like their controller.

Nintendo is what it is today because they answer to no other publisher or console maker other than their own.

I'll try this again.

Take all the money Nintendo makes by selling their games on their hardware, now add all the money they'd make from selling to me and every other person like me tell me which number is larger. All your money or all your money plus my money?

A horse falling through the ground is a small price to pay in order to boost income and let me play Zelda.

When a company makes a drastic change to their core ideas, in this case going multi-platform, you lose key creators to the change. There is no fact, on the contrary there is a strong belief that Miyamoto and others would retire from the gaming world should they lose the control on their stuff. The people at Nintendo do what they do because they can control everything about what they do.

Remember the money they are making right now is from total control of their products. The hardware, software and merchandise goes directly to Nintendo. Now some of that money would go to Microsoft and/or Sony should they go multi-platform. No way would they make the same money or quality of game with the key creators gone and lose total control on their product.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

I did like the Wii but there was no reason to keep it as there was no mature content for it. It is more mature to use a Xbox or PS3 because they have mature content. I'm not talking about mindless FPS but it is a mature act to play L.A. Noire on the Xbox than to play Petz Horse Club on the Wii. It is a mature act to enjoy mature content by playing The Last Of Us rather than Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Any adult playing Ninjabread Man needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

 

[suntt123]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

I did like the Wii but there was no reason to keep it as there was no mature content for it. It is more mature to use a Xbox or PS3 because they have mature content. I'm not talking about mindless FPS but it is a mature act to play L.A. Noire on the Xbox than to play Petz Horse Club on the Wii. It is a mature act to enjoy mature content by playing The Last Of Us rather than Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Any adult playing Ninjabread Man needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

What about games like the Metroid Prime Trilogy? Or the Opration Rainfall Trilogy RPGs? They're not exactly LA Noire, but they're not Petz Horse Club either. I'll admit the wii's actual good games are buried under a lot of garbage, but they're there. And they are worth getting.

Also, it may be considered a 'mature act' to enjoy 'mature' games, but enjoying games that are not blatantly targeting adults is not considered immature. Granted I'm in no hurry to buy a Barbie game or whatever, but are you saying that Kirby or Mario aren't worth playing? Because if you ask anyone those games are all pretty 'kiddie'. If you want more mature content fine, but who are we to say that it's a "baby's toy" just for having them on it?

 

[wintercoat]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

I did like the Wii but there was no reason to keep it as there was no mature content for it. It is more mature to use a Xbox or PS3 because they have mature content. I'm not talking about mindless FPS but it is a mature act to play L.A. Noire on the Xbox than to play Petz Horse Club on the Wii. It is a mature act to enjoy mature content by playing The Last Of Us rather than Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Any adult playing Ninjabread Man needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

No, an adult who limits themselves, lest they be seen as childish needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. In the words of C.S. Lewis:

?Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.?

Only children seek to be "grown up" and do "grown up" things. Only children care about looking "mature".

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

I did like the Wii but there was no reason to keep it as there was no mature content for it. It is more mature to use a Xbox or PS3 because they have mature content. I'm not talking about mindless FPS but it is a mature act to play L.A. Noire on the Xbox than to play Petz Horse Club on the Wii. It is a mature act to enjoy mature content by playing The Last Of Us rather than Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Any adult playing Ninjabread Man needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

No, an adult who limits themselves, lest they be seen as childish needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. In the words of C.S. Lewis:

?Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.?

Only children seek to be "grown up" and do "grown up" things. Only children care about looking "mature".

A very excellent point and no sarcasm intended it at all. Honest. If i could just use a little anecdote. My mother is over to see her granddaughter. I was playing Red Dead Redemption and she watched totally riveted. She enjoyed the cut scenes and quickly got invested in the character, asking intelligent questions all the time. I'm quite certain that if i was playing Kirbys Epic Yarn instead then she would think of me as retarded. Now certainly i could have played it by putting away my fear of childishness, i could have played it utterly secure in who i am. But i didn't because i don't own Kirbys Epic Yarn as i am an adult.

My mother and I enjoyed the mature content of Red Dead Redemption. If you engage in mature content you are engaging with mature society. That does not mean that engaging with childishness makes you childish but it has limitations. Everyone over 45 share a narrow minded baby boomer view that video games are all puerile and corrupting. But honestly anyone in that age group would ask an intelligent question if confronted with L.A. Noire, if they saw me playing Chicken Shoot instead they would think me a spastic and would not ask any intelligent questions. There is no "fear of childishness" involved, it is simple adult interaction.

 

[Mr Mystery Guest]

I bought a Wii but got rid of it because it was a babies toy. I only played Zelda on it. I would love to play a Mario game but i'm not wasting space under my tv with an under-powered console.

Are you really that obtuse? I find it odd that you could call a gaming console "a babies toy" like playing on the ps3 or 360 makes you more mature of a person.

There are a few faults I could find with the Wii but consumer stupidity shouldn't be among them.

I did like the Wii but there was no reason to keep it as there was no mature content for it. It is more mature to use a Xbox or PS3 because they have mature content. I'm not talking about mindless FPS but it is a mature act to play L.A. Noire on the Xbox than to play Petz Horse Club on the Wii. It is a mature act to enjoy mature content by playing The Last Of Us rather than Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Any adult playing Ninjabread Man needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

What about games like the Metroid Prime Trilogy? Or the Opration Rainfall Trilogy RPGs? They're not exactly LA Noire, but they're not Petz Horse Club either. I'll admit the wii's actual good games are buried under a lot of garbage, but they're there. And they are worth getting.

Also, it may be considered a 'mature act' to enjoy 'mature' games, but enjoying games that are not blatantly targeting adults is not considered immature. Granted I'm in no hurry to buy a Barbie game or whatever, but are you saying that Kirby or Mario aren't worth playing? Because if you ask anyone those games are all pretty 'kiddie'. If you want more mature content fine, but who are we to say that it's a "baby's toy" just for having them on it?

Oh no I'm not saying Mario is childish. Everyone who has played a Mario game knows that they are taxing, intelligent and rock hard. But for that significant amount of time that my Wii was collecting dust all the stores were charging 70 fucking Euros for that one Mario release so i passed.

I must retract one thing and agree with you that the Wii is great for RPG's and it's competitors most certainly are not. But for myself personally i don't have the spare time to invest in them which is a shame. And i played Metroid 1 and 2 on the Gamecube.

The Wii would have to release a lot more Mario games for me to re-purchase it. But i would prefer Nintendo to put them on the Xbox. But that would never happen. I think it would ultimately be detrimental to their profits.

 

[suntt123]

A very excellent point and no sarcasm intended it at all. Honest. If i could just use a little anecdote. My mother is over to see her granddaughter. I was playing Red Dead Redemption and she watched totally riveted. She enjoyed the cut scenes and quickly got invested in the character, asking intelligent questions all the time. I'm quite certain that if i was playing Kirbys Epic Yarn instead then she would think of me as retarded. Now certainly i could have played it by putting away my fear of childishness, i could have played it utterly secure in who i am. But i didn't because i don't own Kirbys Epic Yarn as i am an adult.

My mother and I enjoyed the mature content of Red Dead Redemption. If you engage in mature content you are engaging with mature society. That does not mean that engaging with childishness makes you childish but it has limitations. Everyone over 45 share a narrow minded baby boomer view that video games are all puerile and corrupting. But honestly anyone in that age group would ask an intelligent question if confronted with L.A. Noire, if they saw me playing Chicken Shoot instead they would think me a spastic and would not ask any intelligent questions. There is no "fear of childishness" involved, it is simple adult interaction.

Epic Yarn and Mario aren't exactly story driven so there wouldn't be much to talk about even if it was Mushroom Kingdom Noire. They can, however, still be enjoyed because the game itself is well designed. These types of games are better played than watch. The fact that it's 'mature' has little to do with it.

That said, there are more intelligent games available for the Wii in terms of story. I gave a few examples above. They're rated T at the highest but they do offer interesting stories. If you don't like the Wii because those games/stories aren't your thing fine, and if you want 'mature content' that's fine fine too. Those kinds of games are admittedly more sparse on the Wii than other consoles, but they do exist. Either way, neither that nor the fact that Wii is less powerful than the PS360 makes the Wii a baby's toy. Besides, what does that have to do with nintendo going third party?

The Wii would have to release a lot more Mario games for me to re-purchase it. But i would prefer Nintendo to put them on the Xbox. But that would never happen. I think it would ultimately be detrimental to their profits

Was writing this before you posted the response to me.
Uhh, do you mean going multiplat would be detrimental or staying exclusive?

 

[InsanityRequiem]

The main reason is because people do not understand the costs of game publishing. Gonna have to say, the Los Angeles Times did a good article about it here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

Basically, if Nintendo decides to stop making consoles and go full publishing only, they would be making even less than if they stayed as both console/publisher. They'd lose out on everything made via console sales, as well as a higher cost for making just the games.

Because like the graphs stipulates, Nintendo would be making roughly $15 less per game sold if they made it for PC/Microsoft/Sony systems. That doesn't include the costs for the more expensive marketing campaign, the costs of higher staff costs(instead of one console that everyone knows how to work on, they have to work on at least two operating systems, which creates its own separate problems), and the fact that they have to deal with both harsher competition from the publishers as well as harsher terms from the console manufacturers themselves(as a manufacturer, you wouldn't give your rival contract that is good for them if they wanna make games on your system).

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Ahem... here is a revenue list for all three hardware companies dating from 1998 to 2009:

You will note that of all three companies, Nintendo posted the highest revenue by far. This is despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft had third-parties paying them royalties on those 'AAA' games everyone always talks about. You will also note that the entire Xbox division up until 2009 was being run at a net loss by Microsoft, being subsidised by their other divisions. The total loss at that moment in time of the 360 was over $6 billion. No matter how cheap 360 parts have got now, there is no way Microsoft have even dented that figure in the four years since.

You will also note as of around 1007, Sony consistently started posting losses. This is a trend that has continued right up to today. The only reason Sony didn't post a net loss this year was because of the $1 billion real estate sale they made selling their HQ. You will hopefully see in the graph how Sony's losses started around the same time as they launched the PS3: first a massive drop in profits, then a full blown dive into negative figures. The warchest they saved up from the PS1 and PS2 days is gone.

You will note thirdly that while the other two companies haemorraged money, Nintendo was always in profit. Even during the Gamecube and N64 years, Nintendo's financials were always in the black. In the four years since this graph, Nintendo has posted a loss once. A figure of millions they could have posted for decades and still had money in the bank. And since then, they've moved back into profitability thanks to the falling yen. Nintendo's entire revenue since 1998 is nearly $21 billion. Sony's is $1 billion, and Microsoft is in the negative figures.

So who is making more money?

Also, regarding your claim that Nintendo's games would reach a larger audience: of the 50 top selling games this generation, 30 of them were published by Nintendo. Mario Kart Wii sold 33 million units, more than any single COD game. Wii Sports Resort (the non-bundle one) sold over 31 million. Wii Play 28 million. NSMBWii 27 million. Wii Fit 22 million. Brawl 10 million. Galaxy 10 million. Twilight Princess 7 million.

I think Nintendo games sell to a perfectly large enough audience already. There is not an exclusive or a game singular to either PS3 or 360 that has sold anything close to what Mario Kart or NSMBWii sold. The Wii had the highest software sales of any console this gen (870 million in total).

Data like that is why I always find people asking for Nintendo to go 3rd party to be hilarious. First of all, the possibility would actually have to exist. Nintendo has such a monstrously huge warchest that they could suffer losses for decades (DECADES!) and not be in financial trouble. If anyone should get out of the hardware business it's MS or Sony due to A) Suffering far, FAR bigger losses in recent years and B) Having far less unique software in order to justify that purchase. Nintendo is legitimately on a different level from everyone else.

 

[Dragonbums]

Ahem... here is a revenue list for all three hardware companies dating from 1998 to 2009:

You will note that of all three companies, Nintendo posted the highest revenue by far. This is despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft had third-parties paying them royalties on those 'AAA' games everyone always talks about. You will also note that the entire Xbox division up until 2009 was being run at a net loss by Microsoft, being subsidised by their other divisions. The total loss at that moment in time of the 360 was over $6 billion. No matter how cheap 360 parts have got now, there is no way Microsoft have even dented that figure in the four years since.

You will also note as of around 1007, Sony consistently started posting losses. This is a trend that has continued right up to today. The only reason Sony didn't post a net loss this year was because of the $1 billion real estate sale they made selling their HQ. You will hopefully see in the graph how Sony's losses started around the same time as they launched the PS3: first a massive drop in profits, then a full blown dive into negative figures. The warchest they saved up from the PS1 and PS2 days is gone.

You will note thirdly that while the other two companies haemorraged money, Nintendo was always in profit. Even during the Gamecube and N64 years, Nintendo's financials were always in the black. In the four years since this graph, Nintendo has posted a loss once. A figure of millions they could have posted for decades and still had money in the bank. And since then, they've moved back into profitability thanks to the falling yen. Nintendo's entire revenue since 1998 is nearly $21 billion. Sony's is $1 billion, and Microsoft is in the negative figures.

So who is making more money?

Also, regarding your claim that Nintendo's games would reach a larger audience: of the 50 top selling games this generation, 30 of them were published by Nintendo. Mario Kart Wii sold 33 million units, more than any single COD game. Wii Sports Resort (the non-bundle one) sold over 31 million. Wii Play 28 million. NSMBWii 27 million. Wii Fit 22 million. Brawl 10 million. Galaxy 10 million. Twilight Princess 7 million.

I think Nintendo games sell to a perfectly large enough audience already. There is not an exclusive or a game singular to either PS3 or 360 that has sold anything close to what Mario Kart or NSMBWii sold. The Wii had the highest software sales of any console this gen (870 million in total).

Data like that is why I always find people asking for Nintendo to go 3rd party to be hilarious. First of all, the possibility would actually have to exist. Nintendo has such a monstrously huge warchest that they could suffer losses for decades (DECADES!) and not be in financial trouble. If anyone should get out of the hardware business it's MS or Sony due to A) Suffering far, FAR bigger losses in recent years and B) Having far less unique software in order to justify that purchase. Nintendo is legitimately on a different level from everyone else.

Because they are using their poor understanding of basic economics and business to hide that fact that they are basically the prime example of the "entitled gamer" by demanding that a company that makes hardware and software should not be allowed to make their own software exclusive to their own consoles and release it on somebody else for their benefit.
And it shows.
The ONLY third party company that is making more money than ever before on their software alone is Valve, and that is ONLY because Steam kicked off and has been raking them money. I guarantee you if they never made Steam, Valve would of had to release a couple of games by now (to what quality we don't know). However they have the luxury of having Nintendo polish and perfection without having to resort to going in the hardware business, or kiss up to the big three.

Nintendo games have always been exclusive. You want Nintendo games, you buy a fucking Nintendo console. If not, too bad so sad. Go to a corner and be sad. That or get a ROM hack. Believe me when I say Nintendo doesn't give two shits. There are SO MANY Pokemon simulators and hacks online, and Nintendo doesn't give a fuck about it. In fact, they don't even TRY to give a fuck. Because they know we will all buy the real games in a heart beat when it releases.

 

[Negatempest]

Ahem... here is a revenue list for all three hardware companies dating from 1998 to 2009:

You will note that of all three companies, Nintendo posted the highest revenue by far. This is despite the fact that Sony and Microsoft had third-parties paying them royalties on those 'AAA' games everyone always talks about. You will also note that the entire Xbox division up until 2009 was being run at a net loss by Microsoft, being subsidised by their other divisions. The total loss at that moment in time of the 360 was over $6 billion. No matter how cheap 360 parts have got now, there is no way Microsoft have even dented that figure in the four years since.

You will also note as of around 1007, Sony consistently started posting losses. This is a trend that has continued right up to today. The only reason Sony didn't post a net loss this year was because of the $1 billion real estate sale they made selling their HQ. You will hopefully see in the graph how Sony's losses started around the same time as they launched the PS3: first a massive drop in profits, then a full blown dive into negative figures. The warchest they saved up from the PS1 and PS2 days is gone.

You will note thirdly that while the other two companies haemorraged money, Nintendo was always in profit. Even during the Gamecube and N64 years, Nintendo's financials were always in the black. In the four years since this graph, Nintendo has posted a loss once. A figure of millions they could have posted for decades and still had money in the bank. And since then, they've moved back into profitability thanks to the falling yen. Nintendo's entire revenue since 1998 is nearly $21 billion. Sony's is $1 billion, and Microsoft is in the negative figures.

So who is making more money?

Also, regarding your claim that Nintendo's games would reach a larger audience: of the 50 top selling games this generation, 30 of them were published by Nintendo. Mario Kart Wii sold 33 million units, more than any single COD game. Wii Sports Resort (the non-bundle one) sold over 31 million. Wii Play 28 million. NSMBWii 27 million. Wii Fit 22 million. Brawl 10 million. Galaxy 10 million. Twilight Princess 7 million.

I think Nintendo games sell to a perfectly large enough audience already. There is not an exclusive or a game singular to either PS3 or 360 that has sold anything close to what Mario Kart or NSMBWii sold. The Wii had the highest software sales of any console this gen (870 million in total).

Data like that is why I always find people asking for Nintendo to go 3rd party to be hilarious. First of all, the possibility would actually have to exist. Nintendo has such a monstrously huge warchest that they could suffer losses for decades (DECADES!) and not be in financial trouble. If anyone should get out of the hardware business it's MS or Sony due to A) Suffering far, FAR bigger losses in recent years and B) Having far less unique software in order to justify that purchase. Nintendo is legitimately on a different level from everyone else.

Because they are using their poor understanding of basic economics and business to hide that fact that they are basically the prime example of the "entitled gamer" by demanding that a company that makes hardware and software should not be allowed to make their own software exclusive to their own consoles and release it on somebody else for their benefit.
And it shows.
The ONLY third party company that is making more money than ever before on their software alone is Valve, and that is ONLY because Steam kicked off and has been raking them money. I guarantee you if they never made Steam, Valve would of had to release a couple of games by now (to what quality we don't know). However they have the luxury of having Nintendo polish and perfection without having to resort to going in the hardware business, or kiss up to the big three.

Nintendo games have always been exclusive. You want Nintendo games, you buy a fucking Nintendo console. If not, too bad so sad. Go to a corner and be sad. That or get a ROM hack. Believe me when I say Nintendo doesn't give two shits. There are SO MANY Pokemon simulators and hacks online, and Nintendo doesn't give a fuck about it. In fact, they don't even TRY to give a fuck. Because they know we will all buy the real games in a heart beat when it releases.

Actually, what is sadder than any of that. Is that they want Nintendo games on the Xbox One as well.... the Xbox One. T^T