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

[suntt123]

TL;DR - Many gamers want to play Nintendo's games without buying Nintendo's specific console because Nintendo consoles have had bad third-party support and going with ONLY a Nintendo console means missing out on TONS of great games that won't make it onto the Nintendo console.

But the thing is, this argument doesn't work since it can be used both ways.

Of course the way they go about demanding for X game to be made on their console borders on childish selfishness.

What he said.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is the most financially secure of the big three. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not only did the wii out sell the HD twins, it was also the only one that actually MADE money, not COST it. So them going third party makes the LEAST sense.
Moreover Nintendo are the only one of them that ever even try to venture beyond the "MOAR GRAFFIX" thing.

I will grant you that it wasn't a good idea for them to have so many games that didn't work with a more standard controller (GameCube), but the Wii U works with the pro controller for pretty much all their games so if you prefer traditional controllers, it's at least an option.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

TL;DR - Many gamers want to play Nintendo's games without buying Nintendo's specific console because Nintendo consoles have had bad third-party support and going with ONLY a Nintendo console means missing out on TONS of great games that won't make it onto the Nintendo console.

But the thing is, this argument doesn't work since it works both ways.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is the most financially secure of the big three. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not only did the wii out sell the HD twins, it was also the only one that actually MADE money, not COST it. So them going third party makes the LEAST sense.
Moreover Nintendo are the only one of them that ever even try to venture beyond the "MOAR GRAFFIX" thing.

I will grant you that it wasn't a good idea for them to have so many games that didn't work with a more standard controller (GameCube), but the Wii U works with the pro controller for pretty much all their games so if you prefer traditional controllers, it's at least an option.

It's not an argument, it's a preference. An opinion, if you will.

Currently, gamers have to choose between:
1) Getting the Nintendo console and missing out on tons of great third-party games.
2) Getting a non-Nintendo console with great third-party support, but miss out on Nintendo games.
3) Forking out the money for both a Nintendo and a non-Nintendo console.

I would PREFER it if Nintendo made their sweet games for the other systems third-party style OR if their console had good third-party support because then I could play the Nintendo games and the major non-Nintendo games on one system, and I know I'm not alone in this regard.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would be a good move for Nintendo (financial or otherwise) to go multi-platform, I'm saying it would be a good thing for gamers.

 

[Negatempest]

TL;DR - Many gamers want to play Nintendo's games without buying Nintendo's specific console because Nintendo consoles have had bad third-party support and going with ONLY a Nintendo console means missing out on TONS of great games that won't make it onto the Nintendo console.

But the thing is, this argument doesn't work since it works both ways.
Meanwhile, Nintendo is the most financially secure of the big three. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not only did the wii out sell the HD twins, it was also the only one that actually MADE money, not COST it. So them going third party makes the LEAST sense.
Moreover Nintendo are the only one of them that ever even try to venture beyond the "MOAR GRAFFIX" thing.

I will grant you that it wasn't a good idea for them to have so many games that didn't work with a more standard controller (GameCube), but the Wii U works with the pro controller for pretty much all their games so if you prefer traditional controllers, it's at least an option.

It's not an argument, it's a preference. An opinion, if you will.

Currently, gamers have to choose between:
1) Getting the Nintendo console and missing out on tons of great third-party games.
2) Getting a non-Nintendo console with great third-party support, but miss out on Nintendo games.
3) Forking out the money for both a Nintendo and a non-Nintendo console.

I would PREFER it if Nintendo made their sweet games for the other systems third-party style OR if their console had good third-party support because then I could play the Nintendo games and the major non-Nintendo games on one system, and I know I'm not alone in this regard.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would be a good move for Nintendo (financial or otherwise) to go multi-platform, I'm saying it would be a good thing for gamers.

I know where you are coming from, trust me. The last time I had a Nintendo console was the NES. Genesis, playstation, ps2, ps3&360 were my gaming consoles. I would of loved to play some of those Nintendo games during those times. But as an adult I can see that Nintendo games would not be what they are "If" they go multi-platform. Remember that Yahtzee is assuming that Miyamoto and others would stay on if Nintendo went multi-platform. Quite honestly, I see them bowing out and thanking everyone for their support. All that will be left is the same that happened with Bioware, Rare, Infinity Ward and other companies that made sudden changes. They are merely shells of what they were.

So I would prefer that Nintendo stay as they are and make great exclusive games, than become like Rare.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I found this quote that pretty much sums up my feelings:

The video game industry is full of companies who are struggling to make profits, because their games are too expensive to produce and decrease in perceived value too fast, resulting in repeated permanent price drops on software. This has caused the industry to take drastic measures which have reached a new peak with the Xbox One's policies.

Yet for some bizarre reason it's always first and foremost Nintendo that gets questioned for the way they do business.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

It's not an argument, it's a preference. An opinion, if you will.

Currently, gamers have to choose between:
1) Getting the Nintendo console and missing out on tons of great third-party games.
2) Getting a non-Nintendo console with great third-party support, but miss out on Nintendo games.
3) Forking out the money for both a Nintendo and a non-Nintendo console.

I would PREFER it if Nintendo made their sweet games for the other systems third-party style OR if their console had good third-party support because then I could play the Nintendo games and the major non-Nintendo games on one system, and I know I'm not alone in this regard.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would be a good move for Nintendo (financial or otherwise) to go multi-platform, I'm saying it would be a good thing for gamers.

I know where you are coming from, trust me. The last time I had a Nintendo console was the NES. Genesis, playstation, ps2, ps3&360 were my gaming consoles. I would of loved to play some of those Nintendo games during those times. But as an adult I can see that Nintendo games would not be what they are "If" they go multi-platform. Remember that Yahtzee is assuming that Miyamoto and others would stay on if Nintendo went multi-platform. Quite honestly, I see them bowing out and thanking everyone for their support. All that will be left is the same that happened with Bioware, Rare, Infinity Ward and other companies that made sudden changes. They are merely shells of what they were.

So I would prefer that Nintendo stay as they are and make great exclusive games, than become like Rare.

Excellent point. I suppose that's a condition of my preference.

I would prefer if Nintendo was third-party IF they could avoid being absorbed into the likes of EA/Activision, maintain independence, and continue to produce works of the same quality.

If I had to choose between a third-party Nintendo that becomes a shell of their former selves or Nintendo as they are...yeah, I'd have to say they should stay as they are. Then again, it's not necessarily just those two options. It's POSSIBLE that they could go third-party and maintain quality. Tough to do in this current industry? Of course. But still possible.

 

[Negatempest]

It's not an argument, it's a preference. An opinion, if you will.

Currently, gamers have to choose between:
1) Getting the Nintendo console and missing out on tons of great third-party games.
2) Getting a non-Nintendo console with great third-party support, but miss out on Nintendo games.
3) Forking out the money for both a Nintendo and a non-Nintendo console.

I would PREFER it if Nintendo made their sweet games for the other systems third-party style OR if their console had good third-party support because then I could play the Nintendo games and the major non-Nintendo games on one system, and I know I'm not alone in this regard.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would be a good move for Nintendo (financial or otherwise) to go multi-platform, I'm saying it would be a good thing for gamers.

I know where you are coming from, trust me. The last time I had a Nintendo console was the NES. Genesis, playstation, ps2, ps3&360 were my gaming consoles. I would of loved to play some of those Nintendo games during those times. But as an adult I can see that Nintendo games would not be what they are "If" they go multi-platform. Remember that Yahtzee is assuming that Miyamoto and others would stay on if Nintendo went multi-platform. Quite honestly, I see them bowing out and thanking everyone for their support. All that will be left is the same that happened with Bioware, Rare, Infinity Ward and other companies that made sudden changes. They are merely shells of what they were.

So I would prefer that Nintendo stay as they are and make great exclusive games, than become like Rare.

Excellent point. I suppose that's a condition of my preference.

I would prefer if Nintendo was third-party IF they could avoid being absorbed into the likes of EA/Activision, maintain independence, and continue to produce works of the same quality.

If I had to choose between a third-party Nintendo that becomes a shell of their former selves or Nintendo as they are...yeah, I'd have to say they should stay as they are. Then again, it's not necessarily just those two options. It's POSSIBLE that they could go third-party and maintain quality. Tough to do in this current industry? Of course. But still possible.

"If" is the key word, so unfortunately we know better. -_- It doesn't even have to be absorbed by anything for Nintendo to lose key developers. Remember Nintendo does what they do because the key Developers have complete control over their product. They don't need Sony, Microsoft, EA, or Activision in the picture to distort their work. They do what they do because they have complete control.

Edit. This is really gonna hurt, but... well SEGA.

 

[suntt123]

It's not an argument, it's a preference. An opinion, if you will.

Currently, gamers have to choose between:
1) Getting the Nintendo console and missing out on tons of great third-party games.
2) Getting a non-Nintendo console with great third-party support, but miss out on Nintendo games.
3) Forking out the money for both a Nintendo and a non-Nintendo console.

I would PREFER it if Nintendo made their sweet games for the other systems third-party style OR if their console had good third-party support because then I could play the Nintendo games and the major non-Nintendo games on one system, and I know I'm not alone in this regard.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that it would be a good move for Nintendo (financial or otherwise) to go multi-platform, I'm saying it would be a good thing for gamers.

Oh OK then. My apologies for the misunderstanding, but the thread is the "Why do gamers want to see NINTENDO go multiplat?" and you did specify Nintendo.

Yes, it would be good for gamers if any of the big three went multi platform. It's just a matter of preference who we want to see go. This mind set however, that it MUST be Nintendo, seems the most prevalent.I wasn't particularly interested in most 3rd party releases on the PS360 so I just stuck with the Wii. Yeah it's sad that the Wii missed out on so many third party titles because it was graphically. But now that the Wii U has been out for a while there is basically no real reason for that to happen anymore.

 

[Keith K]

Two Reasons:

1) I want to see what Zelda looks and plays like on high-end hardware, more than anything.

(I'd say the same about Mario, but they don't seem willing to upgrade his fidelity to accommodate the current amount of power they do have. The Wii U Mario games seem to be reusing Wii assets with some additional post processing effects.)

2) I don't want to shell out $300+ every few years to enjoy intermittent installments into the 2 IP I still enjoy.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I hate how people go "CAUSE NINTENDOs HARDWARE IS CRAP SO THE GAMES ARE CRAP", the ps2 had the worst hardware between it the gamecube and the xbox yet had that all important element GAMES. The reason why 3rd party devs don't wanna make WiiU games is because gamers see the WiiU and go "that's for kids, give me that sexy xboxOne and ps4". Nintendo shows they can make good games for the system cause they try, other devs just half ass it and say well that's that.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Yes, it would be good for gamers if any of the big three went multi platform. It's just a matter of preference who we want to see go. This mind set however, that it MUST be Nintendo, seems the most prevalent.I wasn't particularly interested in most 3rd party releases on the PS360 so I just stuck with the Wii. Yeah it's sad that the Wii missed out on so many third party titles because it was graphically. But now that the Wii U has been out for a while there is basically no real reason for that to happen anymore.

No real reason until the PS4/Xbone drop and the WiiU becomes like the Wii was last-gen: missing out on major third-party releases because it's comparitively under-powered.

 

[suntt123]

Yes, it would be good for gamers if any of the big three went multi platform. It's just a matter of preference who we want to see go. This mind set however, that it MUST be Nintendo, seems the most prevalent.I wasn't particularly interested in most 3rd party releases on the PS360 so I just stuck with the Wii. Yeah it's sad that the Wii missed out on so many third party titles because it was graphically. But now that the Wii U has been out for a while there is basically no real reason for that to happen anymore.

No real reason until the PS4/Xbone drop and the WiiU becomes like the Wii was last-gen: missing out on major third-party releases because it's comparitively under-powered.

Back then I could understand since Wii couldnt handle HD.... BUT THIS IS JUST HD INTO MOAR HD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.... Pretty sure they can at least down scale it or SOMETHING

 

[Dragonbums]

Yes, it would be good for gamers if any of the big three went multi platform. It's just a matter of preference who we want to see go. This mind set however, that it MUST be Nintendo, seems the most prevalent.I wasn't particularly interested in most 3rd party releases on the PS360 so I just stuck with the Wii. Yeah it's sad that the Wii missed out on so many third party titles because it was graphically. But now that the Wii U has been out for a while there is basically no real reason for that to happen anymore.

No real reason until the PS4/Xbone drop and the WiiU becomes like the Wii was last-gen: missing out on major third-party releases because it's comparitively under-powered.

Back then I could understand since Wii couldnt handle HD.... BUT THIS IS JUST HD INTO MOAR HD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.... Pretty sure they can at least down scale it or SOMETHING

It just seems that third party devs give the finger to WiiU more or less because it doesn't have a big enough user base and they know that if they try to pull bullshit like overpriced DLC and DRM Nintendo will tell them to fuck off like they did with EA.

 

[Sarge034]

Wow, I can barely follow what you are trying to say because the grammar is so bad.

The more people who own a particular hardware, the more games that will be available to a wide audience.

Really, wouldn't the games have a wider audience if they were multiplatform?

It's the reason why so many games on the Wii make astronomical sales in hardware because 94 million people own the Wii.

Because of the monopoly... ? And 94 million hardware sales does not equal 94 million different people buying games.

It's also the reason why nobody is really making games for the WiiU sans Nintendo because they have meager sales in hardware, so they will make even less on software sales. However the money they obtain through hardware sales is still a lot.
Which is why Nintendo has a very comfy bank right now.

False. No one wants to code for the WiiU because the architecture is so different. It would require the developer to code for the more powerfull OSs and then recode for the lower power WiiU. While Nintendo would originally code for the lower power WiiU and simply reformat it for the MS and Sony systems.

 

[Dragonbums]

Wow, I can barely follow what you are trying to say because the grammar is so bad.

The more people who own a particular hardware, the more games that will be available to a wide audience.

Really, wouldn't the games have a wider audience if they were multiplatform?

It's the reason why so many games on the Wii make astronomical sales in hardware because 94 million people own the Wii.

Because of the monopoly... ? And 94 million hardware sales does not equal 94 million different people buying games.

It's also the reason why nobody is really making games for the WiiU sans Nintendo because they have meager sales in hardware, so they will make even less on software sales. However the money they obtain through hardware sales is still a lot.
Which is why Nintendo has a very comfy bank right now.

False. No one wants to code for the WiiU because the architecture is so different. It would require the developer to code for the more powerfull OSs and then recode for the lower power WiiU. While Nintendo would originally code for the lower power WiiU and simply reformat it for the MS and Sony systems.

>If I remember correctly, the PS2 also had different architecture than the other two consoles and a lot of third party developers had no issue putting anything on the system. In fact PS2 had a ton of great games on it. So explain to me why the WiiU is any different sans shunning Nintendo, and being lazy? Especially, once again, seeing as how they DON'T have to use the WiiU tablet and they are free to use the pro controller which is similar to the other controllers.

>Nintendo is very satisfied with their audience. They aren't greedy like other developers in that they want more than they already have. Either way, they would still make less money because they are losing hardware sales.

>So they sell 94 million Wii's...and those 94 million aren't buying games?...um...what? That doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone just buy a console and have no plans to have games for it at present, or in the near future?

Oh, and we are calling Nintendo a monopoly now? Miyamoto and Iwata don't have the right to make their own games in house and put it exclusively on their consoles? Sorry I didn't know that. I'll do them a favor and send them the memo
Or is it a monopoly because Sony, Microsoft, and 80% of developers are too busy having a dick fight over who can make the best shooter leaving Nintendo and a few other companies to make other genres like platformers, and adventure games?

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I do wonder if the quality of Nintendo games and their ecosystem would actually drop if they switched platforms.

Yes, the fail of the Dreamcast was devastating to SEGA. But the same might not be true of Nintendo going third party. Also, just as harmful to SEGA was the Sammy merger, I have heard. I don't really blame their decline in quality on the Dreamcast. And in fact, they had several horrible Sega Saturn titles. It has been a struggle for them ever since 3D. Sonic 06 was just a horrible internal decision. And Sonic Generations and Sonic Colours are probably better than multiple Dreamcast offerings.

It is true that their general output is weaker, though. You could see their motivation with the Dreamcast having a single system to make games for like that. And they certainly put out a better variety of games like Shenmue, Virtua Fighter, Super Monkey Ball, Skies of Arcadia, Chu Chu Rocket, and ect. Whereas now you don't see much other than the occassional fledgling Sonic game.

They're still making nice games. But I miss the energy and experimentation of SEGA when they were making games like Chu Chu Rocket. You never see anything as different or experimental as Chu Chu Rocket out of SEGA nowadays. I don't know what to blame for that, but I feel like the Dreamcast can only be partially to blame, at most.

Anyway, I think that few people enjoy Nintendo hardware anymore. Except the 3DS. Nintendo handheld hardware has always been interesting. Nintendo stopped being interesting in terms of console hardware since the Nintendo 64. The Super Nintendo was a legitimate piece of hardware. But the shift from the 16-Bit generation onward was treacherous. It was the the most volatile time in the market since the original crash. There were loads of people trying to make the next step to 3D. To the next generation. And most people failed. You had all sorts of slow transition phases like the SEGA-CD, and most kids weren't willing to spend the money on a new generation.

I was one of those kids who didn't have the money or motivation for a new system. Everything was so expensive, and SEGA and Sony were the best competitors early on. We all know that Sony eventually came out on top as a product consumers could actually trust. But it was a struggle and there was loads of junk on the market making kids not want any new system. There was the Jaguar, the CD-i, the 3DO, it was a dangerous time. Sony had to struggle against a lot of market mistrust of new hardware.

The other part of this is that Nintendo didn't do a good job of jumping in and that generation was one of mismanagement for Nintendo. Nintendo, being too scared with how the market was for new hardware, or so as I understand, basically gave the Sony PlayStation to Sony. A lot of the original PlayStation hardware was all Nintendo, but instead gave the patent to Sony. Sony ran with that Nintendo hardware and took the generation. The PlayStation could have been a Nintendo product if Nintendo were smart. Nintendo then had to follow up to that mistake with a new system, the Nintendo 64 came late in the generation and could not get enough third party support. From then on the console market had been handed to Sony.

Everyone has been fighting with Sony ever since Nintendo handed the hardware crown over to Sony via the PlayStation. And quite literally with Nintendo's former PlayStation patent rights.

And the fact of the matter is, since then, we've all been buying Nintendo hardware just to play Nintendo games. That's not really a good position for Nintendo or customers. We have to buy a piece of hardware we don't need, to keep playing Nintendo games. It's not like we want the hardware, we want the games.

It would be nice if we didn't have to have the hardware. Again, ask most people what they really enjoy Nintendo for, and they'll say the software. Their software sells their hardware. But couldn't they possibly do better not forcing us to buy hardware just to enjoy their software offerings?

 

[Dragonbums]

I do wonder if the quality of Nintendo games and their ecosystem would actually drop if they switched platforms.

Yes, the fail of the Dreamcast was devastating to SEGA. But the same might not be true of Nintendo going third party. Also, just as harmful to SEGA was the Sammy merger, I have heard. I don't really blame their decline in quality on the Dreamcast. And in fact, they had several horrible Sega Saturn titles. It has been a struggle for them ever since 3D. Sonic 06 was just a horrible internal decision. And Sonic Generations and Sonic Colours are probably better than multiple Dreamcast offerings.

It is true that their general output is weaker, though. You could see their motivation with the Dreamcast having a single system to make games for like that. And they certainly put out a better variety of games like Shenmue, Virtua Fighter, Super Monkey Ball, Skies of Arcadia, Chu Chu Rocket, and ect. Whereas now you don't see much other than the occassional fledgling Sonic game.

They're still making nice games. But I miss the energy and experimentation of SEGA when they were making games like Chu Chu Rocket. You never see anything as different or experimental as Chu Chu Rocket out of SEGA nowadays. I don't know what to blame for that, but I feel like the Dreamcast can only be partially to blame, at most.

Anyway, I think that few people enjoy Nintendo hardware anymore. Except the 3DS. Nintendo handheld hardware has always been interesting. Nintendo stopped being interesting in terms of hardware since the Nintendo 64. The Super Nintendo was a legitimate piece of hardware. But the shift from the 16-Bit generation onward was treacherous. It was the the most volatile time in the market since the original crash. There were loads of people trying to make the next step to 3D. To the next generation. And most people failed. You had all sorts of slow transition phases like the SEGA-CD, and most kids weren't willing to spend the money on a new generation.

I was one of those kids who didn't have the money or motivation for a new system. Everything was so expensive, and SEGA and Sony were the best competitors early on. We all know that Sony eventually came out on top as a product consumers could actually trust. But it was a struggle and there was loads of junk on the market making kids not want any new system. There was the Jaguar, the CD-i, the 3DO, it was a dangerous time. Sony had to struggle against a lot of market mistrust of new hardware.

The other part of this is that Nintendo didn't do a good job of jumping in and that generation was one of mismanagement for Nintendo. Nintendo, being too scared with how the market was for new hardware, or so as I understand, basically gave the Sony PlayStation to Sony. A lot of the original Nintendo hardware was all Nintendo, but instead gave the patent to Sony. Sony ran with that Nintendo hardware and took the generation. The PlayStation could have been a Nintendo product if Nintendo were smart. Nintendo then had to follow up to that mistake with a new system, the Nintendo 64 came late in the generation and could not get enough third party support. From then on the console market had been handed to Sony.

Everyone has been fighting with Sony ever since Nintendo handed the hardware crown over to Sony via the PlayStation. And quite literally with Nintendo's former PlayStation patent rights.

And the fact of the matter is, since then, we've all been buying Nintendo hardware just to play Nintendo games. That's not really a good position for Nintendo or customers. We have to buy a piece of hardware we don't need, to keep playing Nintendo games. It's not like we want the hardware, we want the games.

It would be nice if we didn't have to have the hardware. Again, ask most people what they really enjoy Nintendo for, and they'll say the software. Their software sells their hardware. But couldn't they possibly do better not forcing us to buy hardware just to enjoy their software offerings?

That's very interesting and I didn't even know about that bit of history about Nintendo or Sony.
However what a lot of people on here are stating is that Nintendo will make even MORE money by simply going multi platform instead of creating hardware. Would their IPs be more popular? Definitely, however they will never make the same amount of money as they did when they developed hardware as well.

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

I really really don't understand this line of reasoning. All consoles are sold on software. A console without software is worthless. It's just a brick that sits under your TV. A console is designed to paly games, therefore it is the games which are the important part of the equation.

Yeah, but Nintendo are making their own games to sell Nintendo systems. It's like a self eating snake system where they're hosting something that only they really use. Third parties haven't really taken to Nintendo console hardware since the 16-bit era where the Super Nintendo was the most popular system for third party developers.

The closest they've been since then to third party support was with the Wii, just because of how popular the system was. While the 3DS and all of Nintendo's handheld system offering make sense because they are popular for third parties. Their console offerings are not.

The business model of developing hardware for only your own software doesn't really make sense unless it helps sell software. Nintendo is primarily a software company. So their consoles only serve to really make their software exclusive to one platform. In other words, unless their software dept. needs that exclusive hardware support to sell the numbers that they do, much of their hardware dept. is a chaff that could be cut.

Hardware needs software in order to sell, and Nintendo makes their own software.

Right. But do they need that hardware? And does the hardware do well enough to justify all that software support of it?

As it seems, Nintendo console hardware isn't very successful outside of Nintendo software. Meaning they are almost incapable of selling hardware to people outside of those who want to purchase Nintendo software. Sony maintains success by selling hardware to people who aren't just interesting in Sony software.

They therefore justify their own hardware by making the software to go with it.

That's circular logic. A console needing software doesn't justify the existence of hardware to begin with.

Consoles are justified by being worthy of the software people could put on it. Consoles needing software doesn't justify their existence.

You don't need any console. It's a luxury device.

Well that's an interesting non-sequitur not related to anything we're talking about.

I'm afraid I fail to see how consoles being luxury devices relates in any way to how they can be useful for Nintendo as a company.

Is, "it's a luxury device" a new form of "deal with it". A catch all for criticism of any kind? We customers do not like having to put up with something. Lacking customer appeal is a bad thing for companies trying to sell something. Luxury device, indeed, we don't have to buy it. And even many Nintendo fans go without, simply because they cannot justify owning yet another luxury device just for Nintendo's software offerings. Many Sony exclusive owners are Nintendo fans. Simply because it isn't worth buying Nintendo stuff as well.

Third parties are competitive enough in their offerings that many Nintendo fans simply don't buy Nintendo hardware. And Nintendo loses this money. This inconveniences for customers is also an inconvenience for Nintendo. Because it cuts into their sells.

Again, "it's a luxury item" seems to irrelevant as to be a non-sequitur.

 

[Sarge034]

>If I remember correctly, the PS2 also had different architecture than the other two consoles and a lot of third party developers had no issue putting anything on the system. In fact PS2 had a ton of great games on it. So explain to me why the WiiU is any different sans shunning Nintendo, and being lazy? Especially, once again, seeing as how they DON'T have to use the WiiU tablet and they are free to use the pro controller which is similar to the other controllers.

It is true that the PS2 had different architecture than the Xbox, but they both had comparable power. As opposed to the gamecube, Wii, and soon to be added WiiU that are always lacking in every measurable spec for their perspective gen. You simply can not recode or reformat a game's system spec requirements away without changing the engine and reprograming the entire game from scratch. Where as you can EASILY reformat a low system spec requirement game to run on a higher spec system.

>Nintendo is very satisfied with their audience. They aren't greedy like other developers in that they want more than they already have. Either way, they would still make less money because they are losing hardware sales.

Do you work for Nintendo? Can you honestly claim to know their level of satisfaction? They aren't greedy? Hasn't your entire argument been that they would lose console sales if they went multiplatform? Would a benevolent company not listen to the consumers who only want their software, while a greedy company would force you into their monopoly of buying peripherals in order to use any software?

>So they sell 94 million Wii's...and those 94 million aren't buying games?...um...what? That doesn't even make sense. Why would anyone just buy a console and have no plans to have games for it at present, or in the near future?

Replacement consoles, double (triple, quadruple) gifting, and unsatisfied consumers. Those are the reason off the top of my head.

Oh, and we are calling Nintendo a monopoly now? Miyamoto and Iwata don't have the right to make their own games in house and put it exclusively on their consoles? Sorry I didn't know that. I'll do them a favor and send them the memo
Or is it a monopoly because Sony, Microsoft, and 80% of developers are too busy having a dick fight over who can make the best shooter leaving Nintendo and a few other companies to make other genres like platformers, and adventure games?

No, Nintendo is a monopoly because...

A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Now I never said they didn't have the right to only publish Nintendo games on Nintendo hardware... I simply called them a monopoly for doing so.