Yes, of course it was up to Sega whether they wanted their game on another’s console at any time. My point mainly was that Nintendo didn’t block a competing game. While yes, Nintendo would profit from a console sale over a 3rd party game. Yet, seemingly not just from a 3rd party game that sells.
As, I’m not sure if Nintendo would get a percent of a 3rd party devs profits. If that was the case that does sound about right. But not sure if that was the case.
console = network, game = content… is my argument.
IE Nintendo was happy to sell more units with Sega content, and sega moving to software / content had no choice but to sell on other platorms.
I’m not sure if Nintendo would get a percent of a 3rd party devs profits.
Nintendo makes money on EVERY cart sold and every electronic purchase… it is a major part of their EXPENSIVE model and why Nintendo platform games always seem more expensive. It is also why they still sell cart based systems so they are the ONLY supplier of the media, but now they have their own eStore as well.
As a supplier I can see that. But as a game developer on top of being a hardware manufacturer. Still seems like there would be some kind of counter of interest to their game selling potentially less copies to Sega’s to an extent. Many do just buy Nintendo’s games anyway. but what if that wasn’t the case one day.
We might be seeing some growing signs of that today, with many opting for games like Fortnite over Nintendo’s own games. Cod, wasn’t really competing on Nintendo’s console at the time when it was ported to Nintendo platforms since it was mainly driving people to other consoles with the better experience. (according to the fans of cod.)
So even if you look at their game platform like that, it’s not 100% the same since they also make content of their own. They are still competing with 3rd party games for profit.
99% sure that only happened after Sega stopped making competing consoles. IE more game content benefited their console platform
Yes, of course it was up to Sega whether they wanted their game on another’s console at any time. My point mainly was that Nintendo didn’t block a competing game. While yes, Nintendo would profit from a console sale over a 3rd party game. Yet, seemingly not just from a 3rd party game that sells. As, I’m not sure if Nintendo would get a percent of a 3rd party devs profits. If that was the case that does sound about right. But not sure if that was the case.
console = network, game = content… is my argument.
IE Nintendo was happy to sell more units with Sega content, and sega moving to software / content had no choice but to sell on other platorms.
Nintendo makes money on EVERY cart sold and every electronic purchase… it is a major part of their EXPENSIVE model and why Nintendo platform games always seem more expensive. It is also why they still sell cart based systems so they are the ONLY supplier of the media, but now they have their own eStore as well.
As a supplier I can see that. But as a game developer on top of being a hardware manufacturer. Still seems like there would be some kind of counter of interest to their game selling potentially less copies to Sega’s to an extent. Many do just buy Nintendo’s games anyway. but what if that wasn’t the case one day.
We might be seeing some growing signs of that today, with many opting for games like Fortnite over Nintendo’s own games. Cod, wasn’t really competing on Nintendo’s console at the time when it was ported to Nintendo platforms since it was mainly driving people to other consoles with the better experience. (according to the fans of cod.)
So even if you look at their game platform like that, it’s not 100% the same since they also make content of their own. They are still competing with 3rd party games for profit.