[bigpapikite]

That's probably the case (as I don't know what else would make it worth buying), but the ultimate problem with Nintendo will still remain. They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games. Microsoft took the plunge first, but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform. Turns out if you make a quality game and make it widely available people will buy it (surprise). But they're married to the idea of restricting how their titles are played, which is only going to continue to turn people off.

[johnnyanmac]

>They're bullies and they get away with it because they make some of the most consistently high quality first party games.

You can look at it this way: Nintendo makes the most consistent high quality first party games and have the lowest hardware spec. So they are most prone to piracy and unauthorized emulation and thus get the most attention when lawsuits come up.

MS has 99% of its games on PC and Playstation specs are so hard (or maybe lack of interest. Probably many things) that gen 7 tech is still difficult to emulate in Gen 9. So Nintendo has the biggest target.

>but everyone is realizing that the future is an open platform.

If "release a port 2-3 years later on Windows OS to double dip" is "open platform", I kinda get why Nintendo defends their platform so rigidly. They are all closed down source games on closed down source OS's hosted on closed down source storefronts. There's no legal distinction there, just technical preferences of the minority who take the time to figure out how to setup emulation.

And despite all that, Nintendo sells more on one system than both competitors on all platforms combined. I don't think they are worried about sales. Especially since they aren't chasing 300m dollar productions with 10 hours of cinematics.

[Panzer04]

It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company.

Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles.

Game developers see platforms as a means to sell games.

If you're coming at things from the perspective of a hardware maker it makes sense to be as restrictive as possible, since that provides the differentiation that sells your (overpriced) hardware. In addition, if your hardware becomes common then you can charge game developers for access (more broadly, this is what Apple does, mostly)

From the game developer side, it makes sense to be on as many platforms as physically possible, since that's just more places to make sales and money.

[BlueTemplar]

Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?

[garaetjjte]

Microsoft, open platform, what? With all that Trusted Computing and Pluton stuff?