A Compelling Case For Nintendo To Go Third Party (Long Read)

I don't think nintendo will attempt to target the core gamer with their next console initially.They tried a bit to hard with the WiiU intially to get more core gamers to buy the console I think the best way for nintendo to build a market in the console market is to mostly go after demographics that the console market usually does not appeal to like young women.

and here you were just saying MS should get out of gaming... so, with MS out of gaming and Nintendo making games as a third party to other consoles (which would just be Sony at that point), there'd be no competition in the game console market with regard to hardware, and that's a bad thing if you ask me if you had your way, Sony's next console would either be expensive as hell, or maybe underwhelmingly powerful but cheap as there wouldn't be any other console competition

This is actually a very well reasoned and thought out post, so kudos!

I think you might actually have the right idea here- Nintendo can try to put some of their games (even if they are older games, instead of their newest stuff) on to the PC to see how it sells, gauge demand that way. I'm sure they want to save system movers like Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Bros. for their own hardware, at least at this point in time, and that's fair enough. But maybe stuff like Fire Emblem or Advance Wars on PC would go down well (and it would be well received by the PC audience as well). Fire Emblem and Advance Wars do not sell hardware, but are fairly high profile (in terms of prestige) Nintendo series nonetheless, so Nintendo would have a good indication of what kind of reception their stuff would have on the PC market if they went with those.

Another idea is to simply put older versions of their games on PC, and see how those go. Put SNES games on a PC Virtual Console. Put touched up versions of N64 games. Make them officially available and optimized for PC. See the response to that. I do think it will be a bit more muted than you would expect, simply because of how easy it is to emulate Nintendo's stuff on PC (and how widespread it is) for free, but still. Maybe Nintendo could either adjust projections downwards for that, or they could incentivize the purchase of the actual games themselves.

In my OP, I do point out that all three console manufacturers should eventually quit the market, as we move towards a platform agnostic future. I just believe that Nintendo should be the first one to do it.

hmm a valid argument. if they do go third party I want their games pn pc and playstation only. MS has proven time and again that they're lazy and would rather let third party sustain xbox rather than doing some of the work themselves. They have under ten franchises which is just sad for a nearly two decades in the gaming industry

I'll reserve judgement until I see how this amiibo thing works out for Nintendo (could be a game changer along with whatever the heck QoL is).

I do think that Nintendo should exit the console business and just make beastly handhelds (especially if they're going to keep acting nazis when it comes to online).

There is a compelling case for the console makers to go third party for what is the point of home consoles if they are always underpowered compared to the PC?

While some people would like it, a lot of their fans would get pissed more and even some of their subsidiaries.

Nintendo is losing money precisely because it has been poor with spending it. They are incurring these massive losses because they chose not to invest in areas of their business years ago that would now be benefiting. They didn't invest in expansion of their studios when they were sitting high on the Wii's success, only after things started going downhill did they realize and then do this. They didn't overhaul their online. They didn't (and still) don't invest enough in marketing.

Why do you think they have been losing money as they are? Nintendo had that immense bankroll from the Wii days, and at the time they did absolutely NOTHING with it, consequently they've lost hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of millions with no end in sight. And you're going to attempt to convince me that's well managed? Honestly?

I suppose it could be argued that Nintendo is fiscally conservative because it barely spends it. But thing being, they are a business. Businesses see and invest at the proper time so as to be ready for the future. Nintendo has shown to be completely reactive and not proactive in this sense, and that is anything but good management. It is fiscally irresponsible as a business not to spend where it is most needed at the time it is needed. Context is irrelevant here. We are speaking on current management that has been this boneheaded, because from your argument, that's the management they'd have if they go third party.

You want them to try less? What do you think they're gonna do if they go 3rd party? All of a sudden they're gonna take more chances? Nintendo??

I thought the Wiiu pad would give more to me by this time, but it has not. Not even for Rayman. I doubt I'll buy any future Nintendo hardware, so 3rd party is the only way I'll get to play the couple games I like.

Is that something fans want? Ninty fans I mean. If they can sustain themselves, more power. I don't think that would persuade me at all though.

Well, I've been posed the question before, so I've thought about it some. If they put Fire Emblem on PC, I'd very, very likely get it. I don't know about really old titles, I feel like there needs to be something rather new, to best gauge response. I guess they could use old titles to test out an online store like you were suggesting, but I think something from the Wii U generation would still be needed. Heck, it might mean they sell more Wii Us.

As long as Nintendo has their handhelds, what incentive do they have to go third-party? The 3DS family has sold 45 million units so far, and the 3DS is the top selling system in Japan and doing pretty well all over the world

What Nintendo needs to do is leave the home console market to Sony and Microsoft. Let those two fight it out over that market. Nintendo needs to focus their efforts on their handheld line , put out a killer handheld and market it as the best way to play portable gaming. Yes, mobile gaming will be there, but 45 million in a market that people said was dead a couple of years ago is not bad.

In fact, the only reason why the 3DS' sales have fallen this year is because the lineup is not as strong as it was in 2013 and Nintendo is diverting resources to the Wii U. If the 3DS has all of Nintendo's focus, then it could be selling just as good as it did last year. Last year the 3DS has games that were system sellers, something that it is lacking in 2014.

Nintendo needs to walk away from home consoles, its a market they can't compete in. Focus on handhelds and portable gaming. The 3DS has made money for Nintendo, it has sold well. Why walk away from that? 45 million and the console is not even half-way through its lifespan.

Good shit.

Perhaps I spoke too soon on MS, but Sony's game division is again quite profitable. That's what I was referring to, not to them as an entire corporate entity which is what is causing them to bleed otherwise. In terms of gaming, they are doing fine. Nintendo (in terms of gaming and in its entirety), is not.

Nintendo was able to sustain themselves with appealing to demographics with the Wii for most of last gen, the DS and the NES to an extent so a stragety like that would work. I'm not saying to ignore the core audience completely, but not to focus on them a lot when they are trying to sell their console to the mainstream audience.

A major turn around is almost impossible for the WiiU right now, but it can still build a gamecube sized audience if nintendo tries to attract a wider audience with their marketing and games.

shame on you. nintendo consoles are magical game playing machines.

Sorry homie, all the signs are there, but if John Carmack couldn't convince them in the early 90's they probably won't budge now.

If Nintendo dies... Gameplay Dies ! We sure as well can't depend on Sony and Microsoft to focus on gameplay.

if you are talking about the gameplay on platformers then yea i can agree with that. other genres have been lacking on gameplay to me at least

I agree with this because people ask for more features as consoles progress and the only way for a console to stay a console is one day all the console developers decided they'd just stop adding features and make games. The problem with adding features is that everything you've seen up until now is on a PC. You can use controllers on a PC, you can attach peripherals to a PC, you can customize game experience, you can multitask, etc. The direction we're headed towards is a copy of a PC called a console.

Like really guys, what makes a console different from a PC when they keep adding all this crap to them?

I remember reading about that on DYKG...

First, I very much disagree with and fear a streaming based system in order to game; that said I can see Nintendo going third party making sense. I don't see it happening soon, but thats just my guess.

Personally I like Nintendo hardware good and bad. But it would be nice to just buy one console, knowing I'm getting Nintendo games no matter what; instead of buying one to make sure I can play them.

@jsmoke03

Well They are making a shooter like no other shooter before so might aswell ad that to the list, theres also Legend Of Zelda type Adventure Elements and Puzzles that only they can do. Theres also Mario Kart which is Awesome.... And Super Smash Brothers whos depth is unrivalled. Not to mention all that co-op and splitscreen ! Plus I'm sure I'm missing a few things.

Excellent read. While I could quibble with a point or two (and probably will down the line ;P ) there's no reason here, because I agree completely with the main point. It's a position that I've grown to (and not lightly) over the last year, but your post still gave me new food for thought.

This transition is inevitable for Nintendo. It is absolutely going to happen, in time. The biggest questions remaining are:

Will Nintendo make the move sooner from a position of strength, or later when their hands are tied?

and

Can the shareholders and the board find a CEO that can steer the transition in the best way possible?

At this point it's clear Nintendo will be given another round of hardware before the proverbial axe falls, but the handwriting is on the wall. It's a move that not only makes far too much business sense to ignore, but has also entered mainstream discourse. Once you have a profitable idea that keeps being publicly tossed about, you can't ignore it forever (inb4 FFVII remake).

I believe going another round is a mistake that will drain Nintendo's resources needlessly, but the last vote showed me the shareholders haven't "connected all the dots" yet on what needs to happen (or fear my question #2). Even if that were to change soon, I believe Nintendo will already be so heavily invested in new hardware (and games supporting the new hardware) that they'll feel compelled to roll the dice a last time. Another "Wii-like" success will probably stave off the inevitable another gen. Even though the business case still would clearly favor 3rd party, nobody quits while the press is calling them a "winner". But I don't think it's mean spirited to say I find the chances of another Nintendo install base remotely approaching that of the Wii/DS period to be slim.

The CEO question is the more vexing issue. To get Nintendo to where it should be on the other side of this transition you need Leadership that realizes the opportunity that this move provides but isn't tempted by some of the short term exploitation schemes being bandied about.

Someone that recognizes and values the creative culture that makes Nintendo the unique company it is, but isn't so entrenched in Nintendo's corporate culture that they make personnel decisions based on company politics and loyalty instead of on merit and fit.

Someone who has both the business acumen to handle the logistics of such an undertaking, and the charisma and outright showmanship to successfully frame it as a positive step forward and a result of Nintendo's success when both employees and the loyal Nintendo base will instinctively think of it as a step backward and an admission of failure or defeat.

Obviously Iwata isn't the guy. If Nintendo has someone worthy in upper management, I don't know of them. Of course moving outside of the company for a new CEO might be even less likely to present a candidate with all these attributes. But new leadership is paramount. Not finding the perfect CEO is understandable. It's almost impossible to envision the perfect person, let alone find them in the flesh. Only allowing the status quo to continue is unforgivable.

I've noticed you always seem to focus on the audience when speaking on Nintendo's troubles, got me to thinking. We all know where Wii's audience flocked to; the mobile market. That's where the casual, i.e. "mainstream" now resides. These are people that enjoy games enough that they're willing to pay $.99 or a few bucks for Bejewled or Angry Birds, but know utterly next to nothing about gaming in general and probably couldn't even name the three main players. They are certainly not willing to invest hundreds of dollars in a system and buy games for $59 a pop. Those are the core, and always will be. I know this then begs the question as to why the Wii sold so well......but that's easy: the novelty and promise of motion controls.

Wii customers really didn't care about the games aside from one (Wii Sports) and a few others that utilized the Wiimote and realized Wii's potential. That now gone, we see what importance casuals put on Nintendo's offerings, and the prices they sell them at. It seems to me that Nintendo desperately desires to tap into a market that is incompatible with their business model. They want that immense demographic, but these are the guys that don't give one thought to gaming aside from killing time on the train, and their willingness to spend on gaming extends as far as that. Nintendo speaks on not devaluing software and stands vehemently opposed to mobile, but mobile prices is the value the mainstream places on gaming, yet Nintendo wishes for them to adopt a traditional pricing model?

I don't see how they can successfully cater to this audience with the core approach. We all know now the Wii was a freak anomaly and is not something that happens often, and certainly can't be counted upon as a strategy to successfully run a business long-term. It's insane that Nintendo would largely take the focus off their core market in its attempts to grab the casual one, but then at the same time use a core philosophy, but then adamantly stand opposed to what the mobile model requires but still expect them to jump in. Nintendo wants their cake and to eat it too. They need to make all attempts to focus on the core as a sustainable source of revenue and the backbone of their business (then expand and experiment from there), or if they want that casual dollar, then concede many of their principles in order to attain it and abandon the core. Because those masses have shown by what games they are buying what importance they place on them, and that statement surely doesn't equate to what Nintendo expects of them.

They need to decide what they want because I don't believe they can get both, at least not on a consistent, reliable basis.

Nice post but I think not even necessary to go into that much detail.

Nintendo games are glorious, Nintendo consoles are poor. Keep the games, eliminate the consoles, woo everyone wins :P

Nintendo has lost money for three years. Yes, that's pretty bad, but it has also never lost money for the 124 years it's been around before that. Currently, as it stands, with the Wii U and 3DS being albatrosses around their necks, just poorly designed and thought out machines where the value provided to the customer:cost of manufacturing ratio is too lopsided, they cannot cut down on their losses even if they wanted to.

That is what it comes down to- with the Wii U, Nintendo cannot abandon the machine right now, that would be disastrous. They have to keep making it, even though it provides littles to no value to the mainstream consumer. That said, it is still extremely expensive to make and manufacture, and each unit sold is a hit to their financials.

I will agree with your last point, however- Nintendo, in the last ten years, has shown a shocking aversion to reading market trends, and then try to beat them before they get there. 'Skate where the puck will be, not where it's been.' That's the best strategy for a smart company, and Nintendo is always trying to chase the puck to where it has been, always a few years too late. So I'll agree they never invest in the future, they're too busy catching up with standards that we've had since 2006. And that is precisely why I think it is so important for them to start the transition to third party business now- not only do they beat the rest of the industry to the transition (and make no mistake, the entire industry will inevitably eventually transition to the third party business model, Xbox and PlayStation included), but also because as a software manufacturer, given that Nintendo's games are already excellent, they won't have to worry about making consoles where they are scrambling to keep up with the demands of a market that simply moves too fast.

Happily for you, I specifically outline in the OP that all console manufacturers will have to transition to third party sooner or later.
I just think it is in Nintendo's best interests to do it now.

Potentially, but I am also being realistic here- this is a company that is more allergic to the idea of putting its software on hardware other than its own than Apple is (at least Apple puts Safari and iTunes on Windows, for example). Whereas the best case scenario would be Nintendo putting something like a new Fire Emblem, or Advance Wars, or an Animal Crossing on PC to gauge market response, it's also not likely to happen, unfortunately. The next best thing in that instance would be to put up a slightly touched up, optimized version of a high profile older game (such as maybe Ocarina of Time or Star Fox 64).

Who said anything about Nintendo dying?

Sticking around for one more generation, while undesirable from the point of view of trying to get a head start, might still be a necessary idea if they decide they want to be in a more secure position, financially speaking, before they make such a dramatic change. So if they can make something that won't be as much of a market disaster as the Wii U was, and shore up their financials, and then make the leap to software, that might be a better idea for them (note, I don't envision this next platform to be a DS/Wii level success- just something between N64 and SNES, where it's successful enough to earn them some money. not successful enough to where the question of continuing hardware manufacture is really viable).

Anything beyond that though? That is disaster, right there. Two hardware cycles means we are looking at a minimum period of ten years, and it will be too late by then. Again, I need to point out that Nintendo is a company that has:

• Never developed for an x86 architecture
• Never developed for a system more powerful than the Wii U
• Does not have a conception of proper online framework and infrastructure
• Talented as it is, struggled with HD development after the move to it occurred 6 years later for them than the rest of the industry (i.e. they had six years to learn from everyone else's mistakes, and they didn't)
• And this is a good thing, but might be problematic here, insists on shipping nothing less than what it thinks is a perfect product, at least when it comes to games.

I am sure the issues here are immediately apparent- Nintendo will need extra time when it makes the transition, or the rest of the industry will murder it. So, with a 5-10 year head start, I fully anticipate Nintendo to have adjusted to PC game development by the time the other companies have also transitioned to this entirely third party model. It will take Nintendo a few years to make the transition fully- in this period, we might either not see too many new products from them, instead seeing only enhanced re-releases of their existing products, or their new games might be a step down from the highs they have achieved on the Wii U and 3DS, but it is necessary to lose the battle if they want to win the war, This is a sacrifice of a few years to secure their future. I think it is a fair trade off, and one that needs to be made.

As for the CEO question, I do not know what to say here. I guess Iwata technically could lead the charge, but he is, as you said, too entrenched in the company's corporate structure to really make a move like that.

Well, there are two incentives:

• The handheld market is contracting and will soon be dead: note that the 3DS is not just failing to meet the sales of the DS- that was to be expected, the DS was a monster- but also every other successful handheld ever, including the Gameboy/Color, Gameboy Advance, and even the PSP. The demand for dedicated handheld devices is falling, and Nintendo will soon be left dominating a niche market of maybe 10-20 million users, what good is that? Even their consoles sell that much.
• Their handhelds themselves are becoming an undesirable and unviable proposition from a development perspective. Note that Nintendo handhelds have always been known to marshall incredible third party support, and yet the 3DS, while still good on that front, is shockingly lacking in that area. Most people have jumped ship, to iOS and Android, as distasteful to you as it may seem, the market has made its will known, the transition has occurred, and its after effects will be continued to be felt over the next few years as the handheld market continues to contract further.

Handhelds will not be a viable hardware business within the next decade. Neither will consoles, but as far as Nintendo is concerned, they already aren't. The best thing Nintendo can do here, for a change, is to make a forward thinking move and just make the transition.

@charizard1605

I did ! Obviously.... ;)

So you are... arguing against yourself? Okay then.

@charizard1605

I made no argument.... Twas a Statement.... :) there was no conflict.

I think Nintendo should do two things and it's already been stated in this thread, so I'm not exactly contributing anything new.

With that said, I believe Nintendo should give Twilight Princess a "remake" treatment and release it on PC. The other thing they should do(which some of you won't like) is to release a Super Mario Bros. game for the IOS/Android platform. This way Nintendo can dip their toes in the water to see if it's a warm market for them. I've stated several times that I believe Nintendo would flourish in the IOS/Android market, but fanboys immediately attack me. The truth is that the mobile market is growing and will continue to do so, which leaves little incentive to purchase a handheld from Nintendo or Sony. Why spend a couple hundred bucks for a device to play games on the go when your phone can already do it? Nintendo should be all over that market, but they aren't. If you people don't believe the consumers in that market wouldn't buy a Mario game you're out of your mind.

I wouldn't have a problem with Nintendo going third party especially to see their games on the PC legally.

If they made another Wii U dud then damn. But ultimately making a console/handheld hybrid might be the best route they take if they still want to make consoles.

I honestly don't believe Nintendo for saying they'd quit the gaming industry if they stopped making consoles.

I would like to not have to buy an air purifier that occaisionally plays a good game here and there. I just want their games on actual video game systems, with games.

Considering they quit other industries in the past and considering that QOL has nothing to do with games and is an extended business, I believe them.

I think next gen nintendo will try to price there games all over the place and try to get the people that buy there hardware to buy more of there hardware with more incentives.We already saw this with some of there 3ds games(like that mario golf game). Also as gamers get older the less they would want to buy more than one platform so they become less reliable in this case. Is it a really good idea to mostly focus on the core gamer since sony and ms already appeal to this group. We already know that almost every single time nintendo tried to focus on this group a bit more they failed and there competitors outmaneuvered them.If I recall the Wii was not just popular with old people or children, but it was popular with women(especially young women). I also read something awhile ago that talked about how a lot of young women are now mostly buying things in the mobile market. Children are also buying things in this market and no one knows if these children will actually move to sony's or ms's consoles in the future so the core gamer market may actually shrink in the future and become less reliable for some publishers. Even if the core gamer market does not decrease that much development costs will continue to rise which will make it harder for some publishers to make money off of their products. This E3 we kinda saw a shift in the market nintendo is trying to target with the WiiU and whatever hardware they produce in the future. Some games like Splatoon had females as playable characters.Even Iwata said they failed with the direction they went with the WiiU which was what I mentioned before. So i think nintendo should go after a wider audience of people instead of just the core gamer because this may help the gaming market grow again.

When the industry does eventually move away from dedicated consoles entirely, imo all games being streamed from a server farm would be the worst case scenario, not digital purchases.

But I don't think that wider audience exists in the way Nintendo wants them to. What that audience (the casual) is willing to spend, or even care about, is a far, far cry from what Nintendo needs in order to sell them their products. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, they are a gaming company that sells to the core enthusiast. They struck it huge with the Wii and tapped into that mainstream, sure, but that was only because the Wii had a novel, exciting feature that transcended what core appeal gaming traditionally gave up until that point. The Wii sold on Wiisports mostly.

Look at it this way: you have people who buy cars for utility, and the you have car enthusiasts. Honda makes Civics, then there's Ferrari. Ferrari wishes to gain that huge Honda Civic audience who don't care about cars except to get from A to B. Yet they (rightly so) refuse to devalue their cars, but still expects Civic owners to buy them. How would that work? Point being, it doesn't matter what type of games Nintendo offers, when it comes down to it, it's a simple matter of consumer interest vs. pricing. Nintendo got that taste of the casual buck (from something that largely had nothing to do with their traditional offerings......look at the sales of the SMGs compared to the install base) and they badly want to again, but it's now obvious they had no clue, none whatsoever, as to why the Wii was a success. The buyers were not gamers, and they will never be willing to adopt the pricing and market model Nintendo desires. They are the people who play card and board games, they are those who can't operate iTunes or barely a web browser. There's a vast disparity between an enthusiast and someone with a passing interest.

Now unless Nintendo can pull another magic trick out of its hat to, once again, transcend traditionalism, the mainstream will not be interested. The Wii U is proof of this.

I disagree about the core market shrinking, it's huge, larger than the motion picture industry, IIRC. There is more than enough room for Nintendo to find a footing and find sustainability in it. The reason Sony and MS (errr....aside from their recent ****-ups) are doing well with the core while Nintendo is not is nothing but Nintendo's fault: things such as passing up optical media, being continually apathetic towards third parties in their strategy, not putting importance on creating a unified, standardized online they could be charging for or seeing the demand for it, not recognizing that gaming has become a largely Western dominated market (yet they in turn continually become more and more insular). The reason Nintendo has failed in the face of competition is because they were stupid, stubborn, resistant and slow to change, dismissive and arrogant. That is not the core market's fault, it's theirs, and Sony and MS picked up the ball they dropped over and over again to give people what they wanted.

As for costs rising, the indie scene has risen to combat this while still targeting the core. Besides, people have been screaming this industry's crashing for years. They harp the same, "costs rising!!" every. single. gen. Yet here we are, with one of the best selling consoles to date, huge AAA games one the way (but yea, a little creatively stagnant but there's still gems here and there). Hell, Nintendo is finally doing HD on eight year old hardware, hence their costs aren't even the same as the others. If they truly got their act together, I think they'd more than find a welcoming place among the core. But they have to be willing to really change from what they've been doing.

The problem this gen is that no one really has tried to go after the audience that moved to mobile. Everyone(and nintendo to an extent) actually tried or are trying to go after the core gaming market. That is why that audience moved to mobile since it appeals to them. I'm not saying that a gaming company like nintendo will be able to attract everyone that buys mobile phones and/or tablets, but they may be able to bring back a chunk of that audience back if they plan their next console or handheld right. and produce the appropriate software that can appeal to this group. There is another reason why nintendo may also avoid going after only just the core gamer because the future generations of consoles may depend on demographics like children. Nintendo appeals to children with their handhelds and consoles(to an extent) . In the past nintendo's consoles and handhelds were able to bring children into the market and they bought the other two consoles when they grown up which is one of the reasons a console like the ps4 is able to sell well now since it's appealing to the market that bought the wii and/or ds when they were younger. Nintendo this gen has noticed a massive decline in the amount of children buying there hardware. These children are now opting for mobile phones,pc's(to an extent) and tablets instead of nintendo's hardware. No one knows if this group will transfer to consoles in the future since they aren't really using consoles when they are younger.Nintendo also has to figure out a way to keep this audience's attention for a long time. They weren't able to with the Wii.When I talk about development costs rising and the core gaming market possible shrinking I'm mostly referring to what will happen this gen and next gen most likely. The PS4 and XB1 combined will most likely sell less than the PS3 and Xbox 360 sold combined last gen. This is were higher development costs come in. If the PS4 and XB1 are more expensive to develop for compared to the PS3 and Xbox360 and this market becomes smaller it may be harder for some developers to make money and publishers may resort to creating services like EA access in order to make more money, but some publishers may not end up doing this and resort to using other markets eventually to make the money they,may lose.Some publishers and/or developers may file for bankruptcy if they continue to lose money from the PS4/XB1 market. So they really can't rely on just producing games for the xb1 and ps4 anymore to make money.

I don't think nintendo will go third party anytime soon. They really aren't in danger of going third party yet TC. Even if they go third party they won't be producing games for any of the PS and xbox consoles since that market is completely different than the market nintendo appeals to.

I pretty much agree with the OP minus the part that "Nintendo makes the best games".

This is a no-brainer to me. Nintendo would seriously profit from having all of their games as multiplats. I could see an argument being made for handheld devices, though I think the better way to go is developing for mobile.

May sound good in theory but seeing how all other japanese publishers(besides Sony) have held up in recent years. It doesn't seem all that wise and sounds more like further killing off of japanese game development. Guess there is always retro gaming at least.

What the hell ... you playing controllers or games ?

I would have exactly the same fun with an ATARI 2600 joystick with 1 button if games are awesomes. Who the hell cares about fancy gimmick controllers anymore ? If game is awesome who the heck cares ? Noone it seems except ... you and few others.

" Im playing SMG with Wii mote , what a great game "

" Im playing SMG with traditional controller , what a crap game "

You my friend ... are out of this world.

I just dismiss all arguments for Nintendo going third party based on one word: pride. There is no way in hell they will ever lower themselves (in their eyes). It would be an admission of defeat and dishonorable, and anyone who knows anything about Japanese culture understands how integral these things are. I believe Nintendo even came out and said that they would sooner choose to go out of business, taking all of their IPs down with them, long before seeing their games on other systems. It's not going to happen, ever.

If Nintendo went third party all of their franchises would be bid on by MS and Sony and to be honest, MS would snap most of them up. Sony simply wouldn't stand a chance against MS's quadrillions of $$$! I can promise you that anything related to Mario and Zelda would be XBOX exclusive which leaves Sony with what??

@AzatiS

Try Playing Uncharted and tell me controllers wouldn't make a difference..... The damn distance I sit away from the TV makes a difference, the room lighting makes a difference.... EVERYTHING MAKES A DIFFERENCE.