Eidos Life President Says Nintendo Should Put Their Franchises Elsewhere. We Disagree.

Life president of Eidos, Ian Livingstone, said something that is one of the most tired-- no-- rehashed arguments in the gaming industry. This is what he said:

"Nintendo should have their IP on every platform. Otherwise a whole generation of young people will miss out on their games."

Mr, Livingstone, we presume...  you are wrong. Yes, this constant argument that Nintendo should either put their IPs on iOS, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PlayStation Vita, Wonderswan, SEGA CD, PC, Mac, Linux, Steam, and whatever else you can come up with is one that just isn't going to die, it seems.

First of all, did anyone else get a severe sense of irony from Mr. Livingstone requesting Nintendo should put their franchises on every platform when Eidos doesn't even put their franchises on Nintendo platforms? Practice what you preach, Mr. Livingstone. Also, why don't we get arguments for Microsoft to put Halo on other consoles? That way we wouldn't have to get the Xbox One, then. The argument that putting a franchise on more platforms will give a series more sales is such an obvious one. Well, no duh that if you put a franchise on platforms with a combined user base of over 300 million that you'll sell more units than if you put it on one exclusively with only 10 million, for instance. That's not the issue, however.

So, then when's Halo 4 coming to the PS3?

Nintendo doesn't just make money off of their hardware. They make the most money off of-- you guessed it-- software. A common argument is that Nintendo would make tons of money putting their games on smartphones and tablets. Let's look at some numbers for Nintendo DS games. Note that these numbers come directly from Nintendo, and they are rather dated, too:

New Super Mario Bros. - 30.38 million units
Mario Kart DS - 23.34 million units
Nintendogs (all versions) - 23.94 million units
Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day - 19.00 million units
Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day - 14.88 million units
Pokemon Diamond and Pearl - 17.63 million units

Imagine if those games were on other platforms, particularly iOS and Android. Imagine they sell the same amount on those platforms. However, since they're on a service like the AppStore, the game prices would be much lower. Not only that, but Nintendo would have to give a percentage of each game's profit to Apple. Compare that to Nintendo currently getting a multitude more of money as a first-party. Not only do they sell their games at a higher price, they get more profit, and they sell a lot of games. Even New Super Mario Bros. U on the Wii U is a success, despite it being on a shameful selling console. Nintendo still sold over two millions units of the game, and they get the lion's share of the profit. We didn't even list the best sellers of the Wii and Nintendo 3DS. That's even more money for Nintendo and only Nintendo.

Let's not even get into how much money

a little title named Wii Sports gave Nintendo.

We understand the argument that Nintendo putting their games on iOS would mean they'd have a much larger audience. However, not only would they not be able to gain money from their own hardware, but could the profit made from selling their games at a much lower price point to more people make up for being unable to sell their games at a higher price point on their own system? We don't think so here at SuperPhillip Central, and both sides of the argument can't really prove the other wrong.

It also amazes us the hypocrisy of those wanting Nintendo games on other platforms. There honestly seems to be a load of the same people who claim they no longer care about Nintendo games, yet they argue that Nintendo should go third-party. Why? So these same people who "no longer care about Nintendo games" can finally play Nintendo games without buying a Nintendo console. It's baffling and stupid.

Why would people want Nintendo to leave their first-party status anyway, besides their own selfish reasons? Nintendo constantly diversifies their hardware from the competition. We can safely say that we do not want three consoles that are essentially carbon copies of one another. We like choice. We like variety. That is what Nintendo offers, even if for two generations now they have gone the under-powered route.

Now, we could be totally off on our views of Nintendo. We're not industry experts. We don't try to be. We just give our opinions as gamers and people on the outside looking into the window that is the game industry. If you disagree with our points, feel free to interject and set us straight. Even if you do agree, feel free to interject with approval. Also, we mean no disrespect to Mr. Livingstone. We do mean disrespect, however, to his argument. What do you think? Post your thoughts below to get the conversation rolling.