Oh come on. I respond to what you said about SEGA then you quote me, but you actually somehow manage to miss what I said so you just go and restate what you said before. I should not have to repeat myself.
Let me reiterate. Going by what you've said, Nintendo should make a "planned transition" from being a first party to becoming a third party. Apparently, you believe Nintendo can do just as well if they "cut their losses" and stop developing consoles only to support Sony. In actuality, If Nintendo where to drop console development and just become a video game producer they would lose console sales, 3rd party support, 2nd party support, have to pay portions of their money to Sony and give Sony licensing to their franchises allowing Sony rights to Nintendo's creations. Nintendo would ultimately lose billions and have to resort to allowing M$ third party support as well. More money would be lost in development costs, and Nintendo would merely become a shadow of it's former self becoming Sega.
And as to how Sega was "forced" into becoming a third party we can see near the same basic "strategy". Console sales flop and as such Sega goes on to spread it's [dreamcast] titles to other consoles until ultimately they stopped production of consoles and announced that they'd become a third party. This is the route Nintendo would take if they decided to become a third party regardless of if they are "forced" to or not.
This Graph Shows what happened to Sega as they became a third party.
Edited by SparktehFox, 13 August 2011 - 10:45 PM.