Microsoft is putting more of its games on PlayStation. Sony is releasing more of its games on PC and is increasingly talking about reaching players beyond its own hardware. Even the idea of a game being permanently tied to one platform is becoming less important across the industry.
But Nintendo is still going in the other direction.
It may look like Nintendo is simply refusing to accept where the gaming industry is heading. But I don’t think that is the right way to look at it. Nintendo is making a different calculation because its business is structured very differently from Microsoft’s or Sony’s.
The important question is not whether Nintendo could make more money by putting Mario, Zelda or Pokémon on other platforms. Of course it could. The question is whether that additional software revenue would be worth weakening the reason people buy Nintendo hardware.
Looking at Nintendo’s current numbers, I don’t think the company has enough reasons to take that risk.
Microsoft is probably the clearest example of how much the traditional console strategy has changed. Xbox is no longer just about selling Xbox consoles. Microsoft has spent years building an ecosystem around Xbox that includes consoles, Windows PCs, Game Pass, cloud gaming, first-party software and services.
Its own developer platform now talks openly about building games for a “multi-device world”, while PlayFab is designed to connect players across platforms.
The financial results also explain why Microsoft has less reason to keep every Xbox game locked to Xbox hardware. In Microsoft’s FY2025 results, gaming revenue increased 10%, while Xbox content and services revenue increased 13%. Microsoft attributed the growth to first-party content and Game Pass.
That means Microsoft can make money from its games without requiring every customer to buy an Xbox. And the company has plenty of reasons to think about the total gaming audience rather than only its own console base. Xbox is part of a much larger company built around Windows, Microsoft 365, Azure and cloud services. Microsoft Cloud alone generated $54.5 billion in revenue in its fiscal 2026 third quarter.
So when Microsoft puts an Xbox game on PlayStation, I don’t see that simply as Microsoft giving up on Xbox. I see it as Microsoft trying to monetize an Xbox-owned franchise wherever the players already are.
Sony’s situation is different, but it is moving in a similar direction. PlayStation remains central to Sony’s gaming business, and Sony still sees first-party software as an important reason for people to enter its ecosystem. At the same time, Sony wants its games and intellectual property to reach a larger audience through PC, mobile, live services and other forms of entertainment.
That fits the wider Sony business. The company can use its gaming IP across movies, television and other entertainment businesses. The Last of Us, God of War, Horizon and Ghost of Tsushima are no longer just PlayStation game franchises. Sony has already been expanding several of these properties into other forms of entertainment.
I think Sony therefore has a strong reason to separate the reach of its software from the reach of its hardware. It can keep PlayStation important while still making money from people who never buy a PlayStation.
Nintendo has a similar opportunity, but its strategy is different. Before looking at Nintendo’s games, it is worth looking at where its money comes from. Nintendo is a Japanese company, but its gaming business is heavily dependent on international markets. For the fiscal year ended March 2026, Nintendo generated ¥907.4 billion in dedicated video game platform revenue from the Americas, ¥546.2 billion from Europe and ¥496.3 billion from Japan. The Americas alone generated considerably more revenue than Japan.
The company’s latest results show the same pattern. In the first quarter of fiscal 2027, 77.9% of Nintendo’s sales came from outside Japan. The Americas accounted for 42.2% of sales, Europe 23.6%, Japan 22.1% and other markets 12.1%.
This matters because Nintendo is not keeping its games exclusive simply because it has a traditional Japanese view of the console business. It has a global audience that is already buying its hardware. If Nintendo needed PlayStation and PC players in the US or Europe to grow its games business, I would look at the situation very differently. But it already has a large customer base in those markets.
The question then becomes whether opening its games to other platforms would add enough new revenue to compensate for the value of keeping those games exclusive.
Nintendo’s numbers make the case for exclusivity and this is where Nintendo’s position becomes particularly interesting. As of June 30, 2026, Nintendo Switch had sold 156.59 million units worldwide, while Switch software had reached 1.56 billion units. Switch 2 had already reached 23.68 million hardware units and 58.17 million software units.
Those numbers are important because they show that Nintendo is not struggling to build an audience around its hardware.
The software numbers are equally impressive. Mario Kart World had sold 15.39 million copies by June 30, 2026. Donkey Kong Bananza had reached 4.78 million, while Pokémon Legends: Z-A Nintendo Switch 2 Edition had sold 3.99 million.
Nintendo also has a long history of games continuing to sell well years after release. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is the clearest example. It has sold 71.53 million copies and became one of the best-selling games ever released on a single platform. Animal Crossing: New Horizons has also passed 50 million copies.
To me, this is the most important part of Nintendo’s strategy. The company does not simply have games that sell well. It has games that can help sell the hardware on which those games are available. That creates a relationship between software and hardware that Microsoft and Sony cannot reproduce in exactly the same way.
Nintendo can make money from the same customer multiple times. Let me give you an example. Imagine someone wants to play Mario Kart. Nintendo can sell that person a Switch or Switch 2. It can then sell the game. That customer can buy another Nintendo game later, subscribe to Nintendo Switch Online, purchase additional content and eventually upgrade to another Nintendo console.
If Mario Kart were available on PlayStation, Nintendo would gain access to millions of additional players. But it would also lose some of the reason those players might have had to buy Nintendo hardware. That is the trade-off.
For Microsoft, selling Forza to a PlayStation owner can still be a very attractive transaction because Microsoft is primarily interested in monetizing the player and its software ecosystem. However, the hardware itself is part of the value proposition for Nintendo,
This is why I don’t think it makes sense to judge Nintendo using the same criteria as Microsoft or Sony. A multiplatform release could increase the number of copies Nintendo sells. But an exclusive release can help Nintendo sell the console, the game and future products connected to that console.
Those are two different economic models.
And people should also understand that Nintendo is already expanding its IP. This explains why I don’t think Nintendo is completely isolated from the industry’s multiplatform movement.
It is expanding its characters and franchises beyond traditional games. Mario has become a major movie property. Nintendo has mobile games, merchandise, theme park partnerships and other entertainment businesses built around its IP.
The company is perfectly willing to put Mario in front of people who do not own a Nintendo console. What Nintendo appears less willing to do is give those people direct access to the core games that make its hardware valuable.
I actually think this is a smarter strategy for Nintendo than simply putting everything on PlayStation and PC. It can increase the value of its characters and reach new audiences without removing the main reason to buy its hardware.
There is another reason Nintendo can maintain this strategy. Nintendo has never tried to compete with PlayStation and Xbox purely through specifications. The original Switch succeeded because it offered a hybrid handheld and console experience alongside Nintendo’s first-party games. Switch 2 follows the same basic philosophy rather than trying to become a direct replacement for a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X.
Nintendo therefore does not need to win a traditional hardware specification race. It needs to make hardware that people want to use for Nintendo games. So far, that formula is working.
Nintendo reported 3.82 million Switch 2 hardware units shipped during the first quarter of fiscal 2027, along with 9.46 million Switch 2 software units. The company is therefore not just maintaining an existing audience. It is continuing to move players into its next hardware generation.
That is exactly the situation in which exclusivity makes the most sense.
I don’t think Nintendo can assume this model will work forever. Because the biggest risk is hardware.
Nintendo’s strategy depends on people wanting Nintendo hardware. If future consoles become too expensive, technically disappointing, or unable to meet changing expectations, exclusivity could become a disadvantage.
This becomes even more important as game development costs continue to rise. Sony and Microsoft can potentially spread the cost of major games across larger audiences and multiple platforms. Nintendo has fewer options if it decides to keep its biggest games exclusive.
There is also a broader change in how players think about games. PC and console gamers increasingly expect games to follow them across devices. Younger players may be less attached to the idea that a particular game should belong to a particular console.
Nintendo’s current audience is strong enough to resist that pressure, but it cannot ignore it forever.
When Microsoft puts Sea of Thieves and other Xbox games on PlayStation, and Sony brings more of its games to PC, it is easy to look at Nintendo and say that it needs to catch up.
I don’t agree with that.
Microsoft and Sony are responding to their own business realities. Microsoft wants to make its gaming ecosystem bigger than Xbox hardware. Sony wants to increase the reach and lifetime value of its games and IP while keeping PlayStation strong.
Nintendo has a different advantage. Its biggest games are still strong reasons to buy its hardware. That is not a weakness that Nintendo needs to fix. It is one of the company’s biggest competitive advantages. In fact, I think Nintendo would be making a mistake if it followed the multiplatform trend simply because Microsoft and Sony are doing it.
There is no obvious reason to give up a working business model just because another model is becoming popular.
Nintendo’s approach is also not necessarily about selling fewer games. It is about capturing more value from the entire ecosystem around those games.
A customer who buys a Nintendo console because of Mario Kart, buys the game, purchases another first-party title and eventually upgrades to the next Nintendo console can be more valuable to Nintendo than someone who simply buys Mario Kart on another platform.
That is why the multiplatform trend does not automatically make Nintendo’s strategy outdated.
I don’t think Nintendo will remain exclusive forever just because it has always been exclusive. If hardware sales start falling, development costs become difficult to recover, or a future Nintendo generation fails to create the same demand, the calculation could change quickly.
Nintendo has already shown that it is willing to expand its IP beyond consoles when there is a clear business opportunity. But right now, the company has something Microsoft and Sony increasingly cannot rely on in the same way. It has games that people are willing to buy its hardware to play. That gives Nintendo a very strong reason to stay different.
Nintendo is not ignoring the multiplatform trend because it failed to understand it. I think Nintendo understands the trend perfectly well. It simply has less financial incentive to follow it.
As long as Nintendo hardware remains a destination for people who want to play Nintendo games, there is little reason for the company to give that advantage away.
Related Posts
