@GamingFan4Lyf I don't see it. If you consider a large percent of the most active game purchasing consumers already have multiple platforms. So someone like either of us sees a game we like the look of. At the moment I would put performance over convenience for some kinds of games and convenience over performance for others, but if I could have both performance and convenience I would simply make my purchase on the platform that gave me both. It is a lose/lose for Nintendo. It makes zero business sense unless Sony is offering a very large fee for hosting the application.

If you buy a TV today it will come with a number of third party apps installed. In the past Netflix paid a very large fee to be included by default and even larger to have a dedicated Netflix button on the remote. At one point, in the early days, it was paying Samsung close to 30% of the cost of the TV to host its service. It also paid a lot to cable companies to be included on their set top boxes. But now that Netflix holds a dominant position it no longer pays. You can't sell many TVs if your set does not support Netflix. You may remember Samsung tried pulling Netflix from its TVs to force them to keep paying but at that point the tables had turned. Nintendo would risk being Samsung in this arrangement.

Switch hosting PS games would play out in a similar way. Sony would have to offer a fee large enough to offset the loss of revenue AND promotion of a competitor service. In today's market there is no fee that would make sense to both parties. It would have to massive to make it worth Nintendo's risk, around the $250 per console area I would imagine, and that makes no sense from a Sony view point. Basic Economics.