What does Switch 2 mean for gaming on Apple platforms?

[Janichsan]

That's not how any modern game is developed. Just take a look at the requirements. Nothing new runs well on anything other than the latest GPUs.

Modern games even barely run well on the latest GPUs. More often than not, you need crutches like upscaling and frame generation to maintain 60 fps.

What was that about Rosetta 2 not being deprecated and sticking around for ages?

Apple details the end of Intel Mac support and a phaseout for Rosetta 2

Rosetta app translation features for Intel apps won’t stay around indefinitely.

arstechnica.com

Exactly what I've been saying from the very beginning.

 

[galad]

If you actually read the article, it says it will still work for old games even in the future.

 

[throAU]

Beyond macOS 27 you can't use Rosetta for making new apps/games for Intel Macs with Xcode. All new apps must be made for ARM64 but old apps will still work.

It also means that new games released for Windows x64 (i.e, the vast majority) will not be usable via Crossover, etc.

I can count on one hand the number of developers who bother to release AAA games for macOS ARM, if you think this is going to change in 2-3 years you're living in fantasy land due to the hardware issues mentioned several times above.

There's no low cost apple computer capable of running recent games outside of mobile phone focused crap, and no developer is going to port their game expecting people to need an M4 pro or M4 max to run it at any reasonable frame rate.

 

[throAU]

I still use and love my Macs and my iOS devices for a host of purposes, but not one dollar on games on those platforms ever again.

Yup, I never buy any games on the Mac app store for this reason. Steam or GOG only as I get both versions.


edit:
also, usually also for less money than the App Store pricing due to sales, promotions, etc.

 

[jeanlain]

It also means that new games released for Windows x64 (i.e, the vast majority) will not be usable via Crossover, etc.

That's not my interpretation.

 

[throAU]

That's not my interpretation.

You would be incorrect then. Unless the actual game is recompiled for ARM it isn't just "legacy libraries" (i.e., what is promised to run through rosetta for some indeterminate time post deprecation) that will need Rosetta to run.

 

[star-affinity]

I can count on one hand the number of developers who bother to release AAA games for macOS ARM, if you think this is going to change in 2-3 years you're living in fantasy land due to the hardware issues mentioned several times above.

There's no low cost apple computer capable of running recent games outside of mobile phone focused crap, and no developer is going to port their game expecting people to need an M4 pro or M4 max to run it at any reasonable frame rate.

While I agree with you on the limited number of more capable gaming hardware Macs out there due to most ones are using the standard M chip (not Pro or Max) because of price, I think there's more to the situation than that.

I mean Switch 2 was just released and the sales seems to be in the millions already. How does the hardware of Switch 2 compare to the current M4 series of Apple devices? Seems the standard M4 is stronger than the hardware in the Switch 2. And a Mac mini with M4 is not much more expansive then a Switch 2.

So I definitely think it is not just about hardware here. Well, on the high-end gaming side there is. You of course get more gaming performance for your money going for PC/Windows hardware (not that the high-end graphics cards are especially affordable nowadays).

Apple also seem to give gaming attention when it comes to software with the updates to Metal 4 (https://developer.apple.com/metal/whats-new) and Game Porting Toolkit 3 (https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit).

So at least it seems there seems the foundations are there to at least be somewhat competitive in the gaming market?

Now, since there already are so many platforms out there where gaming is more mature I don't think it will be easy or it might not even work. Maybe it will help if Apple manages to increase the graphics performance in their M chips every year in a way that makes the platform more interesting for gaming compared to the other devices out there.

I don't know. We'll see what happens. At least I think Apple is showing more focus on gaming than I can remember they've done in a good while.

 

[redcarian]

I mean Switch 2 was just released and the sales seems to be in the millions already.

Nintendo has a rich catalogue of highly compelling and well-loved IP, much if not all of which will come to Switch 2. Apple has zero.

How does the hardware of Switch 2 compare to the current M4 series of Apple devices?

Doesn’t really matter, see above.

Seems the standard M4 is stronger than the hardware in the Switch 2.

Doesn’t really matter, see above.

And a Mac mini with M4 is not much more expansive then a Switch 2.

Nintendo Switch 2: About £450. You can play games with nothing more than what’s in the box.
Mac Mini + 1080p monitor + KB/M + XBox controller: £750, give or take. This is a 60% uplift.

So I definitely think it is not just about hardware here. Well, on the high-end gaming side there is. You of course get more gaming performance for your money going for PC/Windows hardware (not that the high-end graphics cards are especially affordable nowadays).

Apple also seem to give gaming attention when it comes to software with the updates to Metal 4 (https://developer.apple.com/metal/whats-new) and Game Porting Toolkit 3 (https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit).

The GPTK is chucking a ball over a fence and hoping someone catches it. They’d buy a studio if they were serious. And no, the two people who make the sasquatch game don’t count as “a studio”.

So at least it seems there seems the foundations are there to at least be somewhat competitive in the gaming market?

To quote Steve Ballmer from one of the most embarrassing corporate videos of all time, “Developers, developers, developers, developers”.

Now, since there already are so many platforms out there where gaming is more mature I don't think it will be easy or it might not even work. Maybe it will help if Apple manages to increase the graphics performance in their M chips every year in a way that makes the platform more interesting for gaming compared to the other devices out there.

The only M chip that really matters for gaming is the one in the base MacBook Air, and Apple will always optimise it for battery life rather than performance. Apple can’t rely on people upgrading, because what people buy, they’re stuck with, and the high price of their products means people are stuck with what they buy for quite a while.

I don't know. We'll see what happens. At least I think Apple is showing more focus on gaming than I can remember they've done in a good while.

I wish that were true - I would love to be able to justify dropping five bags on an Ultra Studio - but I really don’t believe it is. Even the new Games app is just the old Game Center app, just without the baize.

 

[throAU]

I mean Switch 2 was just released and the sales seems to be in the millions already. How does the hardware of Switch 2 compare to the current M4 series of Apple devices? Seems the standard M4 is stronger than the hardware in the Switch 2. And a Mac mini with M4 is not much more expansive then a Switch 2.

See this is the thing:

Nintendo have their own IP to get the console critical mass. Apple do not. Apple are relying on third parties to port their games to an obscure platform with obscure GPU architecture with no guaranteed market.

Anyone porting to switch knows that nintendo have a market for them due to the consoles they sell on the strength of first party IP. People will buy the latest nintendo console for the latest mario game(s), Zelda, and the latest pokémon games.

The hardware is irrelevant for nintendo as they have a captive market and a guaranteed market to sell to for third parties.

Apple have none of that. Apple need to do what they did with appleTV, buy or start some professional game studios and put out some first party halo content to show what the platform can actually do. Bespoke, high quality apple games, not some stuff that is a port from the PC not written to take advantage of the unique macOS hardware. Stuff that will show up the poor quality PC ports that we currently get and demonstrate what the hardware can do.

Otherwise, no one else with bother, and they’ll stick to making crappy little iOS games to get $1/copy for half a billion mobile users.


Also - the M4 may be stronger than the switch 2 (debateable at least; S2 has DLSS and Nvidia RT cores with the strength of that developer base behind it used to the platform on PC) - but the Switch 2 is cheaper and more game focused; by a lot (don’t forget, it includes a controller, dock and often a game).

People writing for switch 2 also know exactly what spec they’re targeting and can optimise for that single spec.

Mac? Which one? We’ve already got 4 generations of M series with 3-4 tiers per generation (at least, base pro, max and ultra with different specs of each tier with different GPU core counts), different memory configurations, screen sizes, etc.

Sure, the PC market is worse in theory, but the market is so much larger and most of the GPUs are more powerful than what’s available in the commonly purchased mac hardware.

 

[maflynn]

Apple are relying on third parties to port their games to an obscure platform with obscure GPU architecture with no guaranteed market.

And even then, they're not really seeing any profits as most of the computer games are hosted on steam/epic/gog There's really little incentive for publishers to put it on the Mac Apple store and lose money.

Also what about ray tracing and frame generation, its getting convoluted with AMD, Nvidia, and Intel, now developers have to include Mac's version? If I was a betting man, I'd say Intel will be the odd man out, I don't see their GPUs lasting too much longer, but that's a topic for another day.

 

[throAU]

If the above sounds like i’m dumping on mac hardware - i’m not.

The hardware is great for what it is and does amazing things within the power envelope. But the intricacies involved in making it work well are not usually worth the trouble for a PC game developer.

Game porting toolkit is definitely a start, but writing for a high end PC with say a desktop 4060 or up and back porting to say a macbook air is never going to end up with amazing quality experiences on the mac.

We need apple, or some apple first developers to step up to the plate and write some mac first games, or we’re only ever going to end up with minimum effort ports.

We saw this back in the 16 bit days with Atari ST ports to Amiga, etc.

 

[throAU]

The GPTK is chucking a ball over a fence and hoping someone catches it. They’d buy a studio if they were serious. And no, the two people who make the sasquatch game don’t count as “a studio”.

My above posts summed up by this, in a nutshell.

Apple need to buy/build a studio the level of say, ID software or Rockstar. A team who can push the technical envelope.

And they need to put out something the mainstream want, not JUST politically 100% safe, inclusive, sanitised content. Gamers (massive percent of) want raw, brutal experiences.

Not to ensure that every game has say, 1 of each gender/racial profile doing wholesome politically safe things because Apple can’t afford to offend anyone, ever.

As above, chucking the ball over the fence for somebody else to throw back is a cop out. They’re a trillion dollar plus company, if they care at all about this market (and they should, its bigger than hollywood) its time to ante up.

And this isn’t just for the mac, this is what will sell the Apple Vision Pro to the masses. There are plenty of gamers willing to spend thousands of dollars on GPUs and PCs to run them in. The money for AVP is there, they just need the proper content for it. And games are a big part of that!

 

[star-affinity]

@redcarian @throAU
Good points, both of you.
The Nintendo IP is of course a strong reason for people getting a Switch.

Mac first games sounds like a good plan. If the games are available on other platforms much sooner, for a lower price and perform better then I don't see many Mac sales for that game happening. MacOS/Apple OS only games (like Nintendo does for their platforms) might help that, yes. Maybe it's the only way...

@maflynn
If they decide to do an Apple OS version of the game one would hope it's not too much work to implement those features in Metal 4?

 

[throAU]

@redcarian @throAU
Good points, both of you.
The Nintendo IP is of course a strong reason for people getting a Switch.

Mac first games sounds like a good plan. If the games are available on other platforms much sooner, for a lower price and perform better then I don't see many Mac sales for that game happening. MacOS/Apple OS only games (like Nintendo does for their platforms) might help that, yes. Maybe it's the only way...

@maflynn
If they decide to do an Apple OS version of the game one would hope it's not too much work to implement those features in Metal 4?

Put it this way, adding another 3d rendering path to a game is maybe 30% additional code (3 rendering engines instead of 2) in that part of the game and additional testing for what, at this point is a fraction of 1-2% of the market based on macOS Steam figures.

The mac gaming market right now is a rounding error. APPLE need to change that, no one else will do this for them, as spending the additional money in development and support for a fraction of 1% of the gaming market is just not financially sane.

You’ll get 99% of the sales you otherwise would without expending any of your limited time and resources on the mac. Especially because most mac owning gamers likely also own other platforms to game on…. chicken/egg scenario.

 

[salamanderjuice]

While I agree with you on the limited number of more capable gaming hardware Macs out there due to most ones are using the standard M chip (not Pro or Max) because of price, I think there's more to the situation than that.

I mean Switch 2 was just released and the sales seems to be in the millions already. How does the hardware of Switch 2 compare to the current M4 series of Apple devices? Seems the standard M4 is stronger than the hardware in the Switch 2. And a Mac mini with M4 is not much more expansive then a Switch 2.

So I definitely think it is not just about hardware here. Well, on the high-end gaming side there is. You of course get more gaming performance for your money going for PC/Windows hardware (not that the high-end graphics cards are especially affordable nowadays).

Apple also seem to give gaming attention when it comes to software with the updates to Metal 4 (https://developer.apple.com/metal/whats-new) and Game Porting Toolkit 3 (https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit).

So at least it seems there seems the foundations are there to at least be somewhat competitive in the gaming market?

Now, since there already are so many platforms out there where gaming is more mature I don't think it will be easy or it might not even work. Maybe it will help if Apple manages to increase the graphics performance in their M chips every year in a way that makes the platform more interesting for gaming compared to the other devices out there.

I don't know. We'll see what happens. At least I think Apple is showing more focus on gaming than I can remember they've done in a good while.

For the Switch 1 it was worth creating a cut down port of a console/PC game to get access to the millions of Switch users. Switch 2 seems like it will be a similar story with them selling 3.5 million units in a handful of days. For Mac the incentive isn't really there. The gamer user base just isn't that big even if the hardware is on paper more powerful.

 

[maflynn]

Apple need to buy/build a studio the level of say, ID software or Rockstar. A team who can push the technical envelope.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but there's few AAA independent studios left

Also consider the track record of AAA games lately. Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA have lost millions., Amazon and Google dipped their toe into the sector and we know how that went.

Ubisoft has been the target of a hostile take over for the past few years, the latest Assassin's creed helped stave off that attack and gave Tenicent some incentive to throw more money Ubisoft's way

 

[diamond.g]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but there's few AAA independent studios left

Also consider the track record of AAA games lately. Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA have lost millions., Amazon and Google dipped their toe into the sector and we know how that went.

Ubisoft has been the target of a hostile take over for the past few years, the latest Assassin's creed helped stave off that attack and gave Tenicent some incentive to throw more money Ubisoft's way

They could buy EA (and get sports franchises, Mass Effect, Battlefield, and the frostbite engine).

 

[redcarian]

Amazon and Google dipped their toe into the sector and we know how that went.

Yeah, they proved you can’t “dip a toe” in this particular river. You have to commit. Google got the collywobbles when Stadia wasn’t an instant hit, didn’t fix their mental pricing structure, and bailed out at the first sign of difficulty. Might have been great, might have been cack, but it’s definitely dead.

Microsoft and Sony, taking a multi-generational approach, built whole-ass consoles with the best controllers in the world, bought studios and made first party games that everyone knows the name of, built out player and matchmaking networks, created storefronts with great value options (Game Pass, anyone?) and proceeded to make regular billions.

Google...

...did none of these things. Whilst having the money to do so.

 

[spac3duck]

Aside from Apple gaining "beloved" IP. Why would that be a good thing for Nintendo?

What would be good for Nintendo in being acquired or partnering with Apple?

An 809% increase in user base (From 152 million 'Switch 1's --> 1.382 billion iPhones). Sure, you could also consider all the iPads, laptops, desktops and AppleTVs that could enable gaming on 'Apple/Nintendo' further.

Alternatively:

1. Massive Financial Backing
   
   • Apple’s ~$200B+ in cash reserves could supercharge R&D, global expansion, and platform evolution.
2. Global Software Integration
   
   • Better online services, cloud infrastructure, and app ecosystem by leveraging Apple’s iCloud, services, and App Store tech.
3. Hardware Evolution
   
   • Potential access to Apple’s chip designs (e.g., M-series or A-series) could power next-gen Nintendo consoles.
4. Wearables, AR, and Mixed Reality
   
   • Nintendo IP on Apple Vision Pro? This could finally fulfill dreams of a true AR Pokémon or Mario experience.
5. Stronger Services Play
   
   • Nintendo could boost its recurring revenue through tighter integration into Apple Arcade or a new Nintendo+ subscription.

Microsoft has Xbox, Apple could have Nintendo, and together they could expand the IP portfolio, combine the hardware and software synergy, leverage the brand and family appeal while strengthening their position against Microsoft and Sony.

 

[diamond.g]

What would be good for Nintendo in being acquired or partnering with Apple?

An 809% increase in user base (From 152 million 'Switch 1's --> 1.382 billion iPhones). Sure, you could also consider all the iPads, laptops, desktops and AppleTVs that could enable gaming on 'Apple/Nintendo' further.

Alternatively:

1. Massive Financial Backing
   • Apple’s ~$200B+ in cash reserves could supercharge R&D, global expansion, and platform evolution.
2. Global Software Integration
   • Better online services, cloud infrastructure, and app ecosystem by leveraging Apple’s iCloud, services, and App Store tech.
3. Hardware Evolution
   • Potential access to Apple’s chip designs (e.g., M-series or A-series) could power next-gen Nintendo consoles.
4. Wearables, AR, and Mixed Reality
   • Nintendo IP on Apple Vision Pro? This could finally fulfill dreams of a true AR Pokémon or Mario experience.
5. Stronger Services Play
   • Nintendo could boost its recurring revenue through tighter integration into Apple Arcade or a new Nintendo+ subscription.

Microsoft has Xbox, Apple could have Nintendo, and together they could expand the IP portfolio, combine the hardware and software synergy, leverage the brand and family appeal while strengthening their position against Microsoft and Sony.

You mean potential increase in userbase? We know that 100% of folks that buy Nintendo hardware will play a Nintendo game. We also know that not 100% of folks that buy Apple hardware would buy a Nintendo game and they have proven that with "sales" of Mario Run and whatever they called the Mario Kart game. Plus no controller pack in means poor controller only game sales (like every add-on in console history, can't rely on your userbase having what isn't included).

1. I'm not sure Apple would give Nintendo the creative freedom to do things like make a Wii U, or even the original Switch.
2. Nintendo has been very stingy about online features in what they consider to be kids toys, so I am not sure why they would care about this that much.
3. for a lot of $$$ to the end user... You think if the Switch 2 had Apple hardware it would be selling for 449 USD?
4. After Virtual Boy I think Nintendo is pretty shy about some of this. Besides TPC could have already come out with a true AR Pokemon if they thought they could make money from it. They don't need Nintendo's permission (per se).
5. Maybe. If a sub to AA also got you access to the Expansion Pack part of NSO that could be useful (assuming you wanted to play emulated Nintendo games).


I guess I am pretty pessimistic about this. I don't see how Apple would buy Nintendo and then leave them to their own devices, nor how that would make for better Nintendo games for the customer. Or even on the hardware front, would Apple make Nintendo upgrade the Switch hardware every (other) year? If not how long would they let them use "old" chips. Would we get into a PC situation where some new Apple Switch games don't run right on "older" hardware because Apple added some new hardware feature in a later chip or made changes to their API's that they didn't backport?

 

[maflynn]

An 809% increase in user base (From 152 million 'Switch 1's --> 1.382 billion iPhones). Sure, you could also consider all the iPads, laptops, desktops and AppleTVs that could enable gaming on 'Apple/Nintendo' further

I won't disagree that it would potentially a larger user base, I'm unsure that your 809% is accurate. Not everyone who has an iphone, iPad, and appletv plays games.

Also there's more to mergers then just mashing two completely different companies together and expecting things will align. I would venture Nintendo with its very Japanese culture would not seamlessly fit in with a apple's american corporate culture.

Apple's core focus is using software and services to drive hardware sales, where as one could postulate that ninetnedo with its rich catalog of games, uses hardware to drive software sales.

Just because Microsoft was buying up gaming studios, means apple should copy them, MS' track record hasn't been great lately with publishers and games. Many of the studios they bought have had significant layoffs

 

[diamond.g]

I won't disagree that it would potentially a larger user base, I'm unsure that your 809% is accurate. Not everyone who has an iphone, iPad, and appletv plays games.

Also there's more to mergers then just mashing two completely different companies together and expecting things will align. I would venture Nintendo with its very Japanese culture would not seamlessly fit in with a apple's american corporate culture.

Apple's core focus is using software and services to drive hardware sales, where as one could postulate that ninetnedo with its rich catalog of games, uses hardware to drive software sales.

Just because Microsoft was buying up gaming studios, apple should copy them, MS' track record hasn't been great lately with published games. Many of the studios they bought have had significant layoffs

MS has a terrible track record with Japanese studios (Tango Gameworks and Microsoft Games Studio Japan). That is what really would concern me about Apple buying/merging with Nintendo. They don't have any history of buying Japanese software companies and things turning out ok, and their software studio buys have been kind of meh these days.

 

[maflynn]

MS has a terrible track record with Japanese studios

I question their track record in general. I think Obsidian was their best purchase. Sadly, and surprisingly BEthesda has not proven to be a great winner. Their back catalog, is what is valuable, nearly every game they've released since being owned by MS has not faired too well with the exception of Skyrim remastered and Doom: The Dark Ages.

They originally wanted Bethesda and others, so they could have the xbox compete with the play station, but that has largely failed, but it helped their subscription service immensely.

 

[throAU]

What would be good for Nintendo in being acquired or partnering with Apple?

An 809% increase in user base (From 152 million 'Switch 1's --> 1.382 billion iPhones). Sure, you could also consider all the iPads, laptops, desktops and AppleTVs that could enable gaming on 'Apple/Nintendo' further.

Alternatively:

1. Massive Financial Backing
   • Apple’s ~$200B+ in cash reserves could supercharge R&D, global expansion, and platform evolution.
2. Global Software Integration
   • Better online services, cloud infrastructure, and app ecosystem by leveraging Apple’s iCloud, services, and App Store tech.
3. Hardware Evolution
   • Potential access to Apple’s chip designs (e.g., M-series or A-series) could power next-gen Nintendo consoles.
4. Wearables, AR, and Mixed Reality
   • Nintendo IP on Apple Vision Pro? This could finally fulfill dreams of a true AR Pokémon or Mario experience.
5. Stronger Services Play
   • Nintendo could boost its recurring revenue through tighter integration into Apple Arcade or a new Nintendo+ subscription.

Microsoft has Xbox, Apple could have Nintendo, and together they could expand the IP portfolio, combine the hardware and software synergy, leverage the brand and family appeal while strengthening their position against Microsoft and Sony.

You forgot:
Being owned by a company focused on political correctness that does not “get” gaming.

But yeah, if they were willing to let nintendo do nintendo things without being too controlling, sure!


Also, as above, there’s a lot of overlap with apple hardware owners that already game on other platforms, including nintendo hardware. And a lot of the other apple customers don’t game at all.

 

[spac3duck]

They originally wanted Bethesda and others, so they could have the xbox compete with the play station, but that has largely failed, but it helped their subscription service immensely.

That's what would be so good for a Nintendo and Apple partnership; the potential for a subscription service with all of the Nintendo IP.

I won't disagree that it would potentially a larger user base, I'm unsure that your 809% is accurate. Not everyone who has an iphone, iPad, and appletv plays games.

Totally agree. 809% is purely the percentage increase when comparing total sales numbers of Switch 1 (~132M) to iPhone (~1.3B). Many users may have multiple devices, especially in houses with families and conversely a lot of people may not even care for anything Nintendo on Apple so even through they have many Apple devices, it wouldn't impact the end result. Ultimately, the question that was posed was essentially: "What benefit does Nintendo get out of partnering with Apple" - To which my response is essentially, scale.

You mean potential increase in userbase?

Yes, good pick up.

You mean potential increase in userbase? We know that 100% of folks that buy Nintendo hardware will play a Nintendo game. We also know that not 100% of folks that buy Apple hardware would buy a Nintendo game and they have proven that with "sales" of Mario Run and whatever they called the Mario Kart game. Plus no controller pack in means poor controller only game sales (like every add-on in console history, can't rely on your userbase having what isn't included).

1. I'm not sure Apple would give Nintendo the creative freedom to do things like make a Wii U, or even the original Switch.
2. Nintendo has been very stingy about online features in what they consider to be kids toys, so I am not sure why they would care about this that much.
3. for a lot of $$$ to the end user... You think if the Switch 2 had Apple hardware it would be selling for 449 USD?
4. After Virtual Boy I think Nintendo is pretty shy about some of this. Besides TPC could have already come out with a true AR Pokemon if they thought they could make money from it. They don't need Nintendo's permission (per se).
5. Maybe. If a sub to AA also got you access to the Expansion Pack part of NSO that could be useful (assuming you wanted to play emulated Nintendo games).


I guess I am pretty pessimistic about this. I don't see how Apple would buy Nintendo and then leave them to their own devices, nor how that would make for better Nintendo games for the customer. Or even on the hardware front, would Apple make Nintendo upgrade the Switch hardware every (other) year? If not how long would they let them use "old" chips. Would we get into a PC situation where some new Apple Switch games don't run right on "older" hardware because Apple added some new hardware feature in a later chip or made changes to their API's that they didn't backport?

The points provided were additional considerations to the main argument being that Apple brings scale to Nintendo.

With regards to your other points:
1 - So much of the gaming device is already there that controllers and software are really the only things natively missing from the iPhone/iPad in order to turn them into modern day equivalent Nintendo Switch devices. (e.g. The iPad mini is "almost" the equivalent size of the Nintendo Switch 2.)
2 - Nintendo wouldn't want a more robust online service and cloud infrastructure?
3 - The user base is already established and going to purchase their next device/s in less time than Nintendo turns out the occasional one gaming product. Having access to Nintendo IP as an Apple user is a phenomenal byproduct and may help to sway Android users over the Apple. Further, the A and M series chips will run laps around outdated processors that Nintendo use to keep their manufacturing costs down.
4 - Pokemon is but one example of what could be a massive catalogue of Nintendo IP games that could drive forward AR/VR for Apple Vision Pro. Either utilising modifications on previous released games or having the capability of a dedicated gaming company to drive forward in this area for new and different types of games that take advantage of this spatial computing capability.
5 - AA, NSO are current state thinking. You could also consider future state product offering akin to what Xbox Game Pass offers and include key titles in their catalogue i.e. modern games such as Pikmin, Zelda, Mario etc. Both companies rarely offer discounts natively on their products and having a subscription offers an easier way for people to try out some of the other game options without a financial burden. (Especially after forking out all that $$ for their regular iPhone update )

Overall, I agree that the likelihood of this happening is low. But together, both companies do share the following:

1. Strict pricing and rare discounts
2. Walled garden ecosystems
3. Focus on in-house innovation
4. Cult-like brand loyalty
5. Conservative yet bold strategy
6. Long product lifecycles
7. Family-friendly and safe brand image
8. Global cultural icons

Will it happen - probably not. But there is more to what meets the eye if you can consider out of the box/black swan ideas than thinking companies will stick with only what they have done in the past.