I really don't get what you're saying here. You made a comment and I replied to it. Is it even necessary that you say "oh that's not the specific question I asked" if it's still directly relevant to something else you said in the same conversation?
Because it's not really relevant. You're giving reasons why it's good now while selectively bolstering why it has been good in the past; and saying that if this deal goes well then that is good enough to justify the idea that it should be made official and permanent. I'm asking why it would continue to be good on the chance that those reasons no longer apply when it wasn't that long ago that they didn't.
5 years from now and Sega is swimming in money like it's 1993; plus they've got their mojo back. If that happened, why would they need to keep acting like they are Sega of 2013?
The audience of Sonic games is very similar to that of Mario and Zelda. They can quite happily co-exist when they share a publisher. But all of those games that Generations competed with are catering a totally different market; that's the dominant market on their respective systems.
They can't happily coexist if they come out at the same time and one of them has infinitely more market presence, especially not if they have the same audience. People have finite amounts of money in the holiday shopping season, and hundreds of things that they "have" to get. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the PS360 7 days away from half a dozen much bigger games, Sonic is going to lose out on sales because those games are going to soak up the money first. If Sega releases a Sonic game on the Wii U a week after a Zelda game comes out and a week before a Mario Kart game, Sonic is going to lose out on sales. If Sega is going to keep fucking up, Sega is going to keep fucking up regardless of which system it's on; so you can't argue that being on Nintendo only automatically means that they'll be better off just because the audiences are closer over the idea that maybe Sega should try to stop fucking up instead.
You're acting like people are predisposed against buying Sonic games on Sony/Microsoft systems, when the reality is much closer to how people are predisposed against buying Sonic games over other games that have more hype. Sonic as a series lost the ability to throw that kind of weight after Adventure 2.
Smaller audiences means a hell of a lot.
I never said otherwise. But you're going to tell me that Sonic's audience on the PS360 is so small that a Wii U title has a larger pool to draw from when there aren't 6 games releasing at practically the same time that Sega has to compete with; ignoring outright that Nintendo rarely has much in the way of competition because third parties rarely support them anyway?
Also I'm getting really bored of this. I've explained what "the benefit if it continues even if Sega's fortunes improve and Sonic becomes a de facto Nintendo franchise" is already. I did that right away. Sorry if you don't care much for the answer. We can't really make arguments that are more certain for a fair while yet.
I'm sorry, but this is pretty uncalled for. I'm not here to entertain you. I'm attempting to get an explanation behind a sentiment that multiple around here are now treating as a done deal. Nintendo + Sonic 4lyfe = Better than any alternatives. It's not my fault if the reasoning you're giving to justify the viewpoint doesn't actually answer the question that I'm asking when I try to figure out where it came from.
You say that arguments can't be made about the issue, but that goes both ways. The arguments are already being made; just in your favor instead. People are already acting like Sonic and Nintendo should be permanently tied up because it's a good idea, so why can't it be challenged?