Possibly, it would depend. If I were in the gaming business with hardware and was running an entire ecosystem that sought to penetrate a market of varying demographics by offering and addressing a variety of differing software tastes, the lowest hanging tastiest fruit may appear the most appealing for immediate profit but ultimately may not be the best choice for a long-term, broad reaching strategy as planting a new fruit tree would. Why not grow the market by making a 3D platformer that would appeal to those not already interested in Mario instead of continually harvesting it just because it's extremely safe and profitable? That leaves little room for growth. It's not like Mario's going away, and neither is Nintendo at want for money.
With their talent and resources they could be much more liberal and aggressive in getting brand new IPs out there and trying to push them to the territory that Mario sells. Nintendo are unparalleled in their gameplay innovations and creativity, their talent can support risk, and their bankroll can weather complete failure (the Wii U, a few software bombs here and there would be chump change to them). In light of this, it frustrates me to hear their top developer come out and state that their creative process is largely driven and beholden to properties they already own and that oftentimes new IPs aren't created because of it. And yes, I understand how from a business standpoint they see it as making sense (though I find it to be very myopic and limiting strategy personally), but from someone who enjoys gaming that craves originality in ALL aspects and not simply in gameplay, it's not something I'd ever wish for, much less ever defend. I find it a horrible philosophy to hold as a game designer/company.
