It's risky. Remember Tengen games on the old NES? Tengen chose not to play Nintendo's game, reverse engineered the protocol, and started manufacturing cartridges of their own games without Nintendo's consent. Nintendo tried several flavors of technological and legal obstacle to them doing this, but ultimately those failed. In the end, Nintendo combated the problem by establishing the Seal of Quality branding which, as a trademark essentially, was something they could legally control and choose who received it and who did not. That, coupled with a propaganda campaign hinting that off label electronics could set your Nintendo on fire, eventually added too much friction for Tengen to see profit in continuing this mode of operation.
I had a conversation with an Xbox development producer back in the early aughts on this topic where I had the chance to ask why Microsoft cared if people cracked the console to turn it into a home system they controlled, given that consumers would almost certainly still feel more comfortable buying officially branded software from the official distributors. The answer was simple: Microsoft isn't concerned about the home user, they were still concerned about development houses making their own games outside of the Microsoft ecosystem control and, more importantly, developing peripherals and alternatives compatible with Microsoft software, up to and including clean room developed alternative versions of the Xbox itself sold by other companies.
A generation of console is one big game of architecture cracking, which is one of the things that keeps console generations evolving: sit on one console architecture for too long, and everything about it from the legal protections to the technical competency required to reproduce the artifact will age out. To give up the NDA is to willingly let that clock spin much faster, and ultimately disintermediate the console manufacturer from the flow of money they need to continue making product and developing the next generation of console.