Yes but those other companies you listed all have much more competition than Nintendo.

Rockstar for example just released Red Dead on PS4 and Xbone. Immediately on release it was competing with the new Calls of Doody, the new Battlefield, the new Ass Creed, holiday sales on older games like Madden, GTA V, FIFA, etc. Nintendo titles simply don't face that kind of competition on their own system. That's why their games can stay higher prices for a longer time. It's also why third parties can release older games onto the Switch for higher prices than the other consoles. Wolfenstein II needs to be about $30-40 MSRP to sell on the other two consoles because there is a plethora of other quality titles both first and third party for it to compete against, especially in the FPS genre. But on Switch, what other shooters do you have? Splatoon? Some indie network title? Nah. So Bethesda can keep Wolfenstein II $60 there. Same with Skyrim. Even the sports games don't see the same sales other platforms do in some cases.

So the short easy answer is lack of competition on their platform, which is great for them, not so great for gamers.

Then why does Mario Kart 8 sells so much more on Switch than WiiU? It had much less competition on WiiU. The thing is: people don't buy a console and then look which games are on it. They look for games. If they don't have the hardware, they look for enough reasons to get that hardware or bite the bullet and let the game slip. Therefore games on PS4 and games on Switch very real compete. Because Switch gamers see RDR2 and PS4 gamers see Mario Odyssey. The reality is, that God of War and Smash Bros Ultimate compete.

For a hardware that sold less it is even harder, because you have not only to convince gamers to get the game, but the hardware for it too. So PS4 currently is in an easier position to sell games on it, because many already have it.

I've always seen Nintendo as one who thinks that time doesn't devalue anything they sell, therefore what they sell must be charged at a higher price and never go down in price either. It's also another reason why I end up buying less and less from Nintendo and more and more from 3rd party studios, because they price their games fairly for how they look and what they offer.

I've also always found the £55-65 price for 1st party games to being vastly overrated and overpriced for what they offer/show off.

Maybe the portable factor of the Switch and the immediate gratification of one of the greatest launch games ever promoted more Nintendo gamers to buy the Switch as opposed to people being put off by the WiiU. Either way that seems kind of irrelevant. The Switch is going to do better than the WiiU in every way, the software included.

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, all games compete against one another for gamers dollars. But in the vacuum of the Switch library, there simply isn’t as much for Nintendo to compete against. If there were, they wouldn’t be able to keep their prices so high for so long.

Switch have to compete with every portable system including smartphone. It could fail hard just like vita

Fortnite? PUBG? Overwatch?

Overwatch isn't Battle Royale and released after Splatoon. 

You can also add the Division to that list. 

Factor Number 1

Nintendo has been around a long time and there is more of a nostalgia fact which has lead to more of a collectors culture around their titles.

Factor Number 2

Most (not all) Nintendo first party games are designed and marketed to be ever green titles. If you're buying a Switch 4 years after the system came out and you look at the library of games for sales I don't see there being a big difference between Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros Ultimate, or some newer game. They are all essential games for a library. Whereas with 3rd party games there's a huge difference in perceived value in Madden 18 vs Madden 2023. One has an outdated roster and no online community and one has a current community and roster. 3rd party games more often than not are designed to become obsolete but Nintendo first party games are designed to be relevant for the life of the console. 

That is why I don't see myself getting a switch anytime soon. $60 a pop is just too much. Your best bet is too wait almost at the end of the switch cycle to get some Nintendo select games at $20.

If you mean that chart then it hasn't been countered at all.  That chart doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, despite you and others trying to make a big deal out of it.  That is, unless you're trying to tell me that Vroom in the Night Sky holds the same value as Red Dead Redemption 2 when it comes to competition?  If that's the case then I'll certainly listen to your argument.

Trying to discredit the effects of competition in a free market system is like trying to discredit the effects of gravity.  The only thing that can be argued is the scope.  That you call it "stupid" tells me all I need to know about your mindset.  I get the impression that only arguments that make Nintendo looks good are going to be considered.

The example I gave in another thread fits here, as well.  If you take ARMS, and I mean the exact same game, and throw it on PS4 and Xbox, it would not perform nearly as well.  Why?  Because of competition.  Explain to me how that wouldn't be the case.

I don't even understand how people can convince themselves that competition isn't an important factor.  Most consumers will buy a limited number of games in a year.  If you double the amount of games available, they won't double the number of games they purchase.  Titles get pushed down the list.  Nintendo isn't magically immune from this and it's crazy to think they're invulnerable to the effects.