FWIW the whole 'paid exclusivity content' started with Nintendo and let this be a lesson for the cross-platform play promoters as to why the concept will never happen ... (being 'competitive' eventually means reaching a monopoly)

Horrible logic.

Pay more for extended game rights when its already better on P.C. May benefit Xbox owners but I don't see it selling new systems.

Hopefully we never reach that point.

I used to think that but I've found that sometimes competition is not always a necessity and is in fact a hindrance in quite a few cases ... 

I'm relatively young yet I've accumulated wisdom (some optimistic and some pessimistic or neutral) that matches an old man going into retirement at this point ...  

Like Switch being the only handheld console?

Elaborate on this post ... 

I don't even know how to respond to that...

Don't have to, that's the beauty of being silent ...

You said competition is not always important and can often even be a hinderence. I asked if Switch is applicable to this, being the only forseeable handheld right now. 

Also, everyone thinks their mindset is older then they are .... lol. 

Waste of post? Nope. If you condone a company overcharging you.

Most Nintendo games have a budget that is minuscule compared to AAA, and that is what defines an AAA game, not your love of it or impression of it, but the budget. There are several holywood movies that were done on 1M or so and sold several dozen of millions, they aren't AAA even if they sold more than several ones.

Natural monopoly isn't really bad. Because it only shows the market isn't big or interesting enough for more players to go for it. But if the monopolistic holder doesn't provide a good service then the barriers of entry lower down and someone may go over there and take it. But the same marketing having too much competition could mean all companies dying together.