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.

Lol looks like you didn't even read my post. Nintendo deserves all those sales cause the quality of the game is awesome. 

Their big games like MARIO odyssey, Zelda Botw, and splatoon 2 do have a big enough budget to be called AAA. I like how something is dismissed as non-AAA just cause it looks cartoony. You should play the games before passing judgements on them you know.

okay, for a moment let's pretend Zelda BOTW is not AAA. So The Order 1866 is worth $60 cause it's AAA, and Zelda BOTW isn't worth $60 because AA. That's some flawed logic right there. Budget means jack shit when the game itself turns out to be total shit. 

People argue that competition is required for consumerism to flourish but we see that this is not the case in vast portions of our life ... (see elastic demand)

Many goods and services in life are monopolized from one extent to another but a monopoly can in fact actually self-destruct if customers can't handle the compromises set by producers or service providers ... 

Switch being the only portable console so far is not a problem since there's no extreme impediments for it but that doesn't mean consumers can't react differently to how the change in Switch systems are sold when the said manufacturer has a monopoly. For monopolies such as the Switch to be sustainable or any monopolies for that matter the manufacturer's have to be reasonable about parameters such as pricing (very few are going to buy a Switch system at $1000 so settling for $300 is in the realm of being acceptable) or support (Nintendo still has to release games on the Switch regardless of monopoly or not) 

I wouldn't like a PS5 being hibrid... and when I said PSVita with full PS4 library I was giving an example, meaning that on launch of PS5 we also get a handheld and or a hibrid that can play PS5 games with some acceptable compromise (akin to what Switch have and PSVita was supposed to have)

So this is a dick move, while Sony moneyhatting Monster hunter away from Nintendo isn't? What about Modern warfare remastered standalone launching on PS4 earlier, even though the game was already finished for Xbone as well? What about all those cod and destiny deal where Sony locks out content from Xbox and pc? Xbox users have to pay the same $60, but for less content than the PS4 version. Meanwhile PUBG will be the exact same experience on PlayStation, just a bit later.  All these posts talk like Sony has never done anything like this ever.

So this is a dick move, while Sony moneyhatting Monster hunter away from Nintendo isn't? What about Modern warfare remastered standalone launching on PS4 earlier, even though the game was already finished for Xbone as well? What about all those cod and destiny deal where Sony locks out content from Xbox and pc? Xbox users have to pay the same $60, but for less content than the PS4 version. Meanwhile PUBG will be the exact same experience on PlayStation, just a bit later.  All these posts talk like Sony has never done anything like this ever.

Thanks. To clarify I wasn't saying you were wrong. Just wanted your opinion.

I didn't interpret it to be that way ...

Nope the Order isn't worth 60 because it's a bad game. That doesn't make WiiU games AAA, neither the Wii games... care to look at their budgets and sales? Because I'm quite sure a lot of users here told devs to learn with Nintendo how to use little cash to make big sales.

Compare the budget of Zelda with Horizon, Mario with Uncharted and look how far they are.