Monolith has grown massively since being acquired, they're a far superior studio now compared to before they were acquired.

IDK about that, Valve is certainly no saint. They are actively fighting an anti-competitive suit alleging:

(i) MFN clause— i.e. while there is no contractual obligation for publishers to offer similar prices for their games on Steam as on other online storefront, the algorithm as described by Valve representatives is to repress games (namely when they do offer discounts on Steam) which do offer better offers on alternative storefronts),

(ii) require all in-game purchases go through Steam (that’s why Fortnite is not sold on Steam, for instance),

(iii) aggressive 30% cut from all purchased made through Steam,

and so forth.

And this is not even mentioning the fact that (a.) Valve has implemented a loot box system into CS2 which skirts EU regulations, (b.) hasn’t developed nor published a single game in over two years, etc. I do not understand the Valve glazing, regardless of how refreshing it is to hear positivity and not hatred from the internet for a change.

1) MFN is only to steam keys it. You can't sell Steam keys for other prices in other stores. You can sell your games for other prices in other stores, you can buy games at lower prices at Epic for instance 

2) Not a problem at all to customers, only to developers I guess? 

3) Not a problem at all to customers either (and we don't know the cut on other store fronts)

Valve pretty much ceased to be a gaming developer, they are more a marketplace now. So lack of games don't bother me (and I never found their games to be good) so whatever 

(1.) This is not true: the anti-trust suite pertains not only to the resale of Steam keys (which appears to be a contractual restriction), but also toward the anti-competitive measures Valve enforces on games which are offered for less on alternative online storefronts. [Source.] [Reddit post with source and corroboration.]

(2.) (3.) You are missing the point: this behavior demonstrates a business built upon by aggressively greedy strategies, as is the case with all business. (Also, taking too large of a cut from publishers will impact consumers in a similar manner in which the cost of tariffs transfer over to consumers. That’s why many games sell on Steam with micro-transactions and/or Digital Deluxe Editions which skyrocket software prices beyond what you’d find on Nintendo, for instance.)

(4.) Again, you are missing the point: Valve is not a company which doesn’t serve the consumer, but their bottom line. They’d rather lay on a bed of money through a highly profitable storefront than cater to their consumers with actual software. If you find Nintendo or Sony to be problematic—as you are often vocal in expressing—then it makes no sense for you to lend an exception to Valve who us arguably engaging in far more predatory behavior.

This is nothing new; Nintendo acquired Next Level Games in 2021 and Dynamo Pictures in 2022 for instance.

None of their acquisitions have been as aggressive as say Microsoft, nor have they gone on to gut the studios they acquire like MS has.

I see no reason to worry about this.

Nintendo works with a lot of second party developers, companies that aren’t truly first party but mainly only do work for Nintendo. I think that’s probably where any acquisitions would come from. This isn’t Microsoft we’re talking about. And let’s face it, there are many devs where their home is on Nintendo whether they are acquired or not, just based on the types of games they make.

Overall, I’m guessing that there is more to this translation (as there always is) that clarifies the statement. Of course, it’s going to rile up all the “no games should be exclusive” crowd however it gets represented.

Oh, and more movies in the way. The Nintendoverse is moving forward. Can’t wait until 10 years in and Nintendo announces the Smash Bros movie. I don’t think we’d see third part crossover at first for something like that, but I also wouldn’t be surprised. Snaaaaaaakkkeeee! Yeah, that could happen.

And what of this more nebulous “touch points with consumers” via the Nintendo accounts? I could speculate but I’ve really got nothing at this time.

1) As stated, I've already bought games at lower prices on other storefronts, so I don’'t quite understand what you mean. There's no restriction on pricing your games differently across platforms. In fact, you can even give them away for free if you want

2) Steam consistently offers lower prices in the digital games market compared to consoles. For starters, they actually localize their game prices, unlike Sony. They also have more frequent sales, discounts, and often give away games for free. Other storefronts (like Epic) sometimes offer even better deals. This happens because all these platforms compete with each other and since their libraries keep expanding indefinitely, there's an endless number of games to play, including free to play games. More options and more stores = lower prices. This, of course, isn't guaranteed by Steam itself, but is simply a consequence of PC gaming allowing free competition (unlike consoles).

2.1) Side argument: I'll start saying I've never bought a single MTX in my life and almost never play games with non-cosmetic MTX. But regardless, are you implying the games released on Steam only have MTX on Steam? Because I'm sure I've seen EA and Ubisoft games are released with tons on MTX on Playstation as well 

3) Imo, Valve is not more predatory than Nintendo or Sony. Sony doesn't even allow other digital stores to sell PlayStation games. Beyond that, what's the issue with Valve not wanting to be a developer anymore? They aim to be a platform, not a studio and there's nothing wrong with that. Should we criticize Nvidia for making GPUs but not games?

Sigh

As long as it's ones like Next Level Games that only make games for Nintendo platforms then this is whatever to me but if they start buying up multiplatform developers that'll be annoying since they'll probably restrict their future projects to the Switch 2 so for developers like that Nintendo would be the worst company to get acquired by from a consumer standpoint. Though I'm not really worried about that since not many developers nowadays would want to agree to only release games for one platform going forward who aren't already doing that. 

I see that our discussion has kinda devolved into arguing… hm. I’ll drop it here. It’s an argument I started, and it’s an argument I’ll end.

That said, I have read all your points and I believe “agree to disagree” is the most appropriate expression here. Not everybody is gonna agree on everything, no point in fighting it. Diversity in thought is a neat thing, after all.