Its not like they are going to buy Capcom or Square-Enix or anything. Theyre probably just aquiring a couple of smaller studios theyve worked with in the past like Grezzo and Camelot. Companies that already only makes games for Nintendo platforms. So I dont think there is any need to worry about much in terms of games becoming exclusive to Nintendo devices.

I would be OK with acquisitions where the company is looking to sell and Nintendo is the one who buys them, because the company is selling and someone is gonna get them anyway. It's like with ZeniMax and ActivisionBlizzard, they wanted to sell, so someone was getting them anyway. Nintendo acquired Next Level Games because the owners were looking to sell and they didn't want to lose this talented studio that's worked with them since Gamecube.

Nintendo's idea of acquiring devs, as based on past patterns, is very, VERY different from Sony and Microsoft's idea of acquiring devs.
When they bought Next Level Games, they had basically been an unofficial Nintendo studio at that point. They worked exclusively with Nintendo and only made games on their platform, so it made all the sense in the world when they were bought.
With Monolith Soft, their relationship with Bandai Namco had soured so much because they wanted to have creative freedom and BN wasn't willing to give it to them; Nintendo was. So, it made sense for them to become their subsidiary. Console exclusivity is a small price to pay for creative freedom for devs like Monolith Soft.
And even though they didn't buy Platinum Games outright, Nintendo was the only developer willing to publish Bayonetta 2 and give that series to a chance to continue at all. And it gave them a game/IP in their library that was noticeably different from their own and added some needed diversity.

Nintendo has never really been in the deep spending mode of acquiring studios like Sony, Microsoft, EA, and many other major publishers have. Whenever they DO make such an acquisition, it's usually smaller studios they already have close ties with and it makes more sense for both sides to be together than separate. And I see no reason to think how that approach will change with Switch 2.

I voted that I'm against 3rd party acquisitions but what you are describing here are 2nd party acquisitions. Nintendo buying up the Poke'mon Company and Gamefreak. Or Nintendo buying Rare, in the 90's. Or Nintendo buying a studio that was going to die are all fine. Here's the thing though...

1. Guerrilla Games hardly did anything before being bought by Sony in the PS2 era. They were then built up to be a fantastic studio over a decade of hard work.

2. Sony Santa Monica was founded by ex-Sony employees to make God of War (a PS2 exclusive) and eventually got bought by Sony. 

3. Many devs that made exclusive content for the PS1 like Insomniac and Naughty Dog were stuck making shovelware movie games in the Genesis/SNES era. Then Sony gave them money and coding libraries, and said "Go make whatever games you've dreamed of making. All we want in exchange is exclusive publishing rights". So it makes perfect sense for Sony to buy these type of studios after a 15-year partnership. 


This is in stark contrast to what Microsoft has done. They bought up Bethesda and Obsidian making the games of those devs console exclusives. They founded studios like The Initiative (which is the right way to get 1st party games), only to fire them (along with a whole bunch of other devs. Even devs like the Hi-Fi Rush devs that made an amazing game!).  There was a PS5 version of Starfield that was already in development that was cancelled. Thankfully, the failure of the Xbox Series caused Satya Nadella and investors to force Xbox to go full-on 3rd party. 

Anyway, I expect any acquisitions from Nintendo to be sensible (like most of Sony's). It's not anti-consumer to buy up a company who's primary output of games was already exclusives to your system. 

Yeah to echo what others have said, the most likely outcome here is they acquire someone like HAL or Grezzo that they're already joined at the hip with.

Anyone worried that Nintendo is going to scoop up their favourite developer of PS/Xbox/PC games and make them Switch 2 exclusive can probably rest easy.

Nintendo is going to buy Sony and then in retaliation Microsoft is gonna buy Nintendo.

Methinks Nintendo acquires the devs of Palworld, Sony responds by acquiring GameFreak, to which Microsoft responds (out of vengeance for PS sending Xbox into the grave) by acquiring Santa Monica, Insomniac, and Naughty Dog. PlayStation then becomes the system for Pokémon, Astro Bot, and Halo, Microsoft becomes the publisher of Crash, Banjo, Spyro, God of War, SpiderMan, and TLoU, whereas Nintendo simply uses Palworld to fill the hole left by Pokémon’s departure. 

Making games exclusive to Nintendo Consoles is not the issue being addressed here; Obviously they're owned by Nintendo. Why has Retro not been given an opportunity to make a original IP? Have they not earned it? When will Retro go beyond grunt worker for Nintendo IP's? When will they have the opportunity to grow their games portfolio beyond established Nintendo IP's 

Have they? Let me give an example.

 Before Monster Hunter World, Monster Hunter was Japanese thing that westerners sometimes got to play. When Nintendo had the franchise under them, they did nothing to change that. It was not until Capcom and SONY teamed up that Monster Hunter went Japanese thing to global thing. Now is CAPCOM's high selling selling IP. 

Before Nintendo bought Monolith they were making B class anime RPG's(This is not a shit on). After being purchased by Nintendo they are still making B class anime RPG's just now funding is not an issue. 

I mean, it would make sense for: HAL and Intelligent Systems for sure. Grezzo too.