@Akriel_Boulve: I just realized something here: Either your reading comprehension is subpar or you just didn't read the post in it's entirety; I would encourage you to read my post again, and take your time because you missed the point entirely,

@Akriel_Boulve: "Why would Nintendo care about cross-play when they focus primarily on their proprietary IP?"

Because, it would push even more hardware sales without effecting margins. In addition, with what I proposed, their IPs would still be intact; guarding their IPs is a legal issue, not a hardware issue. Furthermore, the PS5 and XBOX have powerful and highly customized hardware, unique to themselves. And if they have the power, why would they add anything? If anything, Nintendo could seize an opportunity without sacrificing ANYTHING. In addition, the only crossplay problems I've encountered is the actual person behind the other controller. And lastly, it's not essentially a PC, it's just a power option that Nintendo could wash their hands with, and generate additional revenue off 3rd party titles; very much in the way that Apple and Android do so through their app stores.

@Akriel_Boulve: Nintendo would be wise to explore the option as crossplay becomes more widely adopted amongst the publishers. The software tweaks and a thunderbolt display port is not going to break the bank, nor is it as complicated to put into use as it was in the past. Again, it's best to think about the idea as a "take it or leave it" option for the consumer, nothing forced upon them; they got the option to play graphic intensive games if they choose. Besides, since the DS, Nintendo devices have been a "go to" platform for home brew games and indie developers in the past. Ultimately, I think it would be beneficial for Nintendo and fairly easy for them to achieve since the Switch OS is open source. Also, Nintendo is not using highly customized hardware like its competitors. In addition, their hardware is based of Nvidia chipsets, so compatibility with those cards shouldn't be an issue and they should limit compatibility to Nvidia cards to minimize complexities. Futhermore, it won't effect their core hardware and how it is produced,.

@phili878: Nintendo doesn't have to do anything. Everyone in the industry knows that they have the best IPs in the industry. But it's worthwhile considering an expansion port which could take advatage of external GPU enclosures; leaving it up to the consumer if they want to spend the money on additional hardware on their own terms.

@BLKCrystilMage: It's difficult to argue with your point. However, it might be worthwhile for Nintendo to look at external hubs or GPUs to be compatible with the next version of the Switch. I think that would be a viable option, without straying away from their core business model.

@jenovaschilld: The "Duke" was my favorite controller. However, the black and white buttons need to be replaced to mimic shoulder buttons. I'd like to see an updated version of the Duke controller.

That does sound pretty bad ass. I agree.

@openmind23: With respect to your first 2 sentences, I think the biggest issue with games these days is the developer's anticipation for DLC. It as if DLC is used as an excuse for developers to not get the job done correctly from the beginning; developers get on the "we'll fix it later" idea. Yet, never fix anything.

Forget the increased crime, inflation, global threats, and opioid crisis; "digital extremism" is at the top of the list. I never would have thought that getting pwned and going after each other with phrases such as "Your Mom is EZ" would be priority #1 in the USA.

They left out the Mortal Kombat commercials.