I've always thought that competition (not toxic or hostile competition, obviously)
it's something really useful and, when talking about video games, having several
healthy systems with relatively similar success in the same generation, can make
that said generation much more interesting overall.
If all those systems sell well, more games will be made for them, and better
support they'll receive, trying to maintain their space against their "rivals".
Something that sounds simple and logic, but that helps consumers, that is,
us, in several ways, like more games, price cuts and special offers, etc.
Although that line of thought has always been more about home consoles.
Not to mention that most of the times, one system sells really well and the others fall way behind.
In the world we live in, Nintendo rules the land of handheld consoles,
and it has been this way since the invention of the Game & Watch.
That's not to say they never had competition, of course.
Companies like Sega, Atari or Sony have tried to get a piece of that sweet,
sweet cake, with different tactics and ideas, and different levels of success,
or... Well, levels of failure, too.
Except on the sixth generation.
For several reasons, nobody wanted to try getting on the handheld
market during that time, leaving Nintendo completely free to conquer
the entire market with one of the systems that, in my eyes, had the
least competition among popular hardware.
The Game Boy Advance.
