Nintendo, while aggressively litigious, do so to maintain the value and exclusivity of their IP.
Their games also never go on sale, and all sell really well over time, unlike many releases from other publishers.
The result is that Nintendo are able to release a solid cadence of high quality, first party games free of other forms of aggressive monetisation, maintaining the value of the games as art.
They are saying the litigation is to maintain value and exclusivity, and that they are able to push out high quality titles without aggressive monetization because of that.
Not that the lawyers impact quality.
I mean that’s still incorrect. Their games maintain value because they literally stop making them available. They artificially restrict the supply. And their quality has been falling off over the past 5 years or so.