What we have seen for next year is, so far, very poor (Kirby, FE and Yoshi).
No doubt those games will sell well, specially FE. But, what system sellers will we have next year? It's not a new Zelda, MK9? Too soon. Smash? Probably. 2D Mario? Probably. Animal Crossing? Probably.

Nintendo always had evergreen titles. It's not something that, by itself can spell success. MK8 did amazing on a console that sold very poorly, for example.
A continuous flow of system sellers is needed to attract the Nintendo fanbase but to attract the non-Nintendo gamer.

I have no doubts Pokemon will sell a ton of Switchs, but i'm still a bit unconvinced on how many copies it can sell and how much it can do for Switch.
Of course that it's too soon to say when we don't even know what it's competition will be (from Sony and MS).

How GBA reaching HW and SW levels as fast as it did when compared to 3DS or 3DS+Vita, isn't relevant?
You have two machines against one and even then they needed more time to sell as many systems as GBA.
Heck, even if you take out the 15 million consoles GBA sold after DS came out, GBA still kicks 3DS' ass easily, HW and SW wise.

There are a lot of titles that can spur sales a week, maybe two, when they come out, but that's not what we are talking about.
We are talking about those games that sell a lot of HW and can even raise the bar for HW sales for weeks and weeks; those type of games that people wait to come out before they buy the console.

Nintendo were the ones who claimed it's not a successor to both Wii U and 3DS, they even said they aren't thinking about a successor for 3DS - something they haven't said about Wii U - and when they market it as home console gaming on the go, exactly how do they see it themselves as a portable? What did they say that makes you think that? Because all signs point at them treating it like it's a home console (with portability).

This is utterly false. Switch sales will easily be higher next year when Nintendo can produce more units. As it stands, demand isn't even close to being met in 2017.

So you admit that a console's game library determines sales. This will be important later.

No, Wii and Kinect were appealing for as long as they received software support. For the Kinect, that was about two years. For Wii, that was closer to five years.

Is this indicative of a concept losing appeal?

FY3/2007: 5.84M
FY3/2008: 18.61M
FY3/2009: 25.94M
FY3/2010: 20.54M
FY3/2011: 15.08M
FY3/2012: 9.84M

Because most people would call that a typical console sales curve. Wii likely could have sold 10+ million more if Nintendo hadn't completely dropped support in 2011. It wasn't selling because if its concept, it was selling because of its games. You have been wildly inconsistent on this: You brought up the games library when talking about why the GBA sold so well, but suddenly that same advantage has nothing to do with Switch or Wii sales?

Neither could 3DS fail. How is one success and one failure somehow better than one success and no failures? Now Nintendo doesn't have to offset an unsuccessful home console with a successful portable.

Revenue and profits will be much higher for Switch than it was for 3DS + Wii U, because Switch isn't sold at a loss, and its flagship games are $60. Additionally, the attach rate will be much higher because Nintendo gamers are no longer splitting their games between handhelds and home consoles. Not to mention the lower R&D costs of only producing a single hardware line.

Everything points to higher profits in the Switch era.

I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you at this point, because your stances are so far removed from reality that I wonder if it's even possible to reason with you. Switch is a success "so far"? Switch as of March 2018 selling as much as Wii U sold lifetime can't just be a success on its own, but instead needs to be qualified?

You just said "probably" to three of Nintendo's biggest franchises, each of which can sell over ten million copies with a single entry. Yet, somehow, Nintendo will have trouble selling Switch consoles next year?

So which system-selling franchises, exactly, will not be on Switch despite being on 3DS?

Do you not actually look at the sales data provided by this very website? Pokémon Gen 8, at minimum, will sell 15 million copies on Switch. PS4 and Xbox One launched in the same year as Pokémon X/Y, and that didn't slow sales of 3DS or the game, so competition is completely irrelevant.

Why are you so fixated on GBA doing better than 3DS? GBA launched at $100 and at the height of the Game Boy line's (and Pokémon's) popularity. 3DS launched at $250, and basically had no compelling games until 8 months after launch, not to mention your previous statement about 3DS having a worse library. The only thing this proves is that Nintendo made a ton of mistakes with 3DS, and despite that, it will still reach 72 million. If anything, your statements would indicate that Switch will sell vastly more than 3DS.

Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Smash Bros.

Nintendo has the most valuable franchises in the entire industry. It's ridiculous to suggest that there will be any sort of shortage of games that will keep the sales baseline high.

They see it as a portable because they're releasing their handheld franchises on it. Mainline Pokémon games aren't released on home consoles. Nintendo marketing it as a "home console on the go" is exactly that: Marketing. By creating this image, Nintendo can get people to accept home console prices for software and the console itself. Clearly, it's working, as the Switch is selling hardware and software much faster than 3DS during its launch period. In reality, Switch is a hybrid, or a successor to both hardware lines.

Well by definition they can't have been doomed if they turned it around.

But things did look very bad.

It's not relevant because as the market goes this gen has surpassed that one in total units sold it's like saying one athlete got to the halfway point faster despite the other crossing the finish line first, it's null and void, if you tak the 15m away from the GBA like you say it falls below the 67m of the 3DS :/. GBA's time was during a monopoly and no mobile, today's era had competition and mobile yet still beat that gen out in total units moved.

Those are some of the titles I've named and along with the first party titles the library will do just that.

Nintendo also said DS is not a GBA successor you know why? Because that's known as PR, did the DS replace the GBA? Yes, you know why? Because PR plays to consumers much like a politician plays to the voter and Nintendo said NX at the time is not a traditional successor to both platforms, Nintendo markets it as a console as part of PR to have console premium prices for a portable device and that's what it comes down to.

Even if sales of 2017 are met in 2018, that's not my whole point.
This year Nintendo had a fresh concept + 4 system sellers. What year, or, how many years will this happen again? 
That's why i said it will be hard to repeat.

Of course that a console's library helps determine HW sales. It's not just a question of how many games, but yes, it's a factor.

It's true that lack of support killed Wii and Kinect earlier, but when you look at how bad Wii like games sold on Wii U, you can't help think that the Wii days were over way before Wii U was on the market.
When people confused brands and still didn't want it, that's a sign.

I think you have taken my comments of GBA's SW totals as a proof of something. I only mentioned it as a comparison to 3DS. That was all.

Yes, Switch is a success so far.
Why is that so weird? Have Nintendo given indication/signs that, in terms of SW, 2018 is going to be as strong as 2017? Or that 2019 will be equally strong, for that matter?
All we know is that there are 3 games confirmed for 2018 and even if FE is a system seller like MK - which i doubt -, that's just one game.
So, why can't i doubt Nintendo's ability to, in the medium and long term, sustain Switch's current momentum?

The "probablies" were only about release dates. Nothing more.

"So which system-selling franchises, exactly, will not be on Switch despite being on 3DS?"
What i said was that you need a continuous flow of system sellers - to keep the momentum.
Also, Nintendo always had system sellers, but that didn't always meant success for Nintendo.

Fixation?
All i pointed out was that 3DS failed to beat GBA. That was it.
I gave a reason why i think 3DS couldn't do it: mobile gaming.

Again, my point about Switch is how can Nintendo, in medium and long term, keep this momentum that was built by a fresh concept + 4 system sellers.
This was a very big year for Switch and what i question is Nintendo's ability to pack the same punch in 2018, 2019, 2020 and beyond.
Of course, there are system selling games coming, but if the release dates means there will be less of them per year, won't that mean less impact? I fear so.

Now i gotta ask, what franchises, or relevant franchises, are Nintendo bringing to Switch that only appeared on handhelds, besides Pokemon?
So, if i look at recent history and look at several franchises that Nintendo brought to handheld like Smash, Pikmin, Hyrule Warriors, Mario Maker, does that mean that Nintendo stopped seeing 3DS as an handheld?

Or is it that games like Pokemon are coming to Switch because Nintendo's plans for the future only seem to include Switch?

So you think it's ok for the 3DS to outsell GBA's 67m by taking more time?
I'm sorry, but we really won't agree on this.
3DS took more time to reach that number... waay more time. Why? As you said: "today's era had competition and mobile " And this was my main point.

3DS taking more years (7, right?) to reach the same numbers that GBA pulled in 4 years, is not a good sign. 
Even if one day 3DS manages to outsell the GBA it will be because it didn't have to compete with 2 new devices like the GBA had in 2005.

Maybe Nintendo marketed DS as a 3rd pillar because if that message resonated with gamers, they would be selling not one but two devices to people.
Which would mean that people would spend more money (on their 2 devices), thus raising revenue/profits.

Yeah because it still reached that number within a reasonable time and in the context of its own gen, lets look at your point here it took longer to get to the mark, so? It still got there anyway and the portable market as a whole still increased over the GBA era during the mobile era this gen, that's an improvement. Fact is taking longer doesn't matter because the 3DS and its gen lasted much longer than the GBA did.

GBA had a monopoly, it was vastly cheap hardware because it wasn't that cutting edge as no one was forcing Nintendo to take risks in the market and the consumers only had one option for portables under these conditions it was bound to sell faster, 3DS on the other hand has had competition that forced better hardware so harder pricing choices to make as well as battle it for consumers and support and the mobile market. GBA didn't compete with any device it was dropped for the DS because as a competitive platform it was weak, the second the PSP was coming it got dropped because it's a device designed for an era that had a monopoly not one where the is competent competition.

Except Nintendo have been selling 2 devices for decades now and you know how that has ended with one device dropping out because supporting more than one platform sucks up too many resources to give both equal support, even Sony couldn't do it, having 2 devices drained revenue via the struggling platform out of the 2 platforms for both companies.

I think you are overthinking  this far too much. Switch is a runaway success right now and that's with it being heavily supply constrained. We don't even know what the actual demand for this thing is, due to all of the major territories selling outof stock almost as soon as it gets them. Notwithstanding whatever Nintendo brings out next year, there is obviously pent up demand for the console and the titles already out for it. Until we actually know the actual demand of the Switch, once Nintendo has met it, then we will have a better idea on the momentum. For now, simply meeting demand will drive momentum.

Of course it matters how long it takes to reach a certain goal, when comparing two consoles.
And when you speal of context and speak about expanding the market, you can't, at the same time, ignore that during GBA's era it was basically one console generation (Wonderswan was only out in Japan, i think) and 3DS' generation there were two consoles on the market.
By default, 3DS' generation would attract more consumers (more diversity).

But let's look at context.
What's ironic is that, despite needing more time to achieve it's 67m figure, 3DS managed to outsell GBA in Japan, by, give or take, 6m (Vita only put up a fight in Japan).
You speak of cheap HW, but with the exception of US (GBA was 99$ here) it was priced at 149 or 14.900 in Europe and Japan, respectively.
3DS, after the price cut, was 170 everywhere (i think).
Not a big difference in price, was there?

Looking beyond the 67m figure - where 3DS sits at - if GBA didn't have to fight DS and PSP we could be talking about how GBA reached the 100m mark instead of 81+m units.
A number that 3DS will/would never reach despite not having competition - excluding Japan.

Not to forget that if 3DS' replacement had come out 4-5 after 3DS launched, like it happened with GBA, it's numbers would have been lower than they are now.

So, no matter hwo you look at it, 3DS performed worse, with the exception of Japan.

I said two consoles, but i was speaking about handhelds, which would mean 3 consoles on the market.
If Nintendo could pull off selling 3 systems to people (and support them well) it would have been great for them as they would increase their revenue and most likely, profits.
We all know that was more of a dream than anything else...

Don't get me wrong, but you are focusing too much on the short term success.
It's true that Switch's current appeal and unmet demand will mean that 2018 will still be very good, but there are still a lot unknowns that can affect the coming years.

For example, we don't know how 3rd party support will be. Not just in terms of quantity, but also in terms of system sellers;
We don't know how many system sellers Nintendo will come up with each year;
Games like Pokemon sell a ton of SW and HW but we shouldn't ignore that the proposition (just looking at 3DS' case) has been 170+50 or, with 2DS, 99+50 for the latest Pokemon game, but with Switch it will be 300+60, in the States and 329+60, in Europe and Japan.
That means 150/220 vs a 360/390 proposition for your usual handheld only consumer. In other words, your mom or dad, to buy the latest Pokemon game with a console, for their kid, will be asked to pay, at least, 140 more.

How will the market react to this proposition?