The difference is momentum. At this point in Wii U's lifecycle, everyone was jumping ship. Switch is seeing steadily increasing third party support including the beginnings of AAA support like Bethesda.

I'd also dare say the third party support for Switch is more "appropriate". Bomberman and Minecraft make more sense on a Nintendo console than Mass Effect and Darksiders...just as a random sample.

A table to compare and contrast the two.

So what does this mean and how does it pertain to the OP?

The two systems launched with wholly opposite perceptions and realities. WiiU had everything going for it prior to launch. Before its showing and mediocre reaction at game shows just before launch, you had "unparalleled" support from 3rd parties. The success of Wii and power more aligned with PS360 lowered the risk 3rd parties used to evaluate early support. Of course all that fell through as the core concept of WiiU just didn't spark interest. Notable 3rd parties like EA saw this coming and abruptly changed their support in the six months before launch to only put out meh ports at best. 

Switch had as much pessimism as you can get leading up to launch. Nintendo didn't unveil the system until 6 months before launch. 3rd parties could not even get a hint of consumer interest until then. What they did know was that it would be an architecture closer to the competition but up to 1/2 the raw power. Imagine you are the CEO of these companies looking at the dismal WiiU and completely different take on Switch (which shared some core ideas of WiiU). Would you green light the funding to expand the scope of an in-process game to support Switch? I wouldn't.

This is why there is a difference in the number of games at launch. 3rd parties were cautious to begin with and then combining that with where they were with games already in development, it made more sense to only choose the potentially simpliest / low risk games to put the unplanned effort towards. That is why EA is giving FIFA and not Madden, etc.

Rol pushed this idea to me back at launch when I was expecting more titles for Q4. He was right. 2017 is just too late of a time frame for Switch when 3rd parties only really had dev kits in October 2016 and no one know the reception Switch would see until March 2017. 

Taking this reality into context you get a sense that Switch has a fantastic 2017 list of 3rd party games. They cover the gambit of genres and Nintendo themselves of course put out a lot of great games. 2018 will be a normalizing of support between Switch and its competition. We'll see all of the normal yearly games plus a good cross-section of the AAA stuff now that nearly every 3rd party will have built a Switch game in their dev tools.

It's not amazing, but it's a start. Its certainly looking better than Wii U, but people need to stop jumping up and declaring the problem fixed when 90% of the biggest third party titles are still a no show.

Every third party game that was released on Wii U retailed for 60 dollars as opposed to the 20 dollars that Ps3/360 offered. Those games released so late in their life cycle that there was no point in picking them up. I remember mass effect 3 being 60 dollars, but you could pick up the released mass effect collection which had came out relatively close to that time for 60. So it was like why pay 60 for a third game in a trilogy, when you could just pay 60 for the entire trilogy.

I'm talking about legit reasons to be upset. Your bringing in pointless fanboys war reasons. A game being 720p or 900p means nothing to 95% of gamers. Mass Effect 3 costing $60 and releasing when Mass Effect trilogy is released on other consoles also costin gthe same does mean something to gamers. Why the F woudl I buy 1 game when I can get all 3 for same price?

I will give you 2k18, cause I have heard peopel upset about that. But the rest are pitiful quoting that whatever site that does its fps/specs test. digital foundry or something. WHo gives a shit. I hear all teh time online what games have what fps or resolution. If I went home right now and grabbed all of my games, I could not tell you what game has what resolution or fps. I only know those numbers when reading forums online. They mean nothing to me when i'm actually gaming. As they mean nothing to most all gamers. Only thing gamers notice is when there is game breaking bugs or glitchy bugs like in AC Unity or whatever the AC game was that was a horrible release.

Well ain't this post about hypocritical? Clearly Ultra Street Fighter II costing 40 while it is as low as 10 on competing consoles must mean something to gamers, right? Why buy it on Switch for 2 to 4 times as much as on another console? See, same issue, different console.

You do not have to, "give" me anything. Everything I listed is truthful and legitimate. Gamers cared about resolution and frame rate for... ever... I mean Sony vs. Microsoft is the same. However, I think you are missing the point. The point here is the THE EXACT SAME ISSUES FROM WII U HAVE RETURNED! Nothing is new here. These are the same issues that were present in Wii U and they are not going anywhere. The only difference is how the general gaming public feels about it. My list is absolutely fair. I notice that instead of saying, "hey, these are untruthful" you tried to pull the, "who cares" card instead using your personal opinion as evidence. This is not even about who cares. This is not about your personal opinion or experiences. This is about if third party support is actually better or not. Stay topical.

I mean, Fifa 18 is basically Fifa 13 on Wii U all over again. Different, almost last gen engine, lacking modes, lesser online experience... literally, I could be talking about either game and you would not know the difference until I told you which game specifically I was talking about. You have to do better than that.

Not gonna argue with a graphics whore. Goodbye.

So Wolfeinstein 2? 

Oh wait, is the excuse for that one going to be it's a few months off? 

As far as third party goes, you simply can't win with the Switch, in it's first year at least. There will always be something to complain about. It's not like Sony could do any better either, as the Vita has shown. It's simply hard to convince Western third party to support a handheld system. Though it does suck Capcom and Square are taking ages