There are fundamental errors here:

1. There isn't much room for improvement in Europe at this point in time because worldwide supply for Switch has yet to be sorted out. A price cut or bundles in Europe would rise the demand, but Nintendo wouldn't be able to satisfy it because Switch production isn't at a high enough level. This is the same reason why Nintendo didn't offer any Black Friday deals for Switch in 2017.

2. VGC numbers are in the correct ballpark for what Nintendo defines as Others in their financial reports, but VGC is off in the split that they apply to Europe and Rest of the World. VGC uses a 67%/33% split for Switch which falls in line with PS4 and XB1, but it doesn't make sense for Nintendo's console because Switch hasn't been officially available in many countries, and where it has been available, the prices are even worse in relation to the USA and Japan than they are in Europe. If a more realistic split were applied to VGC's numbers throughout the entirety of 2017, Europe wouldn't look like a troublesome region for Nintendo.

There isn't much data we get from GfK, but the weekly software charts for the UK - which is the major European country where Nintendo does proportionally the worst - have had Zelda and Mario Kart consistently in the top 20 even during the blockbuster season of the PS4 and XB1, two consoles that command a clear advantage in installed base over Switch. If old Switch games remain competitive in the software charts, there's only one conclusion that can be drawn from it: The hardware is selling at the very least above a level that could be described as worrisome, so Switch is doing fine all things considered. Not as great as in Japan and the USA, but there are several nuances between great sales and bad sales. And if Switch is doing fine in the UK, it's a given that it's doing fine in France, Germany, Spain and Italy as well.

3. fatslob still doesn't grasp that Switch performing similarly in the year 2017 as the 3DS did in 2011 constitutes a major advantage for Switch. The 3DS needed an €80 price cut to reach an acceptable level of sales while Switch didn't need it. It's also self-explanatory that a price of €330 leaves a lot more price tiers to spur future sales than a price of €170. In other words, after year 1 the 3DS was already at a point where future price cuts weren't going to have much of an impact anymore. When it comes to lifetime sales in Europe, Switch is set up to perform comfortably better than the 3DS.

True, it's just a feeling on my part

When is the NPD due btw?

you can say the same thing for DS, despite having 2 holiday periods, and being much cheaper then 3ds. 3ds actually sold more it's first year, but look how that turned out. I expect similar results with switch, because the first year it will be very front loaded because its nintendo, next handheld and console. 

3DS was front loaded? Ummmmm okay

its' first year was its best year shipments wise, second year flat, third year down, fourth year it fell hard. 3ds had an amazing first year, just because it got a price cut doesn't mean much. DS got a price cut as well, 6 months after launch, and went on to do 155 million.

its' first year was its best year shipments wise, second year flat, third year down, fourth year it fell hard. 3ds had an amazing first year, just because it got a price cut doesn't mean much. DS got a price cut as well, 6 months after launch, and went on to do 155 million.

DS did not get a price cut in 6 months. Also are you really comparing a $20 price cut to an $80 price cut?

of course it can be compared considering ds was 149.99$, it went down to 129.99$, thats a good heal cheaper then 169.99, 3ds was over priced for such low end hardware.

I really dont get what point you are trying to make here.

Going from $250 to $170 will cause a greater boost than going from $150 to $130.

it depends how much people want the product. 250 was just too expensive for 3ds, 199$ should have been the launch price, its still more likely people will buy the 130$ handheld then 170$ handheld.