Nah, it's ok xD Sorry, just yanking your chain! 

Game development takes years in most cases. 90 to 95 percent of the big triple A publishers were guessing the Switch would fail or be a middling success before it blew the doors off the industry last year. It is difficult to change major development that quickly and impossible if the budget isn't be offered. Most Western development is already on locked out at this point save a few so until the next Switch successor it pretty much will only get middle of the road UBI Soft and some Bethesda stuff as their 'major ' software.

Developing a game does take years. But,  adding a new platform to a development cycle doesn't add years to development time. In fact, often time you can just add people to your team to do it, which means it adds nothing to to the development time. It's not nearly as rigid as you're letting it on to be.

Not all, but huge majority, like 90%.

Fact is that every game continue to sell how install base is growing, some better same worse, but they all continue to sell. I don't cherry picking anything, we talked about Sony vs Nintendo games sales, and offcourse we comparing best selling games.

Hardly somes will sell year or two later same like it did compared when its released, but that isnt my point, but games that I mentione will continue to sell very good. For your information in first two quarters of this year, Odyssey sold around 2m (where Switch sold 3.8m), in other two quarters of year it will easily sell at least 2-3m more (probably 3m+ more), so only in this year it will sell 4-5m more at least, while MK8D sold 3m in same time period (first two quarters of this year), Zelda BotW 2.6m and Splatoon 2 sold 1.85m in same time period.

We cant know that, but fact is it would sell less in any case, same like we know that Zelda BotW will have higher selling numbers when Switch install base will be around 40m instead of current 20m (for instance Zelda BotW sold 2.8m first month and now is at 9.3m, at end of this year will probably be somewhere around 12m).

Attach rate has much more sense when you comparing platforms with totally different install basis instead of sales numbers, it simple show of how much some game is selling compared to its install base.

No one arguing that, remember, we talked Sony vs Nintendo games sales.

This dont make any sense, Panic Button is port company and they living from porting games, and you have plenty of port companies, and 3rd party developers higher such a companies to port games for different platforms, Panic Button is just one of them not only one, for instance Virtuous Games is onother company, same like Tantalus, Bluepoint Games...and every port company will make any game for Switch if they are hired and paid for that.

This is the main problem for Nintendo. They release underpowered hardware, and big 3rd party games can't run on it or, they might run but you have to re-work on them, and basicly they would look so much worse, and probably even AI, animations and physics should be re-worked.

It appears Nintendo don't care that much about, as they keep releasing weak hardware; their target is "an original concept", in this case a Home console together with a portable, but the other side of the coin is the very poor support from 3rd party devs/publishers, which will be almost zero when Next Sony and MS consoles will be released, I think 2 years from now.

I think people expect way too strong, that all triple A titles need to be available on Nintendo systems. All initial Wii U ports flopped. Not only because the console didn't sell, but also because those that already care for other franchises usually have their go to platform. They already own a gaming pc, xbox one or playstation 4 and the only advantage and reason to port games onto the Switch and buy it there is it's mobile capabillity. In return we see franchises on a Nintendo system, we haven't seen before. Both Sword Art Online games, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Doom, Wolfenstein, Dark Souls, South Park rpgs, Skyrim and we see pretty popular or important ports like Paladins, Rocket League, Arena of Valor, Warframe or Fortnite for the system and we even receive ports like Starlink or Doom Eternal for Switch.

The other perspective is pretty simple. By the time the console launched even all japanese devs had pretty low expectations for the system. That has changed and now all major jp companies work on many titles for the system. Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Konami, Capcom, Sega or Atlus for instance. Western publishers are a lot slower, but the work, that is necessary for porting games like Monster Hunter World, DmC5, Darksiders 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, Resident Evil 7, Final Fantasy XV, Tomb Raider, Assassins Creed Odyssey etc. isn't always worth it. For those games cloud gaming will be the solution on Switch, which is a problem because it actually kills the portabillity aspect.

I fall in the second group. Just look at Ubisoft. They did it. They try to cater to the audience. It doesn't always work out, but it does sometimes. Just Dance was created by Ubisoft for the Wii audience. And it worked out big time, it was a really big franchise. Only that Nintendo themself was playing at the next garden and gave up on motion gaming eroded the userbase for Just Dance over time.

Switch has a much more classical userbase, but not one that is after the last graphical things (obviously). So games that sell over technical feats - mostly action games and FPS - do sell badly on Switch. That's why it is mind-boggling that Bethesda tries themself at shooters on Switch so much. Doom and Wolfenstein do sell badly on Switch, but Bethesda is unphased. I think a manger is fan of Switch. Or Bethesda wants to be the one company that sells games to the Switch audience. That might work out.

But Switch has a userbase for Platformers, Metroidvanias, Brawlers, RPGs and adventures. Therefore pretty much everything in that categories is ported to Switch and sells great. Only this forum mostly cares about shooters and action-games. Therefore it seems Switch has bad 3rd-party support, while it actually gets pretty decent support, only in different genres.

Yeah, besides that AssCreed is Ubi not EA. Just wanted to say.

Yeah, we have also to realize, that the userbase of Switch is different than the userbase of PS4/XB1 (which are pretty similar). Shooters and action games will never sell well on Switch. So COD, Battlefield, GTA, RDR, Farcry, AssCreed and so on are pretty unlikely ports. Sales of Doom and Wolfenstein show a bad ratio of sales, compared to other multiplatform titles.

But other genres do sell well. Square didn't decide to port pretty much all Final Fantasy because they suddenly all chummy with Nintendo, they decided that because they saw how RPGs sold on Switch and saw a chance for easy money. I started my gaming career with LucasArts point and click adventures and for years after the demise of LucasArts it seemed like the genre was dead. But recently there was a renaisance - and all important titles (Darkside Detective, Broken Age, Thimbleweed Park, Broken Sword, Harvey and Edna, Inner World) are on Switch and a bunch of less known titles are too. That's not because they all love the Switch, it is because these games sell. Platformers did well even on WiiU, for games like Sonic Mania and Forces the Switch version nearly outsells the other platforms combined. Namco and Capcom didn't decided on a whim to port Dragon Ball Z, Street Fighter Anniversary or My Heroes One Justice, they saw how well fighters did on Switch and were going after the money.

If this forum decides only Shooters and action games count, then the Switch will never get 3rd party support. But the gaming world is so much bigger than these two genres, and the Switch already covers these bases.

I dont see an issue with the lack of ports, its not like the Switch has nothing to play. Theres a mountain load of games. If ports come its a bonus.