Why would devs back another underpowered Nintendo console?

[StuOhQ]

rjason12 said:
A lot of you are sliding right past the part where besthesda (a company who has never released anything on any current Nintendo console because of specs) talked great about the Switch, and said prior to the reveal that they would not work on it AT ALL if it's specs weren't good enough. Regardless of it being a port, they still have shown more support for the Switch than any prior Nintendo console.

I think this is being overlooked by many. Unless there are some lucrative deals going on behind the scenes, something doesn't add up. Maybe our rumors are just that... Maybe Nintendo finally started playing ball (aka paying for games like Sony and Microsoft do). 

Soundwave said:

1) Using a mascot/cartoon character or established Nintendo IP

2) Wasn't a casual/dance/party game

Capcom made a huge risk on the GameCube for example giving it Resident Evil exclusively (at the time their top franchise and probably the no.2 or 3 third party franchise in the world) ... and even that early sales for RE Remake and RE0 were below Capcom's expectations. 

"Resident Evil 4" did pretty well, though. Also, good point on including Nintendo IP in third party games. "Soulcalibur 2" sold best on GCN because of Link. "Hyrule Warriors" marked a sucessful uptick in DW sales due to their Nintendo tie-in. 

As Nintendo fans, we have to own some of the responsibility for third party retreat. The rest belongs to Nintendo for not being accommodating, and 3rd parties for mostly shoveling inferior ports at higher prices our way... there is an expectation of quality that Nintendo fans hold that 3rd parties don't deliver as consistently as Nintendo, and when said inferior versions of games are brought to our console of choice, they often want to charge full price for a game that is now $20 on other consoles.