Well, actions speak louder than words and the actions of third parties speak loud and clear that they're not particularly enthusiastic about supporting Nintendo hardware. If they wouldn't support the base Switch in 2017, why would they support a Pro revision with an install base starting from zero in 2020?
The GameCube and Wii U (when it was market relevant) did get OK third party support. The people who are going to always look at the PS4/XB1 and ask "well OK, yeah we got this one game, but what about this other one" are never going to be happy anyway. Switch is something I bet a lot of devs like and it has 3rd party positive demographics (ie: it's not being sold on the back of casuals).
The chipset is the only big bottleneck from *some* (not all, but some) third party games being on it. The Square-Enix president for example said he'd like every game on the Switch, it's a technical issue where the game has to be compromised too much or it would be too costly/resource intensive, but you remove that barrier and things change for some devs.
And that's fine. Inevitably yes there will be some person crying on a message board that Switch Pro got Call of Duty but doesn't have Battlefield and EA are mean and that equals bad third party support because PS4/XB1 have Battlefield. Who cares.
Because of the portable nature of the Switch it changes a lot of things too. A lot of people thumbed their nose at Wii U 3rd party ports because some of them weren't day and date with the PS3/360, but on Switch would anyone look down at say Witcher 3 coming out on it today? No. Because you can't play it on the go, on the Wii U plenty of perfectly good, enjoyable games got a "dur hur third parties suck, this is 2 months too late!" nonsense labelled on them.Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2018