Actually the data says, that most third-parties sell better on Switch than on XB1. That is, if they are released. If you include games not released on Switch, you are right. But what you are saying is basically: unreleased games don't sell. Well, yes Captain Obvious. But released games do well on Switch, depending on genre.
The caveats of all caveats... for selected games that are released on Switch they sell better than on X1, some even sell better than on PS4 even with 25% of the userbase... but we know that technical limitations aren't the sole reason for all the others not even launching on a Nintendo platform (since until Wii their consoles were on par or superior to playstation competitor on purely computacional power).
So considering how many people have choose not to go Nintendo since N64 versus the ones that choose it (not even disregarding the ones that had it as secondary platform) then it's pretty clear that there are more people that wouldn't choose a Switch as main platform than the opposite. And that should be the point of the OP, because the way it is done any console can be primary.
Yeah. I don't think anyone does say it that clearly, but many are insinuating it or insinuating something along the lines. Ask yourself this: was at any time the need for PS-fans to explain why the Vita was a sound gaming device because of attacks of Nintendo fans declaring the device as unusable for a 'real gamer'? I mean, the Vita was attacked for expensive memory cards and lackluster sales, but never was insinuated the only one buying a Vita are mindless Sony-drones.
Now compare to Switch. How many times did you hear 'Only the Nintendo hardcore will buy it'? Or 'Only kids'? Switch-fans have to explain that this is a real and usable gaming device you can have fun with. This is the difference I assume lead to the creation of the thread.
Don't be disengeneous, if PS3 and PS4 well after 3 years in the market had people saying it doesn't have games why do you think no one would say it of VITA, the difference was that much less people were willing to defend Vita than WiiU or Switch.
And no-one that isn't a Nintendo fan would have Switch as their main console, because if they aren't a Nintendo fan or Nintendo gamer they either like 3rd parties more or preffer exclusives that aren't from Nintendo. So the only reason for someone to be Switch main (when OP removes portability) is that the person prefer Nintendo exclusives, so his point is circular and pointless.
Well, the thing here is 'big third party games' is kind up to definition. If you only consider games in genres you like, sure, you're right. But look outside, and the image changes. For instance, if you're a fan of classic adventures, most consoles are boring. PC is great. But in the console space the Switch is close to that.
First of all we should replace big third-party with big game. Because it really doesn't matter if a game is first or third-party. It is usually done to detract from Nintendo consoles, only because the other manufacturers aren't even close in producing great games. Then usually on this site PC-centric or mobile-centric games are excluded. Civilization or Hearthstone are big games, but are usually ignored by the community on this site.
So we are: you miss most content of big games of companies excluding the one that makes many great games for Nintendo consoles, and in the genres I like, and that are mostly console-centric, then Switch is missing out. A true scotsmen.
Yeah. So depending on tastes a PS4 can never be the primary console for some.
Also, big games everyone is talking about outside gaming media.... does not include Pokemon, Smash, SMO and Breath of the Wild?
And why single out RPGs with two points? Why not singling out Platformers... oh. Well then Metroidvanias... oh. OK, but what with adventures... oh.
So removing portability and prefering the IP of one company over another where would Switch outdo PS4 so it wouldn't be able to be a primary console for some but Switch would. Which genres Switch have much better than PS4 or X1, and that exceed the genres the other two win...
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"