Well that's kind of the responsibility of being a hardware manufacturer, there is some expected diversity in the library that people want. 

I think even just sports games, have EA make one engine for Madden/FIFA on Switch and update it yearly ... wouldn't be bad. Let them have a bonus Mario mode with more cartoony characters as well. 

Porting games using middleware is easier than most think and raw power isn't the most important bit of information. Its the support of tech/architecture which we already know exists for NS that did not exist for WiiU.

I'm still betting we'll be pleasantly surprised in January and as the year progresses. Yearly and common titles will be there. Its the big one-offs that may or may not show up. Example, I don't think the likes of RDR2 will show up.

Wii U wasn't even *that* poorly supported at the start. 

Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Batman, Need For Speed, FIFA, Madden NFL, Deus Ex, NBA 2K, Rayman, Zombi U ... if anything Japanese developers didn't step up, just basically Tekken and a Monster Hunter port from the 3DS. 

These games didn't sell though, and I hate to say it, but it'll probably be the same story on Switch. People bitched and moaned about a lot of the those games have just very superficial differences like a moderate difference in frame rate .... Switch ports of anything from PS4/XB1 are going to be far more compromised. 

Nintendo fans don't buy these games, that's kinda the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about either. They're happy just buying Mario/Pokemon/Zelda/DK etc. etc. Even Nintendo has problems selling quality games like Bayonetta and Xenoblade in any real large numbers. 

Nintendo allowed too many of the consumers from its fanbase that would buy a wider variety of content to leave to Sony/MS' a long time ago. 

When I was growing up as hard as it seems to believe now, "Nintendo" meant the widest variety of games. I remember in fact specifically when going to the store to get the NES, my friends telling me to make sure I got "the Nintendo" and not the Sega Master System because it didn't have a wide enough variety of games (even though they admitted some of the games the Sega had were pretty good). Even through the N64 generation, games like GoldenEye, Turok, South Park 64, NFL Quarterback Club, NBA Courtside, Ken Griffey Jr. MLB, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron etc. had solid sales. Nintendo's software ecosystem used to be much more diverse than today, but those days are pretty much over. 

Agreed, this must be why they still give Nintendo consoles a chance, to test the waters incase Nintendo somehow gets the audience that buys third party games.

Of course they should strive to have a diverse library (which doesn't mean you have to have every single type of game), and they can do that without potentially wasting money.

Any game is always good, but to avoid disappointment I would not expect any western third party, not even the yearly sports games. 

I think they need to put their foot down on the yearly sports games. Sports, whether people like them or not, are a global staple even for kids. When EA initially declined to support the N64 because of cartridges Howard Lincoln flew to their HQ and after a meeting, they had agreed to supply the N64 with sports games (and eventually made other types of games too like 007: The World Is Not Enough and Beetle Adventure Racing which is great). 

Sadly, current Nintendo doesn't have this type of leadership. 

So wait, if you acknowledge that third party games don't sell on Nintendo, why are you teling me you want Nintendo to pay for third party games? =/

I'm saying if they are a hardware maker they have some minimum responsibility to ensure there some variety of content in the most basic areas, whether they like it or not, and yes even if it sells big or not. 

If they can't invest into their own platform, how can they ever expect a developer or consumer to. Besides, really what would be the cost for Nintendo paying for yearly updates to sports games? Like peanuts? You update the rosters, add a few new features, it's not rocket science. 

One card that might play in Nintendo's favor is a Switch version could be ported to Android/iOS (and devices like Nvidia Shield) likely fairly easily.

So in making say Skyrim or Dark Souls III for Switch, it means that game can likely end up on Android/iOS without a ton of gruntwork.

They can offer plenty of variety within what people buy their systems for, Nintendo games. Wasting money on third party games that will be bought and played elsewhere does them no favors, and they'd likely have to cover the whole cost of the game since it wouldn't exist on Nintendo otherwise.

The answer is simple. They feel like the Switch is a winner. While it may not be all that powerful, it can still run all the modern game engines that developers like. Games that work on Xbox One and PS4 today can still work on the Switch and it will be a good investment for third parties for at least two or three more years. Then there's the portability aspect of the Switch. A lot of people will be buying it just for that.

The problem with Wii U is that Nintendo wasn't quite sure how to market the thing. Third parties were as equally confused. Also, even though Wii U could play everything PS3 and Xbox 360 could play, the timing for the system's release was bad. Had it been released in 2011, that would have meant that third parties would have a little more until their games started running into roadblocks. Had Nintendo held off until 2013, they might have been able to put powerful hardware in the Wii U at a lower cost.