What are you getting on with? The cost of the hardware itself is not directly related to the cost needed to develop that hardware. By your logic the PS4 Pro cost just as much R&D to develop it as it did the original PS4 because they both have the same price tag. This is of course ridiculous.

Nintendo spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing the technology in the switch, refining it, getting them mass produced etc. Then there's the cost that goes into the hardware itself, the cost that goes into developing the games, the amiibo etc. That means that for this whole Project NX, Nintendo currently sits at negative say, 350 million for the cost of the development, and manufacturing the release consoles, the games, the controllers accessories etc.

Nintendo isn't going to make that 350 million back on launch day. It's going to take them years to chip away at that cost while investing in other games, hardware revisions, firmware updates, etc that are also adding to the cost of the Switch's development and maintenance.

No, you tell me. You obviously have some sort of "business model" in mind you think Nintendo is currently using, and another "business model" you think they should be using instead. I mean, we need to know what are the costs associated and how would the cost structure change if Nintendo would go 3rd party? How and where would the profit come from? What are Nintendo's strategic goals? What they should be on your business model? How would your business model be better to accomplish these goals? What timeframe goals ate we talking about? What is the risk vs. reward? 

Unless point out the above, you could as well suggest Nintendo to bank on a leprechaun to appear and use his magic to make Nintendo the only company to control the global trade.

15 is a good quantity because the gamer base is PC,PS4,XBOX,Mobile,Nintendo

some companies would kill for that  15%

Like i said from software hardware is just icing on the cake.

One Mario kart 8 sold

8 mil * 59 =over 450 mil revenue

Nintendo's business model largely focuses on IP sales, mostly through software, but also through merchandise. Hardware is sold on a "per need" basis, therefore very little profit to be made from it. These will barely change in a 3rd party transition, the only difference will be the removal of the barely profitable hardware division to focus greater on where the profits are actually made, IP.

As I'm going to mention again, a platform with 5 times the userbase has a very fair chance of doubling the software sales. This will also in turn boost mechandise sales. Considering the majority of the profits already reside there, it would not take as much increase in software and merchandise to recoup the losses made from hardware.

So you vs 15% of the user base.  

Actually if you include mobile and PC, the share becomes significantly lower.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Nintendo's business model largely focuses on IP sales, mostly through software, but also through merchandise. Hardware is sold on a "per need" basis, therefore very little profit to be made from it. These will barely change in a 3rd party transition, the only difference will be the removal of the barely profitable hardware division to focus greater on where the profits are actually made, IP.

As I'm going to mention again, a platform with 5 times the userbase has a very fair chance of doubling the software sales. This will also in turn boost mechandise sales. Considering the majority of the profits already reside there, it would not take as much increase in software and merchandise to recoup the losses made from hardware.

No, and this is why a lot of you cannot understand this. You have an "us vs them" mentality that isn't healthy, ESPECIALLY in sales and marketing. 

The fact is that other systems have 5 times the userbase. That's 5 times the amount of potential customers, ones that would happily buy one or two titles, but not an entire console just for those two.

Sold at retail? Taking out the tax and retail cut, you're closer to a half. That would be Nintendo's cut.