Nah. I think you should simply adopt an other console brand, and let other people enjoy the Switch and Nintendo's games. No reason for Nintendo to go third party when they're still a profitable company despite the Wii U's blunder.

Keep in mind that not everyone has the income to afford both. This is what the topic is about...potential sales base, not whether it's buyable or what.

I'll tell a little anecdote here. It actually involves meeting an old firend I used to play SNES and N64 with as a teen. She was a mad Nintendo fan too. It was last December. She was looking to buy a first console for her kids and went with a PS4. Of course this shocked me a little, but I was also intrigued. I did bring up the past, about how we were big on Nintendo back then. I asked why the decision. Her response was something I never took into account....Nintendo's existing library barely depreciates in value, and she can't afford the games, even if they're years old.

I saw her point, as at the very same store, we checked out 3 titles around $20 on the Xbox one (which helped in my decision to get one), whereas Nintendo's cheapest title was Twilight Princess....in 2016...for the Wii...for AU$50. Even the remake on the WiiU was only AU$20 more!

That's where I realised that people struggling on low incomes actually DO get turned away by Nintendo's offerings due to the high software price.

I'm going to say tat agree with your bullet points, but I didn't read everything.
And I don't agree that Nintendo should go third party, but good points dude

then good night because this will never happen

If I had a dollar for every time I heard something like that in the last 10 years....

I don't think Nintendo does even consider such a move. Either they will continue to make money with their own consoles or they will look for a completely new market and just quit gaming as we know it altogether. Nintendo games will never come to PlayStation or Xbox, deal with it.

I wish someone could tell me where this sense of entitlement comes from... Because something doesn't fit an agenda it should cease to exist in its normal state, really! Guess what nothing currently has enticed me to buy a PS4, but I don't hope and wish for Sony to go 3rd party to play Uncharted...

It just means that what's available on their system currently doesn't interest me but that could change in the future. So in Nintendo's case if people find the price of entry for the Switch to steep then it's just not that compelling enough of a device for you. Why should they go 3rd party because of that? I bet there are many people here making very similar comments as the OP and they themselves rushed out willingly to buy the PSVR and or Vita at launch with no sweat.

Those people should be the first to get out of threads like these because it's hypocritical to even have an opinion on this. Reason why I say this is because asking for a company to go 3rd party is just a passive/agressive way to say that you really like their games but just don't want to buy their hardware for some reason. But if any person in this thread went out and purchased those other 2 Sony systems I mentioned, then you have no problem putting down cash on something that will and has been poorly supported with software from the manufacturer.

Many early fears existed that the Switch might be some overpriced toy from Nintendo again, but everyone that has laid their hands on this device just rave about how high quality it really is. So the real question is do people think this device is to expensive because it has Nintendo's name attached to it? Or would we be seeing very different responses if it were a Sony, Apple or Samsung product?...

The DS was not an "anomaly", it was the result of an expanding market for portables at the time. The fact that the 3DS is selling on par rates with the GBA (which I could argue had a much shorter lifespan for similar numbers) is alarming to say the least. Why did this happen? Try to guess what happened in the years between say....2008 and now...

The Squaresoft comparison is VERY equivalent. If a company is backed into a corner, and realises that their projects cannot make money on one platform, they WILL move. Nintendo itself has stockholders, who grow increasingly insistent on Nintendo turning 3rd party. Why else would they even ENTERTAIN the notion of Pokemon Go? 

See my reply above

If the Switch doesn't work out, they will probably go 3rd party.

But I'm glad Nintendo is putting its focus on one device, versus a portable and handheld. If you think its too expensive, wait for price cuts and a bundled game.

Same price, over 4 years later, with very similar specs. If hybrid is the only thing it's gained for the same price, what's the point? You do see why many will find that unappealing, right (especially 3rd party devs)?

The 3DS was sold at a loss after its first price cut, which was made in response to sluggish sales when it was full price. Tell me again how plugging this device into your TV will make consumers forget all about those costs...

Yes, because predictions are made WITH THE CURRENT POSSIBLE INFORMATION AT THE TIME. Nintendo might find another 2-8 hours in the battery, but what are the chances of that, after announcing the current numbers? If anything, giving underrepresented figures would be a marketing mistake, and I know that they know better than that. You should too...Same goes with the 3rd party list. They'd have added them if they had more.

They really don't make as much profit on hardware as you think. The fact that they make ANY profit on it is good. Amiibo sales helped, but they're slowly dwindling.

It's actually very safe to assume that there will be increased sales of software by going 3rd party. Why? Because like it or not, the majority of consumers don't like to buy hardware to get the offerings of one company. These are potential customers that Nintendo never gets, and the more 3rd parties that shun Nintendo, the more people will follow them to the source of lots more developers. Diminished user base for Nintendo platform, rinse repeat. Even people who have no interest in buying a Nintendo game can be persuaded through advertising easier if it was on their system and not another system. EVERY person in a console userbase is a potential customer.

Your assumptions are just as ridiculous, but let me back mine up with some logic. As it stands now, The WiiU has 15% of the console market. Assuming that EVERY Nintendo console owner owns another system (that's worst case scenario), that's 70% of the market, totally untapped. Compared to the WiiU, that's almost 5 times the userbase. It's not outrageous to assume that Nintendo could achieve at least TWICE the sales on a market 5 times as big, and if they do, that's more than their software expense incurred. Why? Because license costs don't take 50%. I know this for a fact. This does NOT take into account the reduced costs from working with the x64 architecture over PowerPC (there's a reason why Sony and Microsoft went with it), as well as access to every major gaming engine (I know that Nintendo roll their own, but it's still a potential cost saving in some areas). Hardware is very negligible, as the majority of Nintendo's bread and butter comes from software, so a very small increase in software would more than account for the loss in hardware. Objections?

Did you even read the OP? Did you even read any of my replies? Sega were in dire straits when they went 3rd party. Their talent had already jumped ship and the company was near broke. Once again...THIS IS WHY NINTENDO SHOULD ACT NOW, WHILE THEY HAVE MONEY AND NOT LATER!