Firstly, there was 3rd party support when it launched. Secondly, see the double standards: first you say Wii U failed because of the lack of third party support, but the huge 3rd party support Wii had, you diss completely. Every argument you're making there is proven false by history.

Like Einstein said: insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results.

no love for Mario Kart 8 deluxe? 

Lack of third-party support was a major reason WiiU failed; the games that most gamers wanted were not on the system. The Wii, as any gamer knows, succeeded on the merit of its novel motion controls, not its power or third-party support. GTA, for instance, was not on the Wii in any form. That is relatively insane and is a prime example of why Wii's biggest hits were first-party games. That's all part of my singular argument.

History is also on my side here; the top 17 best-selling games on the Wii are all first-party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#Wii

Why does that prove my point? The 2 best-selling CoDs were on Wii and they don't crack that list, despite selling enough more than all but the top 5 Wii games. The aforementioned GTAs (IV, SD, and V) would have checked in as top 2, 6, and 6. There's the real history: no support, limited support, or withdrawn support, due to technical limitations. 

So, are you now trying to say 3rd support don't matter, or what? If the third parties did not matter on Wii, why should they matter on Switch? Wii U failed because of the lack of third party support, when it in fact had much better 3rd party support at this point of time relative to release than Switch has, or Wii had. 

I don't know a single person, gamer or otherwise (despite you arguing gamers buying the Wii for it's controls) buying Wii for it's controls. And by looking at that pretty insane number of game sales on Wii, game sales support my side.

I have the Wii U and generally enjoy Nintendo's systems (though not as much as Sony's), but am thinking of waiting for a while on the Switch for two basic reasons:

My secondary reason is the price tag. The announced launch lineup is too anemic to justify spending $300 for me. I'll want to wait until the systems has more games and/or a lower price. That's my secondary reason.

My main reason for waiting is that I'm mad at Nintendo for booting Samus Aran from the Metroid franchise (as a playable character, I mean). The original Metroid happens to have been the first video game I fell in love with and it wouldn't have been as special to me without Samus, so Metroid Prime: Federation Force is pretty much blasphemy in my mind; blasphemy for which I aim to punish the big N in my own little way by refusing them my money for a year or so. It will just make me feel better to do so.

I think they should've left Samus out of Other M, so we could just call Other M a shitty spinoff. What's good with leaving Samus out of Federation Force is, that now we can just call Federation Force a shitty spinoff. Always think of the bright side of life.

Uh, the third-party support for the Wii was A) limited or B) nonexistent. That was already proven. The Wii was not a true next-gen console, in terms of performance. The exact same was true of the WiiU. That was already proven. The Wii used novel controls to sell to EVERYONE, hence all the grandmas and grandpas who ended up with a Wii. Gamers know this; we all know this. Some call it a design novelty; others call it a gimmick. Some call it clever; others call it a fluke. Nearly everyone on this forum agrees and is well aware that it was an aberration. This is regularly being proven.

The Switch has a novel design element (or "gimmick:" your choice), like the Wii and the WiiU. It's success hinges on the market's receptiveness to this novelty, which I've had to say here again and again and again and again. If it does not, it will be left to lean on mainstream gamers: the gamers who primarily buy multiplatform games. The pricepoint is too high to be an incentive. The performance capabilities are too low to be an incentive. Unless you missed the WiiU, PS3, PS4, X360, and X1 i.e. the last decade of gaming, you know that first-party support isn't driving console sales (like the Wii). It's third-party support or innovation.

You just make no sense. There's no cohesion in your posts. Either it matters or doesn't matter, but according to you, 3rd party support matters only when it fits your argument. Wii had something like 1500 games, I wouldn't go on to call that nonexistent. 

Obviously the EVERYONE was buying games, so one might think the console was bought to play games. So, if Wii had a gimmick and Switch has a gimmick to sell it, why would the third party support matter? 

Why would anyone buy games for the sake of them being multiplatform games? I don't get it. I do know, however, lots of people that buy games they like, no matter if they are multiplatform or exclusive.

The last decade of gaming had first party sales driving the sales of Wii, so maybe it was you and not me who missed the last decade of gaming. 

All you've done is conflate points that were painstakingly parsed out to prove (Emphasis on "prove.") a point you completely missed.

Ok. So go ahead and prove your point. I'm waiting. You've made some claims and I've been waiting for you to prove them for a while already. 

Cherrypicking facts and being in denial about everything that doesn't fit your argument is not a proof of anything. Even if we could accept your view (about the importance of third parties) being an acceptable explanation, you go on to make a 180 degree turn and say that the third parties didn't matter after all. We can't have a situation where at the same time having 3rd party support is bad thing and not having third party support is a bad thing; it is not logical argument.

No, you can't go on to say "X" was bought because of the controls, when the game sales on the system were huge, that, by itself, prove otherwise. Or, you can't go on to say 1st party games don't sell, when we have a console to prove otherwise. No, and saying it is innovation that sold "X", when X's successor "Y" did not sell despite it innovating.