i dont think it needs to sell under expectations for them to do it, Nintendo is known for releasing many revisions over a systems life.

I see a lot posters here, and especially on N4G trying to draw parallels between the Wii U and the Switch. Both are significantly less powerful than their "competitors," and both are lacking in major AAA third party support largely due to those specs. They're also looking similar due to the limited first and third party support in the early months. The fact remains, however, that the Switch is not a Wii U. Actually, it isn't even a console, really. It's a hybrid, which is its greatest strength over the Wii U in terms of software support, sales potential, and dedication from Nintendo themselves.

Firstly, we need to look at the Wii U and 3DS. They both struggled early on, but the way Nintendo handled their failures was dramatically different. The 3DS launched with a boring, expensive gimmick that failed to excite consumers, a poor game lineup, and a confusing name to boot! When the 3DS failed to set the world on fire, Nintendo didn't even wait 6 months before cutting a whopping $80 off the price. This unprecedented price cut was followed up by a strong devotion of development and marketing resources to righting the sinking ship. Fast-forward nearly 6 years and, while clearly down from the DS, I think that most of us can agree that the 3DS has been a success.

The Wii U ended up in a similar situation. It also launched with an expensive gimmick, disappointing software support, and a confusing name! When disaster came knocking, Nintendo put out a Direct in February 2014 where they announced a great deal of upcoming titles, but it failed to have any meaningful effect on sales. In the months and years following, they pretty much just coasted by on the games that they had announced at that February Direct, with a few more small titles and HD ports to tide things over. The Wii U never saw a true price cut, nor did it see a significant software push from Nintendo. In fact, they took no significant action to jumpstart Wii U sales at all! Why? Because consoles are not a vitally necessary part of Nintendo's business.

Nintendo handhelds sell better than their consoles. This has been a constant dating all the way back to the GB/C, but is even more true today. Even during Nintendo's most successful console era, the Wii still failed to even come close to the LT sales of the DS. The Wii could have sold no units, and Nintendo would still have been in a good place.  They are like the inverse of Sony. When the PS3 was in trouble, Sony threw astonishing amounts of money at the platform to ensure its success -- a move that they did not repeat with the Vita. SIE is perfectly alright without success in the handheld market. Nintendo, on the other hand, can handle a console bomb, but a failed handheld would ruin them.

And that is what brings us to the Nintendo Switch. The combination of all that is Nintendo. The immediate successor to the Wii U, and the eventual replacement of the 3DS as well. Soon the be the sole piece of dedicated gaming hardware that they have to offer. Given Nintendo's history, I can not imagine that they would treat this system anything like how they handled the Wii U. If they were willing to go as far as they did to save the 3DS, you can guarantee yourself that they'll go even further to protect the Switch. Should sales begin to falter, expect price cuts, expect new bundles, expect potentially dramatic changes to their business practices, because they have nothing else besides. They've gone all in, and must commit themselves to making the Switch a success. 

This is why I feel confident enough in the Switch that I plan to buy one before the end of the year. It seems so many have been disappointed by the initial unveiling that they've forgotten what made the idea of the Switch so exciting back when we first started to hear about it. Regardless of what the launch lineup looks like, this system is guaranteed better first, second, and even third party support than the Wii U, and a laser focus from Nintendo as a whole should result in much stronger sales over its lifetime.

Using mobile to get IPs in peoples hands makes it a staple because one not only is it marketing IPs but it's raking in profit, that makes it a staple in their plans more so than 3DS.

You really don't understand the post do you it's not their platform in the same way as the 3DS it's a complimentary vehicle to run alongside one unified platform, the fact that it's not a hardware platform they have to worry about and only a software one frees up a large number of costs and resources by default. 3DS and Wii U leeched off each other because handheld and console development in today's era is practically the same, eventually development will be identical in future, mobile development is still in the days of the GB era with small teams, cheap costs and low resources required, it allows Nintendo to profit while getting IPs in peoples hands with out the resource drain on their main platform. Teams of a few people can put out a game, what you're arguing doesn't even match the context of the situation.

GTAV's budget was something like 200m so they made half of that in 6 months if the percentage return was low, if a cheap mobile game can make returns of that scale it makes it a significant factor regardless of revenue because end of the day 100m and above is more than what many companies in any industry return in a year let alone a quarter.

It depends how you look at it. Is the Switch technically similar to the Wii U? Not quite. Is the business model just as filled with holes? Most certainly.

The issue with third party support on the Wii was certainly the power, but somewhat for the Wii U, and most certainly for the Switch, a major issue is the architecture. The Xbox 1 and PS4 use X86, giving publishers a larger market with little extra development overhead. With the Wii U and Switch, apart from compensating for weaker specs, the change in architecture is a massive issue - it took the guys who made the Uncharted remasterd series over a year just to get an image to show 

While the Switch is portable, it's not truly a handheld game console (HGC) - if it was, then Nintendo would surely start to halt all HGC production and focus everything on the switch to prevent market cannibalisation? Therefore, comparing market tactics for two items that are in different markets doesn't really make sense. Different customers, therefore different business tactics. Also, the Wii U had a $50 pricecut less than a year after launch...

Consoles are an essential part of Nintendo's tactics, more so in the light of mobile gaming. The 3DS has sold slower than the DS, and the Wii U was a flop. If Nintendo just rely on HGC, can they guarentee market dominance in 5 years? Unlikey considering the growth of mobile gaming, and decline in HGC sales - this looks to be a trend rather than a coincidence. You also can't throw around comments like without "The Wii could have sold no units, and Nintendo would still have been in a good place." without any proof; it seems to me you're just forgetting things like R&D etc, y'know, the cost it takes to make something. The low sales of the Wii U resulted in Nintendo having several quarterly losses, so it makes no sense to believe that zero sales of the Wii wouldn't have taken just as big a toll. 

I'll tell you now exactly why the Switch is identical to the Wii U. They are both based on hilariously ill-informed, naive business plans that forget to look at trends in gaming, or lessons learnt from past ventures. The Switch is still underpowered, still using an architecture and game medium that'll be difficult to port to. Nintendo are still relying on game IP's that are woefully out-of-date, and are unwilling to change to market demand e.g. Capcom and Resident Evil. For all these reasons, the Switch is just another Wii U, and that's to say, Dead on Arrival.

You do understand that shipments of 3million first party games are likely on par with revenue Nintendo have generated from Pokemon Go and Super Mario Run combined? Both of the games have performed exceptionally well, but in comparison the they've made isn't that good. Your argument isn't really anything new.

Why not make the small games on Nintendo's own platform? 

I'll say this much, the next few years ain't gonna be dull.

This thing could be an utter catastrophe or a smash hit, it's all up in the air.

ya its crazy to see a console with such potential to do great or terrible.

i think even if its a moderate success, say 50 million, that it would cause Nintendo to be far more profitable than 3DS+Wii U which are close to a combined 80 million.

Yeah, it's been ages since the last time a system had such potential to do either horribly or brilliantly. When was the last one that was this much of a wildcard? The Wii?

50 million would be a pretty decent success in my book; with a unified library I think they could sell enough software on a base that size to turn a tidy profit.

The third party support was pretty good on Wii in the end. Switch seems to be doing everything the opposite to Wii U, and you definately are wrong with Nintendo not looking at trends in gaming. If everyone is tapping their phones and tablets today, Nintendo is obviously trying to appeal this audience. The AAA industry on the other hand have been diminishing in the last decade. If the trend continues, soon there's no AAA industry at all anymore.

In what world was Wii 3rd party support any good? The best it had was watered down versions of Call of Duty, while missing out on BF3, and all Unreal engine games. Same goes for Wii U - no Borderlands, no Battlefield, no Battlefront, no FIFA pass 2013. These game series have been some of the largest in the past few years, and all were absent from the Wii U...