It's kind of amusing to see people get puffy over the use of the word "gimmick". It's like some kind of projection for an inferiority complex.

A gimmick is anything used in advertising and marketing to set a product apart and generate attention. Idiotic and useless features can be gimmicks. Innovative and meaningful features can be gimmicks.

Get over it. It's just a word.

On topic, I think a cheap, stand-alone home console with the same power as the Switch but without the portable features would sell very well. I know that I find such a product much more appealing than paying for portability I care nothing about.

It wouldn't surprise me if such a device materialized eventually, as with the 2DS.

As much as the 2DS costs - which even saves on the hinges

Its not point how much could be sell but how much Nintendo would sell it, that's why Switch is $300 and not cheaper. Nintendo was very clear about plan to sell Switch at profit right of the gate and that was right move to do.

I'd say more like $100 since I bought my 8gb Wii U brand new on sale for $200 at Walmart (a year after it was released....Canadian dollars).

You just described internet fanboyism completely.

OT: I think Nintendo should had gone with a PS4Pro equivalent homeconsole, make it BC with WiiU, secure the best version of coming multiplats and keep the Joycon concept to enable upressed Wii games on the VC.

Why would you want that regardless of cost? I never understand people's negativity to Nintendo's uniqueness. Without it, you have a Gamecube scenario.

My guestimate would be about $100.

There was nothing wrong with the GameCube hardware wise. 

Nintendo is the one that chose to make it look like a Fisher Price toy which turned off people and then chose to do weird things with their big franchises that no one asked for (a entirely tropical themed Mario game, a cel-shaded Zelda, etc. etc.).

Possibly, but I don't see it being cheaper than the 3DS

Though it's true that the 3DS production cost should be cheaper too :/

That is a load of BS.

While Nintendo is surely making a profit, based on their own statements that it would launch at a profitable margin, they are not doing so to "take advantage of early adopters". Nintendo has proven historically that it sees its products with high value and it then prices itself for that value proposition after considering costs and competition. This is why Nintendo's games very rarely if ever drop in price. This is why Super Mario Run is a $10 phone game vs the $5 or less it would likely be from any other company.

Switch is selling well enough to make a statement that it is appropriately priced for its value-proposition currently. Otherwise it would've had a much slower start and then Nintendo would have dropped the price to break-even or lose money, similar to their early reaction to 3DS launch.

Of course not everyone values Zelda and other launch IP in this context and therefore won't spend $360 for the console plus a game. But that can be said for anything, PS4 and Xbox One included. I didn't consider either one until I could get them for under $300. I don't see the value in the consoles almost solely supported by 3rd party games that I technically could just get on my PC. But $275 with at least 3 titles, it was worth getting an Xbox One (or PS4), so I did.

Gamecube wouldn't have sold better being rectangular and black. As a me-too systems, Gamecube continued to decline in sales behind N64. Continuing that trend is just a bad idea for Nintendo.