I don't know how the DS/3DS sizes you list are in anyway indicative of higher than 32gb for Switch.

Switch cartridges already come in a range of sizes, 1gb, 2gb, 4gb, 8gb, 16gb and 32gb.

Your logic is flawed, but I think we'll see 64gb Switch cards eventually, just "not any time soon" like I said. 32gb Switch cards are already expensive to manufacture compared to bluray. Wouldn't expect 64gb cards much before 2019.

First off, that's a stupidly limp excuse.  The moment installs became mandatory, 1 TB should have been mandatory.  It's not like the PS4 and Xbone have fast, high end hard drives. 

Second, up until very recently external drives weren't even an option for the PS4. 

Bottom line, I shouldn't have to buy a third party peripheral that I have to add to the pile of plastic under my TV just to alleviate an annoyance that would not exist if devs just got their crap together. 

Why should 1 TB have been mandatory? Some users need more space, others need less space. Why should casual PS4 gamers with only a handful of games be forced to pay more than necessary for a bigger HDD than they need? Just because others need more than 500 GB?

The current tie ratio of PS4 is currently less than 7 games. Don't think that the capacity needs of people in this or other gaming forums mirror the capacity needs of the average PS4 buyer/player.

And if you draw the arbitrary line at 1 TB... why shouldn't 1.5 or 2 TB or 3 TB or 4 TB have been mandatory?

Second, you had the option to replace the internal PS4 HDD from day 1... without warranty loss. Now it is even more convenient with support of external drives. Of course it would have been nice, if Sony already had offered SKUs with different capacities right from the start... but why should game developers care about that? All their concern is to fit the game on a 50 GB blu-ray disc.

Sony doesn't profit from selling PS4s with "too less HDD capacity", they don't get a cut when you buy an additional HDD (internal or external). Microsoft doesn't profit from selling XBOs with "too less HDD capacity", they don't get a cut when you buy an additional external HDD (they profited hugely in the early 360-years with propriary HDDs). Nintendo doesn't profit from selling Switches with "too less flash memory", they don't get a cut when you buy an additional microSD-card. Third parties don't profit from that either (as far as I know). There ain't a conspiracy to sell less capacity than needed by the average user of these devices.

No, my logic is not flawed, beacuse if for 3DS biggest card is 8GB (3DS games run at 240p resolution with simple textures) Switch will definatly have much higher than than and higher than 32GB, even XenobladeX on Wii U had 23GB and we know that Nintendo games tend to use small amont compared to 3rd party games. Also you alone said you think it will have 64GB cards.

Given how the game cards work on the Switch (and other Nintendo handhelds, too), you can't really install DLC directly onto the card - you have to rely on some other storage medium on the device itself.

So, yeah, Black Ops 3 can (most likely) fit on the 32 GB Switch game card, with some legwork (and some downgraded assets, which will be necessary anyway given the power of the Switch). The question is whether all the DLC would fit in the 32 GB internal memory (which it shares with the OS and other games and save files).

Yes, Ninty will sell two or three cards ducktaped together, jungle style.

Once it becomes necessary.

Ducktaped?

For single player games its not a issue.
Remember the PS1 & 2?
Where you would swap disks in games? same could just happend with the switch.

Production Costs for cartridges are already higher though, multiple cartridges isn't a good idea when it's already having an impact on game price.