Fast RMX, Breath of the Wild, Tetris Puyopuyo, Binding of Isaac, Mario Kart 8 DX, Arms, Shovelknight; I"ll have to disagree, there are games for some people, particularly considering its only been out a few months during one of the slower parts of the year.

With Skyrim, Fifa, Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade, Splatoon, Monster Hunter XX (Japan), Fire Emblem Warriors, Rayman Legends port all coming later this year its hardly an empty console.

probably shouldn't be taking this post seriously though oops 

Please. 90% of games for X1 & P4 are shoot everything that moves. That is killing gaming. In house or out, the Cos. all know hardcore boys will buy them even if the 'victim' is just slightly changed. But theses games promote a lack of developing original ways to play a game. Mario is Mario for sure, but N always adds a new way to play the same 'old thing' and people know the same old thing is very good to start with.

Comparing Mario to red dead and anthem? Do you want every game to be an open world, amazing looking adventure? Sure, they're great but we need variety. Perhaps some of the praise is because of this. Nintendo beats to it's own drum.

Also, this is the first mass market hybrid system. Not sure how that's playing it safe. Ps4 is a console playing it safe. Packing Kinect at launch with the xbox one was a risk. It didn't pay off. Removed it, played it safe. I don't think you understand exactly what the term playing it safe means.

1. Most game system launches generally suck. The Switch actually had one of the better launches. Also, the N64 had only two games and launch and still managed to sell well while providing decent competition for Sony and Sega.

2. It really isn't up to Nintendo to provide third party AAA games. That's up to the third parties.

3. It does promote competition because they're constantly fighting with Sony and Microsoft for shelf space.

4. You're implying that Sony has changed their entire business plan within with a short 3 month window because of Nintendo's successful Switch launch. This is probably the dumbest claim I have heard in a long time and tht's saying something.

5. Sony does not really consider Nintendo a direct competotor, nor have they considered them a direct competitor for sometime now. Microsoft however is and will continue to be.

Because opinions.

I think those who are generally buying Nintendo aren't exactly concerned with 3rd party AAA titles.

And yes. They are promoting competition within the industry.
The PSP and Vita came along to compete with Nintendo. Kinect and Playstation move happened because of the Wii.

Nintendo have done anything except "play it safe".

Sony and Microsoft played it safe with their "traditional" console platforms.

I wouldn't go that far. But it did have Zelda which wen't gangbusters. That helped a ton.

Nintendo games tend to be childish/immature. Nintendo has never pushed large amounts of hyper-realistic mature games full of blood and gore. And that's okay.
You should probably re-align your expectations about Nintendo's platforms if that doesn't appeal to you.

It's certainly not a colossal failure like the Wii U is that's for sure.

Whilst I concur 100% that competition is great and means great things for the consumer... Nintendo is appealing to demographics that are often neglected by Sony and Microsoft.

Once Nintendo starts raking in the Billions you can bet the other company's will take notice.

What are you basing your opinions on? The Switch launched with 10 games, one of which might be the greatest launch game of all time, and actually one of the best games of all time. Many of us would love to see more 3rd party AAA games on tthe Switch but why don´t you blame the 3rd parties for that aswell?

these "quirky" Mario and Kirby games are often exeptional games in their own rightand Nintendo is one of the most consistent high-quality developers of all time. Also, they have released or announced 245 games for the Swith already, of which you can find Fifa and Skyrim.

So Sony having alackluster presentation (in your opinion) is Nintendos fault? It was Sony that several years ago stated that there will be less AAA titles in the future, simply because the return on investment is very low. That is not the fault of Nintendo.

What Nintendo are doing is to shove som well needed variety into the industry.

Wat? Nintendo's strong point is their first-party lineup. Why shouldn't they be focusing on that? If the Switch can maintain momentum, then it can be a healthy enough platform to see more content from third parties as well. Nintendo can afford to "slack" at E3 a little less than the others. Not that it matters, since they can hold a direct anytime to show their products.

I agree with some of the things which nintendo doing. Look at the game costs and development efforts needed to most of their games does not seem like a $60 game, but they sell it like that. They should be accessible, but they put themselves as premium by demanding more money to their games by milking, not dropping prices at all for longer time, and pricing them high even for games which lacks content and scope of big budge game, taking less risk with big games (they take risks with iP''s but in a cheap way by making a Indie or AA like game with limited scope, unlike Sony and MS who dare to take big risks).

I prefer sony because they are accessible in every way even though they are stupid in some things , but mostly they are better than others overall in pushing technology, creating new experiences and being affordable to all the games around the world. Look at the things that Sony do to please gamers, fans even if it costs them, but nintendo alw.ys goes cheap in many things.

Hahahahahaha, LOL at OP. Thank for good laugh