That may be true, or it may not be.  Either way, it is higher than zero.  So, more third party support helps Nintendo.  

A lot of people only choose one console. When it comes to choosing that console, it tends to come to deciding which first party you like the most. Often, it's the only huge difference. Regardless of whether you like PS or Xbox, they offer comparable experiences aside from exclusive games.

If you choose Xbox, you mostly get all the games on PlayStation aside from the rare 1st/3rd party exclusive. If you choose PlayStation, you mostly get everything on Xbox aside from the rare 1st/3rd party exclusive. When you choose a Nintendo there's a pretty good chance you're going to miss out on some great game everyone else is playing. Unfortunately, (imo) Nintendo has the best first party games!

It comes down to having good exclusives and great 3rd party support or great exclusives and bad 3rd party support. And gamers don't like feeling they are missing out on something.

They don't pay millions for Multiplatform... they do pay for exclusive marketing, early access, exclusive contant and other silly things... eventually they pay for temporary exclusive, permanent exclusive or 2nd party deal.

But Nintendo could pay the expected extra cost to port a version of some games Switch may miss to ensure a initial traction on the game.

Yeah, that's the only option Nintendo had really. Gain sales through first-party titles, which would lead to third-parties being more willing to put their titles on the platform.

I think much of the issue with Nintendo and 3rd party titles on their consoles comes from the fact that for much of the last 20 years they have at best been the second highest priority platform for 3rd party developers, not taking into account PC. For much of that time most 3rd party developers have been doing just fine without Nintendo, so for them to begin putting all or most of their titles on the Switch Nintendo would have to make the platform so successful that they simply could no longer ignore it as a platform.

The Wii U never reached the level of success that would have led to notable support from 3rd party developers, and while the Wii was certainly successful enough, the power parity between it and the other two major consoles meant that developing for it would have required additional resources to be spent making a separate version of each title. Even now that the Switch has proven to be highly successful, that still only amounts to 5-6 million consoles sold, which isn't a high enough number to really attract many big developers yet.

Nintendo is definitely doing a good job to set the console up for success in the long term as well, having a console that is more or less comparable with the two other major consoles, but it's not there yet, at least as far as 3rd party support it concerned. We might see a change in this around the holidays or early next year once the Switch passes 10 million units sold and becomes viable platform for other AAA developers besides Nintendo.

No.   I didn't say anything like that.  I'm also not aware that anyone does that.  

That sounds like a great idea.  However, I imagine they'd be scared of setting a precedent.  For example, if they said "Hey, EA, we'll pay for you to port Madden to Switch", then EA might say "How about you pay for us to port FIFA?"  Whereas, without the subsidy, EA went ahead with a Switch version on their own.  

There sure is a risk on that. Nintendo would have to calculate very well. And perhaps make deals like "if we don't put any money our royalties are 5% (supposing it's 25% of other manufacturers) if we put XX royalties are 10% and if we put this much royalties are 25%", something like this that assure Nintendo will get not only the game but also good royalties that will be bigger than the expenditure and it sharing the risk with the developer may show a lot of good will.

Sony has the perfect strategy. Even though PS3 was considered a disappointment. It still sold over 80 million. They have 3 of the top 4 selling consoles and when PS4 is done. They'll have the top 3 selling consoles along with 4 out 5. You shouldn't depend on just 1st party nor just 3rd party. I think that's where Nintendo and Microsoft have run into problems competing against Sony.

The Wii U strategy was basically build the system, expect casual pull over from Wii and 3rd parties to find success with a similar platform as what is currently available, which will fill in the blanks while Nintendo's own internal teams adapt to HD development. THAT is why the Wii U failed, the lull between Nintendo's first software (which was somewhat medicore truth be told) and their first major release that couldn't be done on the original Wii was too long. Nintendo though the 3rd party releases would help but the support ended after about a year and the support they did get was often handicapped via no DLC or missing features.

The Switch strategy is the opposite, string along a steady stream of AAA titles and hope third parties see the growth, the sales and jump on board. It is likely to work more with the Japanese publishers since most of them are still on good terms with the Big N but major Western publishers are still going to take a lot to pull and convince to divert resouces to develop on weaker then the current standards set by Xbox One or PS4 base.