I see the topic has slowed down and I have read every post. It is interesting how far off topic some people are willing to go in order to save their lost point. But enough of my sideline commentary, let me get into the bulk of the question.

For starters, this depends on what exactly you mean. If you are going by the narrative of quantity of AAA third party support, then without a doubt the answer has to be an emphatic, "No!" Wii U came out the blocks with more than thirty titles and the majority of those titles were triple-A titles that were excellent. People often forget about Ninja Gaiden III when talking about games that came to Wii U during that year one phase but it was actually an excellent (maybe even the best) port of the game. Switch is obviously outmatched in terms of quantity. I see a lot of people trying to revisionist history this but come on guys, the facts are the facts here. Switch launched with ten titles and only Zelda would be considered AAA. Not one third party AAA title. I know why people try to deny this: Wii U was a failure and there are people out there that believe Wii U lacking AAA third party software later on was a big contributing factor. To admit Wii U had great third party support early on yet still managed to be a failure while simultaneously saying Switch is lacking in that very department yet is successful is to admit their assessment of the situation was wrong. People hate to admit being wrong.

On the other hand you may be asking about the quality of the support which is a completely different question that deserves just as much attention as the previous question. The answer to that is also, "no" but not emphatic. The third party support has been largely the exact same as it was on Wii U in terms of overall quality. I have been critical not of DOOM (because I love DOOM and will be buying it), but of the people that are happy for the port coming to Switch. There is a large group of those people that would absolutely slaughter this exact same port if it came to Wii U instead of Switch. People would be saying it deserves to bomb and this is why Nintendo fans don't buy third party titles - among other things we heard all throughout the Wii U's lifetime. As a matter of fact, having DOOM at 720p and 30fps in handheld and docked seems quite a slap in the face of the proponents of Switch is a home console or even a hybrid as DOOM seems to be at handheld settings and then using an HDMI out, you can see it on your television. But I digress, people are willing to give these ports, the same ports that would get slaughtered on Wii U, a chance simply because of the portable aspect of Switch. Do these people forget that Switch is more capable hardware than Wii U? If NBA 2K18 were being downgraded as much for Wii U as well as having the storage fiasco surrounding it as it is for Switch, the game would be written into the laundry list of reasons why Wii U failed. However on Switch, people just excuse it, applaud it, and claim Nintendo has rekindled their relationship with third party developers. Ain't that about hypocritical? Now, I am not saying that people should be mad at Switch support that has come or is coming; rather, this is an indictment on the people that slammed Wii U for the exact same treatment: late ports, lesser graphical quality, missing features, lower frame rate, over priced. Nothing has changed and that is the raw and honest truth about the situation.

It is, 4 out of 7 Switch games I own were all made by third parties, and they're all amazing:

Shovel Knight; Treasure Trove (plus more to come in 2018)
Sonic Mania
Steamworld Dig 2 (perhaps the best Metroidvania game I've ever played)
Mario + Rabbids: Battle Kingdom (plus more to come in 2018).

Must watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ig7A-eaZA8
This is a video made in early May of 2013.
By this time, close to 50 games had been announced for consoles with the exception of Wii U. This means that development started way back (at least 2012 and for some, 2011).

Even if Wii U was selling bad, it was too early to just cancel these many games and then some, during January, February, March and April. Which means that a large chunk of them were never planned for Wii U.

It wasn't sales, for the most part, that determined that those 48 games weren't coming for Wii U. That decision was made prior to the release of the console itself.

"Any game can be ported, its only comes to that if dev means is it worth it, and much higher chances is that they will think its worth to port game if platform look like succes, has good sales and good instal base."
Devs will port a game to a console if: a) they see that the port lives up to the experience they envisioned for the game; b) the install base is made of consumers for their games.

So far Switch hasn't really proven it is able to get "decent" ports (it's not one game or two that changes that) and it hasn't been proven that Switch's userbase has core gamers that appreciate 3rd party games, the same way MS and Sony's userbase does.

"Maybe its not point that Nintendo convinced Bethesda, Bethesda see that Switch will be successful platform"
The decision to port both Skyrim and Doom was made before anyone knew how the market would embrace Switch. Skyrim was shown last year and Doom had to be in development for quite some time (probably a full year) to even be released this year.
And regarding WF2, we don't even know if it has started development or not. If it hasn't, that's the one title that you could presume was a result of Switch's success. Could because we don't really know when the decision to port was made.

If you were to compare it to the other consoles at the current moment, no. But looking at what has been announced so far and looking down the road, the Switch is making big moves.

What is most telling is Wolfenstein 2 and DOOM. These kinds of games wouldn't have come to the Wii or Wii U, but Nintendo did get theses types of games in the past. DOOM was released on the SNES, and Quake and Duke Nukem were on the N64. It also shows that current gen games can be put on the Switch. The argument that X cant be on Switch because its weak doesn't hold much water.

All that said, this is nothing new. Systems that sell well get games. Despite moaning from third parties, the Wii got third party games. The Switch will do well and more companies will scramble to get games on Switch in 2018 and 2019.

It seems that you and I definitely don't understand and agree, and I dont want that become onother endless discussion with you, so I will not reply anymore after this post.

I dont see how that video has anuthing what we are saying.

Of Course wasnt to early you had some 3rd party games that couldn't be done for launch, you have some games that had development in late 2012. also I dont it was many games and that isnt even point, it was few games, but point is that they were canceled and we starting receiving those cancellations after Wii U started selling catastrophic. With Switch we dont have cancelled games and we actually getting more and more announcements, so opposite to Wii U.

Again you missing point, nobody said that Wii U had strong 3rd party like PS3 or PS4, but it had quite good and strong 3rd party support for Nintendo platform on launch, definatly stronger than Wii and Switch.

No, in reality you have just one real reason, devs will port game if they think they can earn enough money. I mean we had CoD ports from PS3/Xbox360 for Wii even PS3/Xbox360 are 20-30x stronger than Wii.

For now we still dont have much released 3rd party games (lets wait Doom launch version of game), but ones we have until now are definitely decent, and its too early to say "if Switch's userbase has core gamers that appreciate 3rd party game", we still dont have big AAA multipaltform games released to make sucha conlusion, and nobady relly expecting (including devs) that multpaltform will sell same like they are selling on PS4/XB1.

Yes, Skyrim decision is definitely made before Switch launch (we saw game in October, lol), and this what Bethesda last week said about Skyrim on Switch:

GamesBeat: There’s probably quite a bit of pent-up demand for something like this on a Nintendo platform.

Hines: We haven’t done anything on a Nintendo platform in forever. Breath of the Wild being the runaway colossal hit that it is, there’s certainly some belief like, “Hey, if you like open-world RPGs where you can explore and do what you want, Skyrim might be a good fit for you.” I don’t know what the exact size is, but some number of people who own Switches have never played Skyrim before. It’s a new thing for them, and for folks who have played the game, the ability to take it on the road—you’re going on a trip or commuting to work, it’s a great time.

GamesBeat: With these games on these platforms, what are some of the expectations? Do you think these games can do just as well on Switch as the platforms they’re already launched on?

Hines: Certainly we think they can really well. What that means respective to the installed base or to other stuff—we’re not coming from the same place with Skyrim in terms of, “Everyone on this platform already knows the Elder Scrolls series.” There’s some amount of—this is new to folks. We have to introduce it to them and explain what it is. It’s the same with Doom. There is some crossover, but there’s also a new audience that isn’t sure what these games are. They haven’t played a Doom or a Skyrim. There is some education there as far as, “Here’s why these games are cool and fun.”

The video shows that there were a lot of 3rd party games that weren't coming to Wii U. And that decision to not bring to Wii U was made before it was even out (remember that Wii U was revealed in 2011)
Which means that 3rd party problems didn't start with bad sales - they started way before. Sales were just the last nail in the coffin for 3rd parties.

Yes, we are getting more announcements, even if we exclude Indie games. But that's not the most important thing: what matters - a lot - is if you are getting or not, the heavyweights like CoD, Destiny, Fifa, etc.. Because those are the games that make people buy consoles in a significant way.

"we still dont have big AAA multipaltform games released to make sucha conlusion, and nobady relly expecting (including devs) that multpaltform will sell same like they are selling on PS4/XB1."
Agreed!
Actually, i told you before that sales for Fifa, Doom, Skyrim and WF2 will determine if core gamers are on Switch's side or not.
Of course, devs will take into consideration the userbase and other things to make that conclusion.

I agree that if there's money to be made on a platform, devs will go for it.
The question is: can that game/port satisfy gamers' expectations to a point where it's economically sound to bring or port X game to Y platform?
Even if you have a market there for your games, if you can't bring a decent game/port, you know that gamers are not going support you, thus, not really making you money, in the end.

Those quotes don't really say anything relevant. All we got was expectation that people haven't played it before and hope that gamers who did, will rebuy because of the portability factor.

It is all coming together quite nicely, if you ask me.

As I recall, Wii U's 3rd party support was only jam-packed for its launch and the 3-4 following months after, while we keep getting announcements for Switch even for next year. And judging by articles and reports from various publishers, a lot of them are satisfied with the commercial performance of their titles, indies and such alike.

It is faring way better, I like to think. Both critically and commercialy, the console seems to enjoy a 3rd party newfound balance, at least for this year. I remain optimistic it will go on for years to come - but the signs are encouraging this time around.

This all of this. It isnt anymore impressive than Wii U's early months. We'll have to really see in a year.

I think the problem with the third party games on Wii U is that they were gimped ports of games that:
A. People already played on more satisfying hardware.
B. No one cared about.
C. A combination of A and B.

A lot of the problem was that many of the third party games were continuing a story rather than beginning it. It would be like if the Dark Knight came out without Batman Begins, or the Two Towers came out without Fellowship. It was a really bad way of doing things.

I think the worst example was releasing the third game of a trilogy on Wii U at the same time as re-releasing the entire trilogy on everything else.

Your list is just that a list. It needs context next to your games to explain why it sucked. Quick off the fly

Mass Effect 3: At the same time Mass Effect Trilogy was announced for other systems. Why woud I buy the 3rd in teh series when I haven't played the first two? Also full price.

Assassins Creed 3? How did that arrive same time. Wasn't AC4 black flag like a launch title? I don't recal AC3 being on the WIi U at all. But AC4 imo was best on Wii U. Definetely best version. THe map on the gamepad made the game so muc better.

Arkham Origins. I seem to recal being told by developer that no DLC will be coming to it versus other versions. So before release they are saying it will be a gimped game. AC City was great, but super old.

Rinse and Repeat

The Wii U was a generation of getting either skipped or some strange gimp in a game taht makes no sense. It's not like lower res or fps or something, but like missing features, ect that make one go "why woudl i buy it on Wii U?"

So far with the switch, all the ports have been complete.