Not needing a TV=portable/handheld. The most popular sku of 3DS was $199 so thats a good price point for making it a 1 per person device and for primarily handheld gamers to get one.
Making a handheld only or console only version will be seen inferior to people who like both, but not to people who only like one or the other.
They are pushing it as a console currently because of the price and to keep it coexisting with 3DS. In the next year or two when the price drops, 3DS is phased out and games like Pokemon/Animal Crossing come out then it will be very much pushed as a handheld as well.
The 3rd party support of Switch will not be affected by PS5/XB4. Like i said, the majority of its 3rd party upport comes from indie games m, Japanese games, kid/family games & previous generation ports/remasters.
These type of games do not typically require big budgets or high end specs so Switch has little risk of losing them.
Like i said to Curl, Switch 3rd party supprt can be compared to the consolidated support of Wii U, 3DS & Vita. Those 3 systems were underpowered and recieved very few AAA multiplats and so far Switch hasnt recieved many either. You cant lose something you never had so lack of multiplats will not be a factor.
Note: I wrote "Yeah, Labo is probably the thing that can't add a lot of kids to it's userbase.". I meant to say "can add". My bad.
I don't think things are as simple as lowering the price and cutting out the TV mode.
Switch is a success because it does both. Any kind of model that takes something away will indeed be seen as less.
Usually consoles or portables, when having a HW revision, usually add something. But there are exceptions like the 2DS (although removing the 3D screen wasn't a major deal) or the Vita (inferior screen; added internal memory).
In this case you'd be going from the best of both worlds, to just one. It wouldn't be an upgrade, it would be a downgrade, and a major one at that.
3DS had a higher price tag but you had a better product - even if slightly. And the move was to upgrade.
In this case, it would be the exact opposite.
Yes, you can say that despite that, handheld-only gamers would buy it. The question would be, how relevant would that userbase be, so that it could pay off R&D for an inferior product, when you could use that Money and spend it on upgrading the product most would want.
I can see Nintendo positioning Switch as a handheld for Animal Crossing, but Pokémon? I seriously doubt that.
People have spent years, decades, begging for a real Pokémon on consoles. The day it releases you can bet Nintendo will remind people of that! After all, handheld users are a shoo-in anyway.
Your description of the support Switch is getting, is pretty much correct. But, assuming that it's going to stay like that forever, is speculation.
So far, from what we have seen, i really can't heavily refute that, but given that some companies have already expressed that they jumped on the Switch bandwagon too late (didn't believe in its success), i can only assume that, if not before, next year, we might see some meaningful changes. As in, less ports and more multiplats and even exclusives.
But Switch is in a different position from Wii U, 3DS and Vita.
It's succeeding in the home console front, unlike the Wii U. And unlike, 3DS and Vita, which only got japanese support - because western developers don't care about handhelds -, Switch can appeal to both sides.
In other words, it's a success in home console land and a success in handheld land. It's the perfect situation to be in!