Ports usually consume very little manpower in comparison to game development. But yes the logic is ok

The people who make these decisions are human beings, and as such they make mistakes, miscalculations, and bad calls, just as all of us do sometimes. The Crash N.Sane Trilogy almost skipped the Switch; that would have been a bad call. Thankfully it was corrected in time, but if it had skipped the Switch, the anti-Nintendo crowd would've tried to justify it with nonsense like "it wouldn't have been worth their while porting it over so skipping Switch was the right choice."

In hindsight almost every decision can be determined good or bad or to show a better one... but at the time they were made I would willy to bet the ones making didn't thought they were bad and considering the general competence companies need to stay afloat (for example like 70% of companies go out of business in their first 1-5 years in Brazil) so no I refuse to accept the idea of they being DUMB. Making mistakes, sure. But being dumb or deciding against their profir because of childish hate is silly pro-Nintendo agenda.

When did I say they were dumb or acting out of childish hate? I simply said that they make mistakes sometimes, like every company and every human being.

Switch multiplats doesn't need to sell as much as the other consoles to be proven successful. However, they still need to sell enough to prove it was profitable to release it on that platform.

Thats false, devs are making PS4/XB1 game in first place in any case, along way, later or maybe at begining they also deciding they want Switch version also, so that game would be made even without Switch in any case, and porting game thats primarily made for other platforms take much less resources and time than making brand new game for just one platform.

A) you cant relly make game for 1 year if we dont talk about small game or Indies.

B) So from start your math dont works, if they relly made new game only in 1 year buy full team, than Switch port buy hole team would made in less than 3 months. But reality is that full teams are working on brand new games for couple of years (usually 2-3 years), while ports are done buy much more smaller teams (like teams of 20-30 people) in 1 year maximum, and actually in most cases devs hiring companies outside like (like Panic Button for instance) to do such a ports while they can work on other (new) projects in same time.

Here we go again. Another person setting a low bar for success for nintendo. 😸 Of course, the ns doesn't need to sell as many copies of 3rd party games as the ps4 (due to big differences in player base) to be a success in the eyes of outsiders but a game needs to do well enough that devs have faith in the platform's potential in selling their games (future titles).

A game's actual success is determined by the dev's expectations of the game on a platform and not by achieving just any profit. If a dev wants higher profit margins, they might not be happy with a game just turning a profit.

Yes but given the lack of third party games on the Switch they should do better.

Which games in peticular should be doing better?

Most of the 3rd party support on Switch consists of indies, niche Japanese titles, kid/family titles & late ports/remasters.

None of these are really the type of games that scream huge sales and in most cases are doing pretty well.

Didn't say you said it, but just look to other post I answered here and also a lot of threads were pro-Nintendo fans call devs dumb and hateful for not porting a game over.

If they are those then your measure for success comparing to other platforms already get disproven by you.