Doom and Wolfenstein are indeed old ports and that does indeed count against them; it’s the reason they're not worthy of being listed as top tier 2017/218 Switch games.

But they hold a twofold advantage over the recent plague of Wii U regurgitations:

a) At least they’re far less old. 

b) At least they’re current gen games that are being brought into the Nintendo ecosystem for the first time, instead of just Nintendo plundering their own back catalogue for a cheap buck

Recycling Wii U games would not be such a big deal they were reasonably priced and if Nintendo were also providing an adequate supply of fresh content, but neither is the case. They’re just saying “want something to play on your new $300 console? What? You want actual NEW games? LMAO, here’s a game from 4 years ago and the 19,654th Mario Tennis/Party”

So yeah, full price for an 8-month old PS4 port is better than $60 for a 4 year old Wii U game that was $50 even in 2014. 

On the other hand, those games are downgraded yet cost like 3x as much as the other versions. With the exception of DK, all the Wii U ports cost the same as the Wii U versions currently do and all of them have added content.

It also does not matter that these games were previously in the Nintendo ecosystem if the people buying these games did not own a Wii U. Games like Skyrim, Doom & Diablo are new games for people who dont own a PS/XB/PC just like Pokken Tournament, Tropical Freeze & Captain Toad are new games for people who dont own a Wii U.

You keep bringing up how many Mario Party/Tennis games there are but the type of games you want (Zelda/Smash) have just as many releases.

Doesn't matter if you owned a Wii U or not, games from 2014 are not new. 

Games like Zelda BOTW and Mario Odyssey absolutely do not have as many releases this year as the mediocre filler like Party/Tennis. Smash is literally the only game releasing on Switch this entire year that can reasonably be called one of Nintendo's top shelf productions.

They are for the people buying a Switch along with those games which is the whole premise of this thread and discussion, Switch sales.

There are more Zelda games than there are Mario Party and there are about the same amount of Smash games as there are Mario Tennis.

The only "top-tier" games that are exclusive to Switch in 2017 were Splatoon 2 & Odyssey while 2018 has Pokemon & Smash Bros. It's the same.

If it came out years, ago, it is by definition not new.

And the difference is that Smash and Zelda are Nintendo typically doing their best, where Mario Party/Tennis are mediocre filler.

BOTW may not have been exclusive but it was not an old port, it was a day and date multiplat, plus Kingdom Battle and Xenoblade 2 from 2017 are also in a league above any of 2018's games outside of Smash.

To bring it back to sales, 2018's pattern of one AAA exclusive per year will never get them to the 100 million plus sales they say they are aiming for. Their Q1 hardware sales are flaccid, they will most likely fail to hit their 20m FY forecast. They need to try harder and release a steady stream of big NEW games going forward into 2019 and 2020 if they are serious about Switch passing the Wii lifetime.

EDIT: I don't really feel like getting up tomorrow morning and spending my day off continuing this topic, so I'm gonna unfollow here.

This isn't really my argument but...

@bold really?

For Zelda I am fairly sure he is talking 3D Zelda (home console) vs mainline Mario Party which would be like 6 (9 with remasters)  vs 11. And its 5 Smash bros vs 7 Mario tennis and that's tennis alone without mentioning all the other Mario Sports stuff.

Just want to say, they took a risk with having 2017 be so front loaded, and it worked. They are strongly up from last year, and will only increase their lead. It isn't uncommon for a console to have new game shortages in the first year and to get better in the second year, but the switch is just the opposite. It isn't new. 2019 is already better, so just tough it out for a  few more months. 

it's tricky to answer this question, because it is very very likely that nintendo will update the hardware like they did on the 3ds with the new 3ds, new new 3ds an 2ds xl new super new. And triggered Sony and MS to do a step in this field, too. But i think nintendo is more succesfull in this kind of commercial operations, MS went offensive in this game with a very powerfull hardware but definitely didn't pay back, for sony who was just defending it went ok but not amazing. So Nintendo may sell a lot of Switch (probably more than xbox one and less than ps4) but to the very same customers, so they will never get again the same number of users as MS/Sony (predicting either the ps5 or xboxTwo will outsell switch by same margin). The youngest and very casual player now use different kind of platforms and it will be very hard for nintendo in the future to compete with smartphones and tablet games, that are countless, nearly free (at least to download), updated weekly by Software Houses in the whole world that make money just by taking data of your habits and showing ads. Having a dedicated hardware at 300€ to make a profit and games 70€ each will not be sustainable for this kind of console, IMHO.

Honestly curl-6, it is difficult to engage with you when you move the goalposts every single time you get challenged. You've chosen to exclude Pokemon, any port ("released in 2014"), any game you don't like, any game that doesn't meet your arbitrary definition of "top tier", etc., then complain that Nintendo has failed to put out any games. Well, okay.

Sure, there are less Zelda games when excluding most of them.

And of course we wouldn't mention the other Mario Sports titles because they have nothing to do with the discussion.