How is that pointless?
Imagine that you criticise someone for something they did wrong and the answer you got was: i could do worse, too. So why do you care?
Does this make sense to you?

If you can do better, then aim for that.
If you want to settle with what you have, that's you. Others might want more.

"Point that Switch is selling very good means that Switch has very good library also. Who cares even if Switch has plenty of ports when it sells very good and its very popular platform, you ignoring fact that Switch is selling very good despite has plenty of ports."
All i hear is: it's doing great, so who cares why it's doing great and what this means for the future.
If that's how you want to see things, fine by me. Just don't critise others for taking the time to think about things.
Also, take out 5 titles of the 1000+ games Switch has, and you'll see how Switch sells without them (the power of it's library!).

Nintendo has 8 games? 
Where does that say that ports will take second place to new games?

I wasn't talking about profits.
"some devs simply just dont want to cut back its game in order it could run on Switch."
Exactly what i said above.

Firstly, i never said we won't getting Rage 2:
"On the other hand, we might not get Rage 2 because of the engine not being able to allow that port." 
Again, as i said, Doom exists on Switch because the engine was capable of that.
In Rage 2's case, that MIGHT not be the case.

Pete Hine: “We’ve talked about it, but it’s a completely different engine and tech. The nice thing about Doom, Wolf, and Doom Eternal is it all uses id Tech, Rage 2 uses Avalanche‘s engine, so it’s a different beast in terms of a seamless open world that you can play like that. We’ve talked about it some. Still uncertain whether that could ever work on the Switch.”

The conversation about if a game is suited for this or that platform comes after knowing if the engine can handle it.

Indies and AA games are not what drive this industry. AAA games are.
If you think that Nintendo thinks as you do, than you should think better.

You do realise that XB1 suffered greatly from it's mistakes, right? And you do realise of unique Switch's success is, right? The hybrid concept followed by an array of system sellers - and not just that, but in the same year, a return to form from Zelda and Mario.
There's a thing called context, you know.
What you pointed out is nothing more than the exception to the rule.

You didn't get what i was trying to say, when using the top 3 3rd party games.
What it means is that no other 3rd party games reached those numbers despite the rapid increase in userbase. These 3 titles were clearly benefited from the Switch reveal.
And when we look at what came out after we don't see that behaviour despite the huge hype you talk about.
This isn't a minor thing.

I don't mind discussing this stuff with you, but once more, you don't read what i write, you put words on my mouth and keep criticising me just because i don't take things for granted and poiting out what i see wrong.
So, next time, think twice before quoting me. If it's to do the above, you are wasting your time. Just accept that others have a different perspective on things.

Just few examples why discussion is pointles with you:

Its pointles to say something like that because you could say same thing for every platform, PS4 could sell better if it had even stronger lineup but also PS4 would sell worse if has worse lineup, same goes for Switch, it would sell better if has better lineup, but also would sell worse if it has worse lineup. Point that Switch is selling very good means Switch lineup is good at least.

8 confirmed Nintendo/exclusives games and only only is a port (NSMBU, Yoshi, Deamon X Machina, Town, Luigis Mansion 3, Pokemon, Animall Crossing, Fire Emblem).

He clearly said he is uncertain if engine could run at Switch, he didn't said that engine cant run on Switch.

If big 3rd party AAA are main reasons why some platform is successful or not, Switch wouldn't be so successful and offcourse Wii wouldnt hit 100m in sales. You need to realise that different platforms have different apealing, especially when comparing Nintendo platform with Sony/MS platforms.

Like I wrote, I dont see point discussion with you, simply you posting so much things that dont make sense and I completely disagree with you, so I dont see point of further discussion, so now I will not reply to you any more.

I don't know if you realised this but, despite Switch's success, nor the PS4, nor the XB1 suffered. Which means that Nintendo could have at least done that much more.
And despite what happened last year, PS4 is still putting a fight - if not winning.
I know that in certain situations you can't do more, because the market is not infinite. But in this case, don't try to convince me that it's pointless to ask for more when it's clear that in pretty much every regard, things could be way better: better sales, better 1st party line-up and better strategy in this regard, too.

He said it's uncertain. Which is exactly what i said.
What i wrote: "On the other hand, we might not get Rage 2 because of the engine not being able to allow that port."
I said might. I never implied that the game won't happen.

Again, Switch and Wii were a success, yes. But they were the exception to the rule. Not the norm. And you can't judge the value of what is the norm by looking at the exceptions.

I never said Switch wouldn't be a succes if it didn't have 3rd party games.
What i have repeatedly been saying is the following:

Those big 3rd party games are what the market has wanted, wants and will keep on wanting; When you see Sony and MS fighting for them, you can bet they are relevant!
Switch might be a success (winning a battle as i putted it in a prior post) but that probably won't change anything as that same success came from factors that were very, very good to Nintendo and won't repeat anytime soon: brand new concept (it can't be repeated); return to form for the Zelda and Mario franchises (don't expect that effect anytime soon); several system sellers in the first 10 months (may or may not happen in the next gen); it came out at a time where PS4 and XB1 already had quite a big userbase - from which most of the sales (70% of american owners own a PS4 and/or XB1) are coming. That's why PS4 and XB1 sales didn't go down despite the 15 or something million Switch's sold.
I also said that the only structural change that i saw, and one that can help sell the next console, so far, was that Nintendo is bringing all these online games like Fortnite, Arena of Valor, Warframe, etc.. For the first time in a long time, Nintendo is insync with gamers. 

Like i said, please, don't keep ignoring what i write and putting words in my mouth. 
If you disagree with me, that's one thing and i accept that. Saying that  they don't make sense, it's just not true.

That’s 2 out of the last 3 in the past 12 years, and it doesn’t look like that’s changing any time soon. Looks like you’re wrong on that one.  Nintwndo being wildly successful is fairly normalized now.

Wii was an exception. Different market and all.

Switch, to me, is still an exception: what made it a winner was a bunch of factors that happen once in a lifetime: new concept (not tech innovation; unrepeatable); return to form of Mario and Zelda - not to mention they both released in 10 months; other system sellers in that same period; an already big userbase to take advantage off.
These factors put together are something i can't recall in this industry.

Not to forget that Switch sales have been pretty much irrelevant to PS4 and XB1, which a lot of people ignore or don't care, but is really relevant.

When Nintendo can have this type of success without most of the above, then it will be the norm, not the exception.

When you talking about 2 from last 3, we dont talk any more about exception.

And PS4/XB1 it seems that pretty much PS4/XB1 are irrelevant to Switch, simple they are difrent enugh they can coexist on market and people actaly buy PS4 and Switch or XB1 and Switch, and NPD already reported that huge number of Switch owners also owns PS4 or XB1 in US (70% of Switch Owners in the USA own a PS4 or Xbox One).

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237571&page=1#

It's not just a question of quantity.
I explained above what i mean.

They are not "different enough". PS3/XB360 and Wii were.
The fact that sales of PS4 and XB1 did not go down despite the amazing Switch success, is proof that Switch is not a primary consoles. Therefore, it doesn't interfere with Sony or MS's objectives.

The 70% only corroborates the above.

Tis a good direct, though the internet handling is not going so well so far. Honestly I'm just waiting to see if the paid online leads to any internet improvement as some have argued as a benefit.

You can say what you want, fact is that Nintendo will have 2 from last 3 consoles succfule.

But numbers show you are wrong like usual, fact that 70% PS4/XB1 owners bought Switch means that Switch is more than different enough, we taking about huge percentage, basicly 2/3 of all PS4/XB1 owners bought Switch also in US, why they would do that if Switch isnt difrent enough!? Who cares if Switch is mostly primary or secondary console?

And if you want to ignore the context behind those "2 in 3", so be it.

2016

PS4: 17 590 483
XB1: 8 368 621

2017

PS4: 20 144 528
XB1: 7 647 153

This is what irrelvant means.
The most popular console, not only was untouched, it grew despite the 13 097 768 Switchs sold that year.

The only revelant difference between Switch and the others, is portability. But if you look only at that - and you probably will - you'll forget that it came packed with system sellers (two special ones at that) and the fact that by that time, PS4 and XB1 already had 80+Million consoles sold combined.

What those numbers show is that Switch is making it's potential market out of those 80+Million sold. With only 30% of it's sales coming from outside that ecosystem. That's not a healthy situation.
What should be happening is the exact opposite.

Who cares? Well, Nintendo does.
Do you think any company wants to be a complementary thought? That means there's a real danger that when things change (moving on to a new generation, for example), the secondary console may or not be bought. Whereas the primary console is THE priority.