The problem is the E-shop is a mess and it is a mess on all systems and I honestly don't think there's a solution to solve it. All those indie games (incl. the „mid-tiers“) just go under in this sheer mass of games. A new „mid-tier“ game will be on the front page for maybe one or two weeks, then it's gone and nobody will remember it, people will forget that this game acutally exists (happend to me too). I think this is one of the problems why we don't get more prominent „mid-tier“ games. Lack of exposure equals to lack of possible sales. Only the hardcore fans will buy it in the first two weeks and then it will be lucky if it still makes any substantial sales.

The Nintendo 3DS go its own versions of Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil (2 games), Need for Speed, Batman: Arkham Origins, Kingdom Hearts, Metal Gear Solid 3, Castlevania, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Rayman Origins, Driver: Renegade, Spider-Man (3 games), Tales of...(2 games), Ridge Racer, Ace Combat, Tekken, etc.

The PSP got its own versions of Assassin's Creed, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, Ghost Recon: Predator, Splinter Cell, Tom Clancy's End War, Brothers in Arms: D-Day, Tales of ...(10 games), Prince of Persia (3 games), Star Wars: Lethal Alliance, Medal of Honor Heroes 1+2, Need for Speed (6 games), Star Wars Battlefront II, Burnout (2 games), Army of Two, Dantes Inferno, The Godfather, From Russia with Love, Call of Duty, Tony Hawk (2 games), Spider-Man (4 games), Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 1+2, X-Men Legends II, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Iron Man 1+2, GTA (2 games), Street Fighter Alpha 3, Metal Gear Solid (2 games and 3 spin-offs), Spider-Man 2, Slient Hill (2 games and 2 spin-off), Castlevania, Ridge Racer (2 games), Tekken (2 games), SoulCalibur, Ace Combat, Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII, Dissidia: Final Fantasy 1+2, Final Fantasy Type-0, Final Fantasy Tacitcs, Kingdom Hearts, Star Ocean (2 games), Mortal Kombat, GTA (3 games), Midnight Club (2 games), Manhunt 2, etc.

I miss this kind of support from 3rds for the Nintendo Switch.

-Small transistors (7/5nm?)
-No more than xbox lockheart (3x less than series x) in brute processing power.
-M2 SSD for fast assets, to get into next gen development pipeline, but in lower resolution.
-No more than 1080p screen
-tablet with less bezels
-morphing controller (the switch feature applied to the controller as well)
-lite version as the regular switch 2 tablet, but with smaller and simpler controllers (as the regular would be pricier, and the user could upgrade latter)
-optional dock with DLSS (for 4k upscaling)
-optional VR

I do agree that console storefronts need some work, especially regarding the eShop. But you have to realize, a ton of those "Smaller" experimental games on PS2, DS, Wii, etc. went overlooked and under the radar as well. They're smaller games for a reason, they don't need as much hype or sales to be profitable as the big AAA games do. 

It was easier to do things like that, when the systems had entirely unique, custom architecture, and development costs for handhelds were low enough to create all new assets and engines for custom handheld adaptations. With the Switch though? It's way easier and cheaper to just downgrade the console assets of existing games. Switch ports like Doom, Witcher III, Outer Worlds, BioShock, etc. are the modern equivelent of those cutsom "Handheld entries". Only this time, they're the full console games, just downgraded visually to work on the system.

See what I mean when I say development tools and console architecture are way better these days? The Switch is essentially a tablet running downscaled PC hardware, it's no different than developing games on PlayStation or Xbox, that's why you see a lot of "Impossible" ports for it. 

I know, your right but for me personally, it is not really a better situation than back in the PSP/3DS time (leaving out Vita on purpose). I'm a huge Nintendo fan (not a Fanboy) and want to mostly play on Nintendo consoles (1st and 3rd party). The problem is (although, I started to play more on the go) that I predominantly play in front of my TV. From the current gen, besides the Nintendo Switch I also own a PS4 Pro. There's really no reason for me (and for anybody who predominantly plays in front of a TV) to buy 3rd party games on the Nintendo Switch when a) they look and play so much better on PS4, b) have much better online services on PS4 and c) I have no price advantage for an inferior version on my Nintendo Switch, in fact many 3rd party games are actually more expensive. I could ad d) virtually all 3rd party games release on PS4 long before they arrive on Switch (if at all). However, this point is irrelevant for me personally, as I don't have a need to buy games at launch window.

In other words to satisfy my gaming appetite, Nintendo actually forced me to buy a PS4 (Pro) and I know there are many many other gamers who feel likewise (instead of a PS4 of course it can be an Xbox One (X) or a gaming PC). I don't think it is a very intelligent business strategy if you force people to buy products from a competitor because you yourself can't satisfy their needs. Of course Nintendo is super-successful with the Nintendo Switch (hard- and software), so the critique seems to be displaced, however, it still leaves a bitter taste... and I as a gamer have nothing from their business success because as a gamer I'm only interested in good games (still I very much care for the success of Nintendo but I guess you got my point).

That's understandable. But the vast majority of Switch owners play do on the go though, so to them, these ports are just as appealing. I think what you want to see is more titles built from the ground up for the Switch. Well there's certainly quite a few available, Ninjala, Bravely Default III, Gal Metal, and various indie titles that are/were at the very least, console or timed exclusive to the Switch. Even if these games do make their way to other platforms, many people will still prefer the Switch versions simply due to the portability. 

Nintendo can't satisfy everyone though. Still, the fact that these ports sell well shows that people do wan to take these games with them, and don't mind waiting upwards of a full year to get them, so publishers keep doing it. And as I said, it's still far cheaper than creating all new custom assets and engines for Switch specific entries in franchises, as the Switch has all the development tools and engines that are on PS4 and XBO, just more limited since it is a mobile device after all. 

Since it's all about graphics-power for the others with this new gen, the successor to Switch is likely to offer a little bit of everything they're doing.

Higher resolution, better shaders and models, more rays traced, better framrate, all of it. Because better CPU and GPU.
The system is also unlikely to NOT feature more and faster faster memory, or more and faster storage.

The system probably won't provide as much of all the newfangled stuff as Series X and PS5 are doing, but nothing would really stop developers from utilizing any of the new technologies, unless the system was bottlenecked in some obtuse ways. Which it is almost guaranteed not to be.

I think it will have whatever mobile chip Nvidia has at that point maybe customized more to avoid the hacking the switch experienced plus being more powerful than PS4 pro and maybe even Xbox x but less so than ps5 and XboxSeX in almost all departments plus they have to have more storage because with the way memory prices are falling, 250gigs or even 500gigs should be economical for them.

I would like to see Nintendo move to a modular platform that adapts to changes in technology better and also incorporates previous consoles too. The Switch is a fantastic adaptable console as there are many ways to play. But what about the dock? What if the dock could plug into an NES, or a Gamecube, or even a Wii U? What if you could, in a plug and play fashion, upgrade the graphics by buying an enhancement which plugs into this dock too? Maybe the dock could even translate signals from older controllers. Similar to Legos, you could build your preferred console. While per unit this may not make Nintendo as much money, it might bring in a larger audience, which in turn, would create an opportunity for selling multiple peripherals. This is a big picture, long term idea that would allow the portability to remain constant while giving people tons of alternate Nintendo experiences.

Nintendo has the blue ocean strategy and it is set in stone that they will never have a powerful home console ever again. Going forward with the Switch concept just makes too much sense.

But let's assume Nintendo will bring a new powerful home console that is on par with PS5 and Xbox Series X. Would it really be a bad business decision? Let's say Nintendo will be the clear loser and only sell 20 million lifetime (an absolute worst case scenario, yes, Wii U sold even less but it is simply impossible for Nintendo to make so many mistakes at once again). Would it matter? Not if there will also be a Switch 2. You will say, it will be a regression to the Wii U/3DS days where the R&D departments are divided again into home console and hybrid console. But it will not be true because the home console games could just be scaled down to the Switch 2 the same way as now PS4/Xbox One games are scaled down to the Switch. Surely, Nintendo in-house titles will have no problems. If Nintendo don't want to waste their own people for the down-scaling works, well, there are plenty of studios out there who will be happy to do that job. 3rd parties on the other hand are now completely free, they can do just (day and date) one-to-one ports from PS5/Xbox Series X games to the new Nintendo home console or they do an additional down-scaled port for the Switch 2. You will say that nobody will port for a small installer base of only 20 mil (even much less in the beginning) but the new Nintendo home console will have a similar architecture as PS5/Xbox Series X and it will not be more difficult to port to it than to port from PS5 to Xbox Series X (or vice versa). The sales on the new Nintendo home console will potentially be good because those few millions will be hungry for new games. If the ports are easy to make, surely, the developers don't want to miss these additional sales of 250k to 1 mil. or even more.

Remember, a survey (https://segmentnext.com/2019/05/08/nintendo-switch-owners-ps4-xbox-one/) has proven some time ago that 60% of US-Nintendo Switch owners also own either a PS4 or Xbox One (I guess the number in Europe must be around the same). In conclusion, it would mean that potentially 60% of US/EU Switch 2 owners again will buy either a PS5 or Xbox Series X. But now they have also the opportunity to buy the new Nintendo home console instead. I think it's only logical that among those 60% are many gamers who like Nintendo games. It will be very likely, therefore, that a certain percentage of those 60% will buy the new Ninendo console instead of a PS5 or Xbox Series X (if we assume that the new Nintendo home console is really on par in everyhing (online service for example) with the two competitors). That's why I think my 20 mil. lifetime sales for this new Nintendo home console is very lowballing but even so it wouldn't be a wasted console (there's also Nintendo online to make profit from).

Nintendo would then have gone full circle: a Switch 2 Hybrid, later on a Switch 2 Light (handheld) and a powerful home console, all belonging to the same family of systems. Assuming that Nintendo doesn't make big mistakes, the Switch 2 Hybrid and Switch 2 Light will again selling like hot cakes and the new home consoles bring in additional revenue. The investors will be pleased too, they will understand the strategy if it's explained to them.