Ah yes, the old "released all the big guns argument" that has been made every single year.
You mention how they need to announce something big this year while ignoring the fact that 3D World+Bowser's Fury is releasing next week which is a gauranteed 5+ million seller with potential to do over 10 million.
Then next month is Monster Hunter Rise (not 1st party but a major exclusive). MH4 & MHX each did over 4 million on 3DS so with the Switch affect+World making the series huge in the West, Rise should easily pass 5 million with potential to do 10 million as well.
On top of that we have seen over the last few years that Nintendo is more than willing to announce games just a few months before launch so the whole, "they have nothing scheduled" argument is tired and nonsense at this point.
I mentioned SM3DW+BF in a prior post. While the Bowser's Fury expansion is new, the core game is a re-release of a 7-year-old Wii U game. Will it do well? Certainly. Re-releases can and often do well, and most of these Wii U re-releases have done better on the Switch (for obvious reasons), so SM3DW ought to do at least as well as its original Wii U release. But will it move any appreciable amount of hardware? Doubtful. Re-releases/remakes/remasters aren't typically known for having any real system-selling potential on any platform, with exceptions being incredibly rare. And Nintendo is running out of notable Wii U games to re-release, or at least ones that would be worth re-releasing. I doubt there's much demand for, say, Smash 4 or Splatoon to come to the Switch when they already have just-as-good-or-better sequels on it. All they have left that there's a point in re-releasing and that people will actually be interested in is maybe the HD Zelda re-releases and Xenoblade Chronicles X.
Forget ports of old games. Where's the original games, i.e., the ones that aren't ports, remasters, or remakes? Nintendo isn't really able to readily fill in the gaps between new-new titles on a consistent basis with re-releases of Wii U games anymore, so those new games will be even more essential going forward. BotW2 is the only first-party title that we know of and that isn't a port of a Wii U game that has the potential to be a blockbuster release. The rest are unlikely to be big hits (as interested as I am in Metroid Prime 4, that's never been a huge franchise commercially). And don't "The megatons are coming, just you wait" me. Sure, they could have something big waiting in the wings, but past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, and I'm not expecting mountains of huge titles in the Switch's future unless something happens in the near future to convince me otherwise.
Nintendo's biggest and best titles for any given system released this century have been relatively front-loaded within that system's life, even for their more successful systems. The DS only had a few successful top-tier games released after 2008. The Wii didn't get many big games after it turned four, with the biggest titles by far from Nov. 2010 onward being Donkey Kong Country Returns and Skyward Sword. The 3DS had only a few top-tier new games released from 2015 onward. It would honestly surprise the hell out of me if the Switch got new entries in most of Nintendo's big series. The biggest thing I could see for the Switch is a Sword & Shield sequel or a remake of an older Pokemon game, seeing as the biggest late-life first-party games for their handhelds have been Pokemon games.
As for MH Rise, that's a third-party game. Third-party titles are not the lifeblood of the Switch. In fact, it's been a very long time since third-party titles were anywhere close to being as important as first-party games on a Nintendo system. Considering how big Monster Hunter is in Japan, Rise will probably be the best-selling third-party game on the Switch by far, but it would be one of the rare third-party games on the system that's a multi-million-seller. That's a list games so small you can literally hold them in one hand. On average, people buy Nintendo systems primarily to play Nintendo games. The rare third-party hit doesn't change that.
Yeah, Shadow has the classic blindness of the handheld market. The Majority of Nintendo handhelds have a long lifespan, the exception is GBA.
...he says right after I made several posts referencing handhelds, including making relevant commentary on how Nintendo typically supports those, etc.
The DS was around for 6-⅓ years when the 3DS was released. The 3DS was around for 6 years when the Switch was released. That's the same as the Wii. The only Nintendo systems to make it to the seven-year mark without being replaced were the Famicom (but not the NES) and the Game Boy. That was last century. Given this fact, is it not a reasonable assumption that the Switch won't join them, that Nintendo won't do something they haven't done in decades?
Look at the second paragraph in the post you quoted. Investors ask Nintendo about the future outlook of the company regularly and Nintendo answers that a new console isn't coming anytime soon. And yes, what Nintendo means is the timeframe until replacement, not the entire lifetime which includes support after replacement.
Nintendo supported the 3DS for two years after its replacement, so that's also something to consider. The fundamental point of this continued first party support was maintenance of a broad price bracket. Switch was $300, so by keeping the 3DS around, Nintendo had $100-200 covered with their various 3DS models. First party support for the 3DS was phased out around the time when it was feasible to have a cheaper Switch SKU (Switch Lite), albeit a more restricted one. Going forward, you should expect Nintendo to handle it the same way, because the Switch successor is very likely to launch with a price of $300 again. Also, the GB/C, GBA and DS had decent post-replacement support too. Out of Nintendo's successful consoles, there's only the Wii which didn't have post-replacement support, so your stance to make the anomaly your default expectation is puzzling. (Failed consoles getting cut short is the norm in this business, so N64, GC and Wii U seeing no post-replacement support is nothing out of the ordinary.)
Again, I'll believe it when I see it. As I said, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I have absolutely no reason to think Nintendo is now suddenly going to start supporting their systems for as long and as strongly as Sony does with PlayStation after multiple generations of winding down support for their systems after the first several years.
Also, there's a difference between support and "support." When I'm talking about support, I mean real, meaningful support. The really big games. The first-party ones that Nintendo system are utterly dependent upon. The ones that are surefire hits guaranteed to sell multiple millions of copies. Not some penny-ante low-budget titles that are usually forgotten as soon as they're released, or spinoffs and remakes from less popular franchises. There's a big difference between a new main series Super Mario, Pokemon, or Zelda game and something like, say, Hey! Pikmin or Kirby's Mass Attack.
Sure, Nintendo kept throwing mid- to low-tier titles onto the 3DS after the Switch came out, but that's not saying much. First off, let's not forget that the Switch wasn't "officially" the 3DS's replacement, though for all practical purposes it is. Second, Pokemon Ultra Sun & Ultra Moon was the only real top-tier title for the 3DS released after March 2017. The rest of those late-life games were not major new titles by any stretch, and not one of them was a million-seller. And none of them, not even that Pokemon game, kept the 3DS's sales from declining.
It's similar to the GBA situation, in that the DS wasn't officially the GBA's replacement (even though the market responded to it as if it were), and Nintendo did support it slightly better in terms of number of titles than the GBC, which had nothing first-party released for it after the GBA was released (at least in Japan; Pokemon Crystal came out for the GBC in NA a few weeks after the GBA was released), and the DS, which had like five Nintendo titles released on it after the 3DS. But, except for Mother 3, those first-party GBA games released after Nov. 2004 were all second-rate titles or ports of games from older systems.
The big games, the real support, has been something sorely and consistently lacking on Nintendo systems past their fourth year or so on the market, regardless of how well the system is performing. That dearth of big blockbuster titles has time and time again contributed to Nintendo systems declining much more rapidly post-peak than PS & Xbox systems. Again, if we see multiple high-profile announcements within the 12-18 months, titles that are hype-worthy and are guaranteed to be smash hits (something like Mario Kart 9), then and only then will I be more inclined to think the Switch will have a protracted lifespan (by Nintendo standards) kept afloat with good support.
I understand people are happy to see the Switch do well and want to see it keep going like this for a long time, especially after the Wii U flopped and the 3DS failed to get anywhere close to its predecessor. I'm glad it's doing well myself. I've been a Nintendo fan for over 30 years, and I think Nintendo has been putting out some of their best games in a long time, arguably their best since the N64 era. But I try to keep my expectations realistic (though "realistic" does have a large subjective component in these sorts of discussions as everybody's arbitrary bar for success is different). For a very long time now, Nintendo's support for their systems past the first four years or so has been largely token in nature. I'm not going to get my hopes up by assuming Nintendo is suddenly going to change their ways and go back to how they were back in the 80s & 90s in terms of supporting their systems, or that they're going to move towards PS/Xbox.