No. You are shifting the goal post and twisting definitions.

And you are right, the Op is talking about must-have games that can't be found "elsewhere". - Thus if it's on WiiU, it can be found elsewhere, that's being logical and literal.

The amount of people who bought a WiiU is thus irrelevant to that end.
Even if only a single WiiU console ever sold, if those games can be bought on it, then those games are not exclusive to the Switch.

Again, sales are irrelevant.

The amount of sales doesn't exclude a game from being exclusive to a platform.

If Breath of the Wild sold a SINGLE copy on PC... And 100 million copies on Switch, it's still not exclusive, sales are irrelevant, the actual release scope is relevant.

Same goes for games that only sold in specific regions...

So for example if a game on SNES only sold in Japan, but was re-released ONLY on Switch, it's still not exclusive to the Switch.

And Breath of the Wild is actually a good example, I completed that game on WiiU as the WiiU was the cheapest way to play the game on release when accounting for console+game purchase.
Obviously have a copy on Switch as well now, but unlikely to ever replay it.

But still. Breath of the Wild is not Switch exclusive, I even own the physical games to prove it.

If it's had an official release on another platform, it's not exclusive, that is all there is to it, there isn't an exception to this.

It's the literal definition.

How are you still not understanding this even after having it explained to you multiple times in multiple ways?

No one is denying that it’s technically not an exclusive, that’s not the argument being made. What we’re saying is that for all intents and purposes it’s an exclusive.

What has this thread turned into?

Top tier discussion going on here.

And I am arguing that for all intents and purposes it's NOT an exclusive... And arguing otherwise simply undermines the truth.

I tried to be bring some rational to the debate, next time i'll know better and will attack it in my usual irrational way.

This argument has made this thread dumb.

Exclusive normally just means only on that company's systems. So any first party game would apply.
You can say exclusive and not ports of old games, so then MK8D wouldn't count.
And sure if you really wanna be technical about exclusive just to the system BotW wouldn't count, but Switch was the primary release for BotW, as it launched same day on a dead (and failed) system.
I get what Permalite is saying about exclusive to Switch, but most people consider BotW to be a Switch exclusive, and if we wanna use the term in it's normal sense then any old port first party game applies as well.

I'd say go ahead and use the normal usage of exclusive, meaning the games aren't on Xbox, Playstation, or PC. Cuz then there is no stupid debate about BotW, and you can throw in an obvious exlcusive like MK8D, and possibly other games like 3D World, or whatever Nintendo ports you happen to love that are available on the Switch.

Between cross gen titles, the mass production of old ports these days including remakes and remasters, backwards compatibility, and retro game services, talking about games that are only every released on a single system as exclusive kinda loses it's meaning because what is only available on a single system today could easily be on more systems in the future. If you still want a decently strict definition of exclusive then just stick to it must be launched as a new game on the system and isn't available on the other company's hardware - in this case BotW is an exclusive because it launched on Switch as a brand new never before seen game and is first party.

Pretty sure I played Gris on Ps4 over a year ago...

But BOTW was simultaneously released on both Wii U and Switch, it's a cross gen title. I would understand if it was released in some minor obscure platform not readily or easily available for purchase. One example is Animal Crossing originally released on Nintendo 64 but only came to west on Game Cube, but that's not the case of BOTW. It was a game with a full retail release that sold 1.7 million copies, really pales compared to Switch version, but still a pretty good number and the 13th best selling Wii U software. 

It's by no means an a Switch-exclusive and I'm still trying hard to understand why people on this thread are making mental gymnastics to say it's a exclusive when it's clearly not one.  It's just not apply to any logical definition of exclusivity 

Exclusivity is state. You can be a timed-exclusive that is later ported to other system/PC. MK8 used to be Wii U exclusive, since 2017 it's not as it was re released on Switch 

So any game released in a console that is BC starts to be not a platform-exclusive anymore?

My simple answer is: Of course yes. It has been true since the first ever backwards compatibility console was released

We just can call it "Nintendo exclusive on Switch" if people want so hard to keep it on Switch must have list