@EnergyAbsorber: It's going to take time for the Switch to grow as a platform. It's not the sort of thing that happens over night.

@SakusEnvoy: The thing about the Switch is that unlike the 3DS, it not only has proper engine support as someone mentioned, but it also sets itself apart from conventional mobile devices. I think the reason the 3DS didn't do that well in the US was simply because it never made it a point as to why you should have it. I know it sounds silly, but aside from 3D, the 3DS didn't really make it clear why or how it was different from your smartphone. Consumers simply saw it as an outdated, redundant product that never made a serious effort to stand out. It was too similar to its predecessor in too many ways, and the idea of carrying around another device with no advantage or differentiation compared to your phone became an outdated concept as mobile gaming took off.

The Switch by contrast, instantly distinguishes itself from smartphone gaming in a compelling way. You can play it on your TV, or take it with you on the go, you can even split the controller with a friend and play together on the same screen anywhere. Even if you play games on your phone, the fact that you can do stuff like that is reason enough to buy one, and it's a big reason the Switch is so successful right now.

Also, because the Switch is made with off-the shelf PC based tablet parts, it's also very cheap to develop for. Maybe not DS cheap, but those coming from developing on iPhone or Nvidia Shield should have no problem developing for the Switch.

While we probably won't reach DS levels of Dirt Cheap game development anytime soon with major developers, the Switch is very cheap to develop for by today's standards. It's basically an Nvidia Shield in everything but name, and development kits are only $500. I don't think the Switch version of Fifa costs that much to make really, not compared to the console versions at least.

I think it's clear at this point that for now at least, securing 3rd party support for the Nintendo Switch is easier said than done. While the system is pretty powerful and developer friendly, it still falls short of the PS4 and Xbox One, meaning some of the more graphically intensive games probably won't even be ported at all. That being said, I do think there are plenty of other ways Nintendo can secure third party support. Aside from the obvious indie, Japanese, and less graphics intensive games, all one needs to do to look at third party support done right on a modern Nintendo console is the Nintendo DS. The DS was a weird handheld with dual screens, specs barely more powerful than the PlayStation, a very basic online system, and seemingly useless control gimmicks that at first many developers didn't know what to do with.

Fast-forward today, it's only the second best-selling system in the industry, following very closely behind the PlayStation 2. The combination of Install base, unique features, and being dirt cheap and easy to develop for led the DS to have a lot of support from 3rd party developers. It's easy to forget with the 3DS's relative lack of it, but the DS actually had some great western support. EA managed to get nearly all Need for Speed and Sports games on it, along with Skate it as well. Ubisoft brought Assassin's Creed to the thing. Activision brought custom versions of every Call of Duty game since Modern Warfare to it, and even Guitar Hero, Rockstar brought it's biggest franchise to the system. Plus, there were plenty of exclusives from smaller developers as well like Renegade Kid with Moon and Dementium, which showed what the DS was capable of graphically when in the right hands. And of course, Japanese developers brought a lot of exclusives as well.

I think the Switch could be the same way. If the install base is there, big 3rd parties will bring their IP to it. Maybe not always in the form of ports, but exclusive entries that can only be experienced on it, as well as any new IP tailored to the system. The Switch much like the DS, sounds dirt cheap to develop for compared to its contemporaries (development kits are only $500), so as long as the system can keep up it's momentum, the likes of Activision, EA, and Ubisoft could potentially make room in their development budget for it.

We could especially see a return, to the kind of quirky, innovative exclusives that defined the DS, especially with the added benefit of indies and the eShop. Look, Nintendo will never be the place to play all the latest and greatest from AAA developers, that ship sailed years ago, and Nintendo's made it clear that's neither the audience or market they primarily focus on. But, they can provide a place for developers, where ideas, not budgets can shine through.

Most developers have nothing but praise for the Switch, don't know where you're getting your info.

@tjandmia: The reason sales are down from last month was due to supply constraints. The Switch is doing way better than anyone expected and Nintendo couldn't keep up with demand.

On topic. I don't think much will change in how Nintendo deals with 3rd party publishers. Nintendo isn't anti-thrid party, but their business model revolves around using their own software to drive sales of their hardware, so that other developers will take notice and voluntarily develop. In Nintendo's eyes, they shouldn't have to beg other developers to make games for them unless they have to, developers have to come to them. It's a very different approach from Sony and Microsoft, who rely on using the work of other publishers to drive sales of their hardware, and it's one many of today's big name developers and gamers aren't particularly used to.

They're actually slowly moving away from the 3DS. Much of the remaining first party software is externally developed games, or late localizations. By next year, their 3DS output should slow to a crawl. Their in-house teams are now largely focused on Switch software.

Uh... What Shovelware? If your talking indie games, then you're an idiot. Plus, the Switch is set up to have a major release nearly every month. Yes, it's first two were Wii U ports, but one of them is contender for Game of the Year, and the other had the best first week sales of any Mario Kart game. Besides, you forget how many people owned a Wii U. And next month we're getting ARMS and Splatoon 2 back to back within a month of each-other.

@FireEmblem_Man: No, I'm largely basing this on interviews and stories I've heard from former Nintendo staff. Some of this could be conjecture on my part, but it really did feel like Nintendo's management was a chaotic, disorganized mess.

@FireEmblem_Man: It's not so much that it was NCL running things like a Dictatorship, it was that many divisions of the company, including the regional branches, all felt like they wanted to do their own thing, rather than have a unified plan for Nintendo. The ill-fated Nintendo TVii for example, was largely a project developed by Nintendo of America. NCL practically ignored the service, and it didn't even get a European release. Another more infamous example was Project H.A.M.M.E.R., Nintendo Software Technology, and the executives from NCL working on the project couldn't agree on anything, to the point where there were two different builds of the game being developed at once.

It's not just that Nintendo was an insular Japanese company, it's also that even the in-house divisions of the company were insular. This is what Iwata was trying to fix, streamlining the company's management, and dividing power more evenly so that Nintendo has a worldwide, and universal goal.

Throughout this entire year so far, I can't help but feel Nintendo is operating in a much more global and unified manner than before. For example.

* One of the earliest moves towards this, was Iwata taking over as Chairman and CEO of Nintendo of America 2013, replacing Tatsumi Kimishima.

* The Nintendo Switch was developed with complete division transparency, receiving input from just about every part of the company, with it's lead developers coming from the software side.

* Nintendo moving all of it's R&D into a single building in 2014.

* This culminated into the big restructuring of 2015, which saw Nintendo dismantle and merge many of it's divisions, streamlining the company's management.

* The Nintendo Switch Branding and marketing is near completely uniform across all regions.

* The Switch being region free.

* Nintendo putting greater focus on simultaneous, Worldwide launches.

* Nintendo localizing games much more consistently (whereas before a lot of games just never released outside Japan).

* NCL taking ques from NoA on welcoming indie developers.

* Even subtle differences like Directs being more uniform across all regions (unlike before where each region was getting different Directs, with many being region exclusive) and info videos from Japan being translated.

* Nintendo adopting the executive officer system, giving people like Reggie more say in the execution of the company's overall operations.

* And of course, the Switch being a combination of both handheld and home console gaming.

There are still slight differences between regions, but nowhere near to the extent as before. This all seems like a good thing IMO. A big problem with Nintendo in the late-Wii and Wii U days was that they weren't united as a company. Unusual criticism I know, but it felt like Nintendo had way too many divisions with too much power, acting almost entirely on their own. It was especially bad with hardware, as it felt like RED (handheld) and IRD (home console) were constantly competing for attention. It just felt like Nintendo was a disorganized mess that was too insular and Japanese for their own good. But recently, they've been acting much more global and much more unified.