Rumor: GR: Wildlands on Switch? Plus, how can third parties make gamers want them on it?

Before I start anything, let me clarify that the video in this post is not mine. All rights, credit, etc go to its creator, not me.
Second, this is being made as a blog post because the sources are questionable, and thus are not fit for a regular rumor news post.
With that being said, let's get into it.
According to the video author, Doctre81, he has been doing some digging around on the net, and has stumbled across info that seems to indicate that Ghost Recon: Wildlands may be set for the Switch at launch.
As far as I know, this is a brand new game in the series, not a remake or port, which begs a question that I've had for a while, regarding third parties and the Switch: how much good does it stand to do for Nintendo?
For companies like Capcom, their games have done great things for Nintendo's handheld lines, most notably with Monster Hunter.
But for companies with games like GR:W, the fanbase for the series was never really formed on Nintendo's systems, or encouraged to buy Nintendo's systems for said games even when they did appear, like back on the Wii U.
That brings to light the issue of whether or not their presence on the platform is really going to matter or not, and the same for many other third parties.
Right now, people are saying that Nintendo cannot rely upon their own franchises to carry them anymore.
To an extent, given the great job third parties did helping in uplifting the 3DS to over 100 million software sales recently, I can see where those with that opinion are coming from.
However, third parties have not had a great track record recently regarding sales on Nintendo's home console.
Much of it is on Nintendo, for not making their systems more capable, but third parties share blame on it too, for making much smaller efforts to get said games up and running, and even cutting out content, as opposed to the much easier method of making new games from the ground up for the architecture.

With the advent of the Switch, and the rumors coming in stating that it shares much of its programming language in common with other systems, the past barriers present on the Wii U, to getting AAA games running on it, should lessen considerably, if not vanish.

But even with all the ease in the world for development, how much good will it do the system, if both third parties and Nintendo cannot convince none-Nintendo gamers that third parties are worth supporting on the system?
Sure, there will be a smattering of Nintendo fans who will support it, but by and large, they have been embittered towards third parties on Nintendo home consoles, over the last two gens.
Expecting that to change overnight with the Switch probably isn't going to happen, so again that begs the question: how much good can third parties and their AAA games reasonably do for the Switch?

What strategies or plans could Nintendo and third parties make use of to change its fortunes, and to get both Nintendo and none-Nintendo gamers interested in supporting third parties on the Switch?

Please note that I'm looking for something more intelligent than a "they can't." sort of reply.
Tell me what you guys think, but please be constructive about it.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

Nintendo should just develop like 5 new triple A exclusive new IP games for SWITCH's launch window . Problem is that could cost like a half billion dollars .

[Goldby]

Good Quick read, that definitely asks the right questions, and I'm with you when the third party games that are on PS4 and Xbox might not be the selling games for the Nintendo Switch mainly due to the audience that is interested in the Switch.

It does have the benefit of being portable, which can gain some sales that way, but if people are looking to use it as a home console primarily or only, it will be tough to convince people to shed the Playstation or Xbox brand for Nintendo when their track record of support via 3rd party isn't the strongest.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

I don't think convincing them to shed brands is a very good solution, as someone who has always valued owning more than one console and sees the clear advantages of doing so.

They should be aiming to get gamers interested in having the Switch regardless of whatever else they own.

[Goldby]

Shed probably wasnt the best wording. But i meant as choosing to use Nintendo as their 1st choice for games in the case of multiplatform owners

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

I want to agree with that, but the issue is that any plan I can think up to make it happen would be unrealistic.
Most of the popular stuff has already set its roots firmly as either Sony or MS-related names.
When you think of Assassin's Creed, for instance, you don't automatically think "Nintendo".

Let's say, for example, that the positive rumors are true.
I.E., #1 Bethesda being there means it's as powerful as the XB1 at least, since Beth confirmed that was the only way they would work on the "NX" because that was the issue that drove them back from the Wii U, #2 Nvidia's statements about the architecture sharing language with other consoles makes it far easier to dev for, and other such things.

Even if those rumors are true, and there will be big upcoming games getting Switch ports, what would make people choose them on Switch over other versions?
They could go for timed exclusivity, but that would piss people off.
They could try doing small bits of Nintendo-related exclusive content, but I doubt being able to do something like ride around on Epona instead of a Chocobo in FFXV would be very big draw to none-Nintendo gamers.
Point of fact, I feel it might just draw more mockery if the content differences are too small, for returns too small to matter.

As much as I love hearing about games like Skyrim hitting the Switch, and as much as rumors of stuff like GR:W and other positive tidbits give me hope, I honestly feel that third parties won't get anywhere unless they lead off with solid exclusives first and foremost.

The reason that approach didn't work with Wii U, outside of horrible marketing, going back on promises, and the like, is because the exclusives during launch weren't fantastic system movers.
Zombi U, Rayman Legends, etc etc, none of the exclusives, during the opening 6 months, were enough to even draw in third party lovers, who will follow a good third party game or three if they're attractive enough, even to a Nintendo system.(like Monster Hunter fans did to 3DS)
It didn't help that the ports were also fraught with issues, stemming both from system limitations and laziness on the part of devs, so they could not pick up the slack in return.

That needs to change with their approach to the Switch.
They tried supporting a few small and unexciting exclusives with a ton of ports.
I feel that, to have a chance now, they need to do the exact opposite; at least one new T or M rated big exclusive that core gamers will swallow their console pride to get a system for, that isn't just a canceled project from another system, within the first year, that will help support the ports.

But most importantly, they have to be exclusives that can set their roots firmly into the Switch, as their home platform.
Exclusives that you automatically think "Nintendo" when you see them.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

That is why i said NINTENDO really needs to invest 1st party exclusive's and new IP's. But it seems that NINTENDO is more focused on family entertainment with the announcement of building 3 NINTENDO theme parks with UNIVERSAL studios . Seems like NINTENDO is not going all out on consoles for the home anymore .

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

@Doom
While I agree that Nintendo needs to do that, at the same time, THIRD PARTIES out-number Nintendo, and therefore THIRD PARTIES have a greater capability to do exactly what you're saying.
THIRD PARTIES are the major selling force on other consoles, and there's no reason that THIRD PARTIES cannot do the same on Switch, if THIRD PARTIES do it right.
And btw, the theme parks are side projects; saying that having their hands in theme parks means Nintendo's not serious about home consoles, is like saying Sony having their hands in making/sponsoring movies means they aren't serious about consoles.
It's a silly assumption. No offense.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

Reply to wonderfullm.._ reply - No offense taken . Good point about SONY . I do think that NINTENDO takes their gaming division very seriously . I even think the NINTENDO theme parks is really great for their brand . But i also believe that NINTENDO has to kinda make a big power move to get back a good chunk of the console market with the NINTENDO SWITCH. And what sells consoles more than anthing , games and lot of them . So i agree with you a 100% that the majority of the video games come from 3rd parties . Like you said in your comment that i first replied on, they do need to go to some big 3rd party studios to make some games that are exclusive to the NINTENDO SWITCH . Maybe CRYTEK ,INSOMNIAC, ect.._. at least have 2 or three big 3rd party exclusive games for year 1 . And then have 2 or three 1st party games for year 1. They already have a ZELDA game coming . I would love a new METRIOD PRIME game . Plus like you said , they need some ports from triple A multiplat studios . If NINTENDO did all this , it would be a very hefty investment financially . If they did do this, i would probably buy a NINTENDO SWITCH within the first year of release .

By the way forget to mention, good blog.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

By the way only 2 days left to comment on this blog . Currently ,we have 3 user blogs on front page that we can not comment on! The old site we had 30 days to comment on N4G user blogs .

Please Chris, talk to you tech crew and change it back to 30 days, intstead of seven to leave comments in user blog section!!! Thanks .