I am da one
There's a lot of assumptions in your first point. I don't think Gamefreak is banking sales on only solely mobile gamers. The whole Pokemon Go is a gimmicky add on that will likely work. Are you taking into account all the switch owners who play Pokemon Go on handheld and on their phones? Consider those who play Go and catch perfect shinies now they can transfer them to a playable core game, possibly transferring them to future games. Or how about younger players who haven't yet decided if getting a Switch was quite worth it but now that they can integrate Go will make that decision. Doesn't hurt that the game will be released right before the holidays. And like I said there are plenty of fans that aren't the target base for this game that have already got their preorders (myself included). You can have your opinion but you don't have any actual evidence that what you say will drastically impact sales and neither do I. Only time will tell, though if I had to wager I'd say the game will do well enough. I will add that the retail price of a Switch game shouldn't be an issue. Console games are more expensive than handhelds, it's always been that way. Never stopped me from buying Stadium on the N64. (man I feel old)It comes down to the core concept and appeal. As Game Freak has pointed out several times, mobile devices are meant to be general purpose electronic devices and provide not just gaming, but music, movies, internet, social media, a variety of different forms of entertainment. So mobile gamers aren't specifically interested in gaming, they just see it as one part of a full entertainment package. Furthermore, they're relatively unwilling to spend money on mobile games. Compare that with the Switch, which is designed first and foremost to be a gaming device, one that you can play when you're out and about and then come home and play it on your TV. So the market that's buying a Switch is likely going to spend much more time playing than mobile gamers would. The business model for traditional console also presents a higher bar to entry, each full scale retail game costs $60 to play them, so they require a heftier investment of money to enjoy. With all this in mind, there probably won't be a lot of mobile gamers willing to cross over. They likely got Go because you can play it for free and alternate between that and whatever else they want to do, whereas for Let's Go they have to be willing to fork over $360 just to play Let's Go. To a mobile gamer this wouldn't be seen as a good value, it doesn't suit their needs. That's why it's unwise to target them.
No, they've never really done this. Balancing what everyone would want would mean things like including multiple difficulties again, having a large degree of optional content in their games while still making it accessible enough for casual players to easily zip right through it, and not forcing simplifications because they think the fanbase needs their hand held. Such a game doesn't currently exist yet.
And they don't need two games to accomplish this, they just need one game that's flexible enough to allow different fans to experience it in whatever way they want it to. So the split is unnecessary and will just lead to further toxicity.
While it's true they aren't completely accountable for fan behavior they are accountable for making design decisions that appeal to or isolate groups of fans based on their personal interests and that is the main cause of the toxicity. The whole point of them making games is to make a product people enjoy so they can make money, if people aren't enjoying what they're offering they're not doing their job correctly.
Again a lot of this is just opinion. You're correct that they've never had those elements in one game all at once but like I've said they have tried putting elements that appease the different fans in one game, unsuccessfully. Yes a game like that would seemingly be nice though I could see how it wouldn't work. However Gamefreak doesn't apparently think its workable. Maybe it doesn't need separate games but if it works, what's the problem? Plus since they're selling two games they'll be making more profit.
I disagree entirely. Gamefreak/Nintendo never made a promise to 100% please every fan all of the time or swear they would never pander or focus on one particular group. So one group doesn't get what they want, I reiterate don't like it, don't buy it. Gamefreak is not intentionally trying to isolate players and create toxicity they are simply trying to sell a product to a large, diverse, group of people. The toxicity you speak of is caused entirely by fans and no one else. I do agree that If people aren't enjoying their games in mass then yes it would seem they'd need to go back to the drawing board but that's not the case. Obviously people are still very much enjoying the pokemon game franchise even if there is in fighting within the community. And honestly speaking, I don't even know what toxicity you're referencing. Imo the pokemon gaming fan base is pretty chill. It's only in the competitive battling scene is where I see the most argument and even then it's tame. Then again I've been involved in a lot of other infamous fanbases/fandoms.