Depends on how many Switches and Switch Lites Nintendo can make versus how many more they can sell with a discount, assuming said discount keeps them profitable.
Here's a bit of a math problem for you:
Lets say Nintendo can make Switch Lites for $150 all in after shipping, retail cut, etc..
They sell them at $200. Tie ratio on a new platform is 2-4 games with an effective average of 3 games.
Games are sold at $60, with a $30 profit margin per title after all costs going to Nintendo.
Total average profit per sale would be $140 ($50 for the device and 3x$30 for the games).
At the above in this hypothetical they'd sell 10M units per year lets say (keep the math easy) so $1.4B in profit generated.
Now consider the hypothetical where Nintendo were to sell the Switch Lite at $250, suppressing sales by 25% and tie ratio by 1.
Suddenly they're making $100 per unit but only $60 on software. Per customer profit is $160, so an increase, but only by $20 (little under 15%) while losing 25% of sales. If the Switch Lite is not production constrained this is a money losing decision.
Now lets try the opposite:
Nintendo sells the Switch Lite for $150, effectively at cost, making no profit on the device.
This drivers sales up 25%. It also drives tie ratio up half a game (so 3.5 per), again hypothetical but picking a balance between people where the $50 reduction on system was the cost difference on buying in and would have a lower tie versus people who were going to spend X and now just buy an extra game. half a game is probably a lower end estimate here when you consider that only the 25% new customers were cost constrained.
So 12.5M units sold, 0 profit from the hardware but 3.5x$30 per on software, so $105 each. Thats about $1.3B. Only $100M off the first pricing structure, but seeding 25% more customers into the market for future software purchases. Of the 25% gained customers (2.5M) if each one buys just 1.3 games on average for the rest of the life of the system they'd make up that $100M.
The notion that products are priced based entirely on what the company can get away with and/or that they're always correct in how they price these things is rather naive. They're in it for profit, sure, but most well ran companies care more about long term profit and sustainability of the business than current year profits.
In Nintendo's case we have a very recent instance with the 3DS where they backtracked on their pricing decision.
This is a pretty common choice for Nintendo really, they're a risk adverse company overall. The way they price software is a great example of this, it isn't conducive to bringing people in who aren't already fans of the IP, and so some of their secondary IPs are profitable but never really grow. One could argue that Fire Emblem found its breakthrough largely thanks to the lower MSRP of 3DS software aligning with some design choices to catch on, as one example.
At the end of the day this is why bundling exists and why Nintendo is likely going to be seling Odyssey and BotW for $40 over Black Friday (Best Buy selling both digitally for that is a pretty massive tell). If you know you have a handful of titles that are so headlining your platform as to be a buy-in difference maker for most people you can use that to seasonally lower the floor for entry. To jump back to the above example, if Odyssey and BotW are together in 50% of all day one Switch purchases (2 of the 3) and at least one is present in 75% you're basically achieving a ~$25 cost reduction for all customers on average by discounting those two games $20 each, and it can be pulled back as soon as the BF window ends.
It has the added benefit of effectively restricting the price break for new entries, as people who are buying say, a Switch Lite, as a second system aren't going to see the same value in a discounted Odyssey/BotW they already own.
Sony has been using their successful first party IPs like this all generation to postpone permanent PS4/PS4 Pro price cuts, using explicit bundles to do so, and in the process really building the visibility of their current gen efforts.
The complaining the OP referred to on here stems from the intend of these kinds of discounts. Most people wanting a Switch Lite BF deal on here are wanting a second system, so a priced break on the two most likely pickups for the system means nothing for them. Meanwhile Nintendo would much, much rather sell that Switch Lite to a new customer as opposed to someone buying a second/third system for portability.
Once you own the platform no one in this industry is trying to sell you a second one. The profit margins versus bill of materials isn't good enough. They'd much rather that discretionary income went to more software.
