Problem is that this segment of Nikon's products probably can't support itself in isolation. Factories make optical materials in quantity and if this quantity is cut by 95%, for example, it may become prohibitatively expensive to maintain consistency of materials in smaller quantities and thus in the end it may not be possible to make a quality end user product for a competitive price without the support from the consumer products. When Nikon creates new technologies, be it for optics or camera bodies, they need to sell a large quantity of products that utilize that technology in order to be profitable.
Furthermore the high end products are difficult to sell without less expensive products in the same lineup that serve as a ladder which allows consumers to spend money in a gradual manner. I know some people who started with D70, then went with D200 or D300, and finally D8x0 or even D5. Today that might be D3x00 -> D7x00 -> D6x0 -> D500/D810 etc. People just can't cough up that kind of money to start with a D810 or D500, when they are unsure of whether they will like photography in the long term and are just starting out. Without entry level products, Nikon won't get as many new users as they used to.
In practice Nikon must maintain some kind of stepping stones for beginners in the system. Perhaps the D3x00 and D5x00 can be merged into one product. I quite frankly wish they would do away with the pentamirror viewfinder entirely. Perhaps the D7200 could be added with a tilt/swivel screen. I think Nikon ought to make a few more intermediate/high end DX lenses and I am sure money can be made in this segment since third party manufacturers seem to have found it worthwhile. If I'm not mistaken the D7x00 have been extremely popular and thus this is definitely a product to continue making. I don't know if it is inexpensive enough for beginners. Perhaps used market can help with that.
Trouble is, your recollection of how 'you' (and others) began in the DSLR world presupposes that was the only way IN to the DSLR world. Back then, cell phones weren't smart phones, so DSLRs (even entry ones) could take better photos than cell phones.
Today, phones like the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge, Google Phone, and iPhone 7 cost
more than most entry level DSLRs ($650-$850) ... and they come with badass cameras
So what's the point in buying a limited DSLR, when your cell phone costs more and takes some really cool photographs?
(This is exactly why my own brother, and his family, decided against buying a low-end DSLR or P & S for their trip to Europe--they weren't into photography enough to buy a really nice camera, and they didn't want to carry anything "extra"; they concluded that
their own cell phones, which they already carry, were sufficient, and which could immediately share with their friends & family, by text or by Facebook post, their ongoing adventures ... which no "entry camera" could do.)
With cell phones being nearly $800, why create BS cameras less than that, which require post-processing and "extra steps" to take in order to share photos?
The D7200 would be the "lowest" camera it makes sense to sell, at $990. It's good enough to justify buying and better than a cell phone, to where is justifies spending extra time post-processing. The D3400 series is a waste of time IMO. Who is going to buy this little plasticky $500 toy ... when they're already carrying an $850 iPhone Plus with a very competent camera?
It only makes sense to offer something
better than
any smartphone out there, if you're going to inconvenience people by
not having the ability to text their photos to friends/family, and
not having the ability to immediately share photos on Facebook, which is the reality of
all current cameras right now. [If you think the $1900 D500 is "too high" to start people off on for a DSLR ... then the $990 D7200 is the lowest I would go, when people already have $650-$850 cell phones (with great cameras at the-ready), sitting conveniently in their pockets or purses right now.]
As it stands, why would they want to add a $550 toy camera, and a $200 toy lens, to put around their necks, when they already have more expensive cell phones?
The only people who are going to buy cameras in the future are going to be buying something way beyond what their cell phones can do ... and it will be the 1% of the human population truly interested in photography. The rest of the population already has everything they need in a camera, right in their iPhones or Androids.
Jack
