Quantcast
Wanna predict how much the Switch will sell?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wanna predict how much the Switch will sell?

How much do you think Switch will sell lifetime?

<10M 39 4.11%
 
10M-20M 125 13.19%
 
20M-30M 137 14.45%
 
30M-40M 143 15.08%
 
40M-50M 121 12.76%
 
50M-60M 120 12.66%
 
60M-70M 70 7.38%
 
70M-80M 59 6.22%
 
80M-100M 57 6.01%
 
> 100M 77 8.12%
 
Total:948
Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I am surprised how pessimistic most people were on the Switch. I thought it was pretty obvious that the Switch would do well from the get go.

I guess most people assume the previous generation affects the next generation. Clearly it doesn't. The Gamecube sold terribly. The Wii sold amazingly well. One did not affect the other. And also the Wii's success didn't help the Wii U at all. Likewise the PS2 was the best selling console of all time. The PS3 was a financial failure. Every generation is a huge reset button. Each console has to be evaluated on its own merits instead of basing it on the previous console.

It's not that easy though. Switch and Wii suceeded for completely different reasons. Wii offered new ways to play and offered the games for that. Switch does offer one new way to play: play seamlessly mobile and at home. But the point here is, that the games haven't to be changed for that. Therefore Switch adds value to any game releasing on it, even if it is ported unchanged. That's why old ports and indies do so well, Switch adds value without the game developer anything at all.

But this was not clear from the presentation back then. The hybrid nature was visible, but it wasn't clear it would add so much value to games, you would have to try for yourself. And therefore it wasn't clear that ports would sell that well, and that resulted in big support. That is why Switch has so many games and 3rd-party support that shapes up to be more substantial than what the Wii had. Back then I didn't even calculated with serious 3rd-party support. But the 3rd-party support changes the image. Think how Switch would look, if support was similar to WiiU. Still a great device for Zelda and Mario - but that's it. That makes a big difference.

You make some very good points.  However I want to say the most important thing for any console is the games.  A console is just a device you play games on.  It's the games that give a console it's worth.  However the games at launch and also during the first year set the trend for how the console is going to do.  

(referring to bold) In this sense, the Wii and Switch succeeded for the same reason.  They both launched with flagship games that people really wanted.  New gamers really wanted Wii Sports.  Established gamers really wanted Breath of the Wild.  Both devices had great flagship games.  The Wii U had Nintendoland as its flagship game.  People just did not get excited for this game like they did for Wii Sports or BotW.  In that sense it should have been clear that the Switch would do well right out of the gate, because it launched with such a great game.

I don't want to negate what you said though.  The hybrid nature of the Switch gives it huge advantages.  The biggest advantage is that Nintendo always gets good third party support for it's handhelds.  They have had problems getting third party support for their home consoles, but not their handhelds.  Now they can use all of their strength in the handheld market and bring it to the home console market.

That is why the people who are now guessing only at the 100m mark for Switch are still way undershooting it.  The real wave of third party games hasn't hit yet.  Third parties need time to make their games and most of them wouldn't have thought about the Switch until after they saw it succeeding.  Next year we are going to actually start seeing new third party games for Switch, and in 2020 we will get even more.  The Switch is still in its slow phase.  Once a large wave of new third party games comes along, then Switch sales are going to move into high gear.  (And no I don't mean Western AAA, because those games are overrated anyway.)

Last edited by The_Liquid_Laser - on 14 November 2018

Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Mnementh said:

It's not that easy though. Switch and Wii suceeded for completely different reasons. Wii offered new ways to play and offered the games for that. Switch does offer one new way to play: play seamlessly mobile and at home. But the point here is, that the games haven't to be changed for that. Therefore Switch adds value to any game releasing on it, even if it is ported unchanged. That's why old ports and indies do so well, Switch adds value without the game developer anything at all.

But this was not clear from the presentation back then. The hybrid nature was visible, but it wasn't clear it would add so much value to games, you would have to try for yourself. And therefore it wasn't clear that ports would sell that well, and that resulted in big support. That is why Switch has so many games and 3rd-party support that shapes up to be more substantial than what the Wii had. Back then I didn't even calculated with serious 3rd-party support. But the 3rd-party support changes the image. Think how Switch would look, if support was similar to WiiU. Still a great device for Zelda and Mario - but that's it. That makes a big difference.

You make some very good points.  However I want to say the most important thing for any console is the games.  A console is just a device you play games on.  It's the games that give a console it's worth.  However the games at launch and also during the first year set the trend for how the console is going to do.  

(referring to bold) In this sense, the Wii and Switch succeeded for the same reason.  They both launched with flagship games that people really wanted.  New gamers really wanted Wii Sports.  Established gamers really wanted Breath of the Wild.  Both devices had great flagship games.  The Wii U had Nintendoland as its flagship game.  People just did not get excited for this game like they did for Wii Sports or BotW.  In that sense it should have been clear that the Switch would do well right out of the gate, because it launched with such a great game.

I don't want to negate what you said though.  The hybrid nature of the Switch gives it huge advantages.  The biggest advantage is that Nintendo always gets good third party support for it's handhelds.  They have had problems getting third party support for their home consoles, but not their handhelds.  Now they can use all of their strength in the handheld market and bring it to the home console market.

That is why the people who are now guessing only at the 100m mark for Switch are still way undershooting it.  The real wave of third party games hasn't hit yet.  Third parties need time to make their games and most of them wouldn't have thought about the Switch until after they saw it succeeding.  Next year we are going to actually start seeing new third party games for Switch, and in 2020 we will get even more.  The Switch is still in its slow phase.  Once a large wave of new third party games comes along, then Switch sales are going to move into high gear.  (And no I don't mean Western AAA, because those games are overrated anyway.)

Yes, it's true, the flagship games at start define a lot of the momentum. But they cannot give it a go alone. The Playstation consoles pretty much sell without flagship games. A friend of me who bought the PS4 at launch literally said, that he got Assassins Creed again, although he had the game on PS3 already, so that he has something to play with at start. Playstation sells without big flagship games at start, because people EXPECT big 3rd-party support and 3rd-parties EXPECT big sales, and so each of these expectations leads to fulfilling the other. So yes, constant stream of 3rd-party can be relevant for momentum. Switch would be massively lower in sales without these streams of often smaller or older titles.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

bubblegamer said:
70M is still my prediction.

Going buy current trajectory of sales, Switch will be at around 35m after first two years on market.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
I am surprised how pessimistic most people were on the Switch. I thought it was pretty obvious that the Switch would do well from the get go.

I guess most people assume the previous generation affects the next generation. Clearly it doesn't. The Gamecube sold terribly. The Wii sold amazingly well. One did not affect the other. And also the Wii's success didn't help the Wii U at all. Likewise the PS2 was the best selling console of all time. The PS3 was a financial failure. Every generation is a huge reset button. Each console has to be evaluated on its own merits instead of basing it on the previous console.

I think group psychology might have had something to do with it. This thread was made right after the Switch presentation in January 2017, and a lot of people (especially on this site) were extremely negative about it. When people constantly see everyone else talk about how bad something was, they start to get a more and more negative feel from it themselves.

My prediction was 70 million, which may not seem much now, but back then I was constantly wondering if I wasn't overestimating it (considering how low most people's predictions were).



I'll try to stick with my prediction from last year.

Switch:
USA: 30 M
Europe: 25 M
Japan: 25 M
Other: 10 M
Total: 90 M

PS4:
USA: 40 M
Europe: 45 M
Japan: 10 M
Other: 25 M
Total: 120 M

XB1:
USA: 33 M
Europe: 17 M
Japan: 0 M
Other: 10 M
Total: 60 M



Around the Network

I believe it will sell well over 80 million after the 2018 semi-stagnation, 2019 seems already greater and switch has not lost its momentum



Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I am surprised how pessimistic most people were on the Switch. I thought it was pretty obvious that the Switch would do well from the get go.

I guess most people assume the previous generation affects the next generation. Clearly it doesn't. The Gamecube sold terribly. The Wii sold amazingly well. One did not affect the other. And also the Wii's success didn't help the Wii U at all. Likewise the PS2 was the best selling console of all time. The PS3 was a financial failure. Every generation is a huge reset button. Each console has to be evaluated on its own merits instead of basing it on the previous console.

It's not that easy though. Switch and Wii suceeded for completely different reasons. Wii offered new ways to play and offered the games for that. Switch does offer one new way to play: play seamlessly mobile and at home. But the point here is, that the games haven't to be changed for that. Therefore Switch adds value to any game releasing on it, even if it is ported unchanged. That's why old ports and indies do so well, Switch adds value without the game developer anything at all.

But this was not clear from the presentation back then. The hybrid nature was visible, but it wasn't clear it would add so much value to games, you would have to try for yourself. And therefore it wasn't clear that ports would sell that well, and that resulted in big support. That is why Switch has so many games and 3rd-party support that shapes up to be more substantial than what the Wii had. Back then I didn't even calculated with serious 3rd-party support. But the 3rd-party support changes the image. Think how Switch would look, if support was similar to WiiU. Still a great device for Zelda and Mario - but that's it. That makes a big difference.

I don't fully buy this point of view because even with the presentation which wasn't even that bad tbh I don't know what some people were expecting the was one thing clear back then and that Switch would be the only portable device on the market and all the 3DS and Vita consumers would have to go somewhere and that alone called some of the pessimistic views into question.



Mnementh said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

You make some very good points.  However I want to say the most important thing for any console is the games.  A console is just a device you play games on.  It's the games that give a console it's worth.  However the games at launch and also during the first year set the trend for how the console is going to do.  

(referring to bold) In this sense, the Wii and Switch succeeded for the same reason.  They both launched with flagship games that people really wanted.  New gamers really wanted Wii Sports.  Established gamers really wanted Breath of the Wild.  Both devices had great flagship games.  The Wii U had Nintendoland as its flagship game.  People just did not get excited for this game like they did for Wii Sports or BotW.  In that sense it should have been clear that the Switch would do well right out of the gate, because it launched with such a great game.

I don't want to negate what you said though.  The hybrid nature of the Switch gives it huge advantages.  The biggest advantage is that Nintendo always gets good third party support for it's handhelds.  They have had problems getting third party support for their home consoles, but not their handhelds.  Now they can use all of their strength in the handheld market and bring it to the home console market.

That is why the people who are now guessing only at the 100m mark for Switch are still way undershooting it.  The real wave of third party games hasn't hit yet.  Third parties need time to make their games and most of them wouldn't have thought about the Switch until after they saw it succeeding.  Next year we are going to actually start seeing new third party games for Switch, and in 2020 we will get even more.  The Switch is still in its slow phase.  Once a large wave of new third party games comes along, then Switch sales are going to move into high gear.  (And no I don't mean Western AAA, because those games are overrated anyway.)

Yes, it's true, the flagship games at start define a lot of the momentum. But they cannot give it a go alone. The Playstation consoles pretty much sell without flagship games. A friend of me who bought the PS4 at launch literally said, that he got Assassins Creed again, although he had the game on PS3 already, so that he has something to play with at start. Playstation sells without big flagship games at start, because people EXPECT big 3rd-party support and 3rd-parties EXPECT big sales, and so each of these expectations leads to fulfilling the other. So yes, constant stream of 3rd-party can be relevant for momentum. Switch would be massively lower in sales without these streams of often smaller or older titles.

I know some of this happens, but that kind of ignores the fact that hardware sales always go up whenever a big game gets released.  One reason that your friend bought the Playstation is because the competition didn't look any better.  Really if another console comes along that either has better games or the same games on cheaper hardware, then most people will switch.  That is what happened in North America with the XBox360.  In gen 6, everyone had a PS2, then in gen 7 they bought a 360 instead.  Now in gen 8 most people switched back to PS4.  These people might have even bought the console before the game they wanted came out, but they were very willing to switch.

In Europe, most people did not switch over, but that is because they weren't offered the right console for them.  If a better competitor comes along then they will "switch" away from the Sony console.

Flilix said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I am surprised how pessimistic most people were on the Switch. I thought it was pretty obvious that the Switch would do well from the get go.

I guess most people assume the previous generation affects the next generation. Clearly it doesn't. The Gamecube sold terribly. The Wii sold amazingly well. One did not affect the other. And also the Wii's success didn't help the Wii U at all. Likewise the PS2 was the best selling console of all time. The PS3 was a financial failure. Every generation is a huge reset button. Each console has to be evaluated on its own merits instead of basing it on the previous console.

I think group psychology might have had something to do with it. This thread was made right after the Switch presentation in January 2017, and a lot of people (especially on this site) were extremely negative about it. When people constantly see everyone else talk about how bad something was, they start to get a more and more negative feel from it themselves.

My prediction was 70 million, which may not seem much now, but back then I was constantly wondering if I wasn't overestimating it (considering how low most people's predictions were).

I could see that happening.  I watched the presentation at home by myself, and I was really excited about it.  My reaction to the initial showing of the Wii U was the exact opposite.  I may have benefited by not listening to anyone on a message forum.   Of course on any decently big message forum there are always a couple of people (at least) who work for the game industry, so you have to beware of listening to biased opinions.  Also the gaming forums are often out of step with the mainstream.  It's very possible to go to some forums and get the impression that the Dreamcast was the best console of generation 6.



mZuzek said:
First year - 7 million
Lifetime - 55 million

Lol and I used to think I was optimistic.



mZuzek said:
mZuzek said:
First year - 7 million
Lifetime - 55 million

Lol and I used to think I was optimistic.

Relative to others you were. Only a small percentage of people was willing to go above 50m.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club