Indeed, thankfully it won't take long to have our dose of laughs. By end of 2018 I can see a lot of users going MIA, you included.

It's getting more obvious how Wii U's failure make many users take false assumptions about the reasons of the same. Hence such low numbers for Switch's future. 

Time will put these people in their places.

I think it's important to look at history. From statistical observation, Nintendo's home console sales have declined gradually since their debut if you ignore the outlier that was the Wii. Their handhelds have fluctuated, the GB was an astronomical hit and the GBA, given its shorter lifespan, was greatly successful too despite being perceived as a "portable SNES" and was eventually overshadowed by the DS. The DS is by far their most successful piece of hardware they've released, and honestly, there will probably never be a system they release that beats it. Not with the drastic change in market conditions since the DS released where mobile prevails over any other portable gaming device. Even the sales of the 3DS were butchered by mobile, having sold 65ish million in 6 years while the original DS did 143 million in 6 years. This is half of the original's success in the same timeframe. If Nintendo were to release another "DS" successor, the sales will probably halve again.

Nintendo focusing on one system is ideal. The Switch is already being deemed as having not enough games. The easiest way to alleviate this is by having Nintendo's EPD division working on a single system to ensure as many games are on it as possible to prevent droughts. Third parties are far too skeptic and observant to rely on to prevent droughts, so Nintendo must try their hardest, and that's with eradicating the coexistence of two devices. The 3DS is quite dated hardware-wise; Nintendo has even resorted from creating new games from their franchises to remaking old ones for the system (Metroid 2 remake, Super star saga). So, I can't see it living past 2018. Neither can I foresee a successor to it either.

The Switch hitting 30-40 million lifetime seems very, very feasible. I'm inevitably biased in acknowledging how much Pokemon will do for the Switch in success with this prediction too. Pokemon is the most derivative and formulaic IP that Nintendo has, but I guess the fans don't care. I would hope they would add some HD rumble functionality with the game (maybe with Pokeballs) and heck maybe optional motion controls, HD, a full 3D environment...I'm obviously not a fan of the franchise but this is a huge opportunity to create a groundbreaking Pokemon title that drives Switch sales. I heard somebody saying "Pokemon alone will outsell PS4" which is pretty ridiculous since the PS4 is on track to outsell 3DS. Nintendo needs to get all their popular IPs on this system. We've already got a 3D Mario, 3D Zelda, pending Pokemon, Prime 4, Splatoon 2, Fire Emblem, Yoshi and Kirby...now all we need is a Smash port, Mario Maker 2/port and the new Pikmin (4)? that should be coming. This should be enough to hit 30-40 million along with a few third party titles imo.

Sorry for the rant.

The thing is, with Switch HW and Nintendo focusing solely on it, new entries from their franchises will have a big wow factor when revealed, even more the ones that remained in handhelds for too long. People shouldn't be undervaluing such potential.

Ill add to this that since Nintendo unified their handheld and console develoment teams we might get more games out of it, hence some older franchises from Nintendo could possibly make a comeback on the Switch, like Advance Wars or F-Zero for instance

Do they help sell 70 million + consoles on a regular basis?

Nintendo focuses on children and young teenagers while the rest of the big 3/ third party game devs focus on teenagers and adults. So you could word it as "nintendo games have a much wider demographic than any other and beyond that gamers take up on a majority of the gaming market" and you wouldn't be wrong.  

Pokemon is in a league of it's own with brand recognition and more importantly, people wanting to buy products in relation to it in comparison to the rest of nintendo's staple of games. It is the only IP nintendo has that has reach outside of the gaming market. Just the shows ensure kids everywhere know of it and like it. Zelda might be the closest to it though.  

"Nintendo focuses on children and young teenagers while the rest of the big 3/ third party game devs focus on teenagers and adults."

Yeah but the only evidence you have for this is an ESRB system. If you look at the people buying the Switch - a lot, a lot of them are adults. Nintendo last generation had marketing almost entirely cattered to kids, which was a problem because so much of the Wii U audience was adults. The Switch's marketing rectifies that by showing Adults and teenagers. Honestly looking at gaming forums, pictures of people waiting outside for the system, the people commenting on the system and the games - almost all of them seem to be adults. Of course this is anecdotal and a gaming forum is hardly great evidence, but the social media following around the Switch has been so adult oriented, and not just the marketing from Nintendo. It's hard to argue that the Switch mostly appeals to adults when it's selling because of titles like Zelda(a game that is "accessible" by kids but nowhere near a kid game) and Splatoon, a shooter that is harder to play than COD or BF and doesn't have the instant gratification of either. I'm not going to say there aren't kids, but I think this is a case of looking at an art style and making false representation after that.

" Nintendo focuses on children and young teenagers while the rest of the big 3/ third party game devs focus on teenagers and adults. So you could word it as "nintendo games have a much wider demographic than any other and beyond that gamers take up on a majority of the gaming market" and you wouldn't be wrong.  "

Uh.......yeah it would. Have you seen any gaming statistic in the last few years? Kids as a whole take up a minority of the gaming demographic , the majority are adults and the closest following are older teenagers. Which is another reason the "Switch gets sales from kids and young teens" just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The mindshare of kids has gone down since what it used to be because gaming has become more accessible and acceptable. People under 18 have consistently only taken about 27-29% of the market for a few years now. Now obviously it's hard to know what are considered "games" but a lot of these studies specifically focus on computers and consoles titles , which is much better than including mobile titles. 

"Pokemon is in a league of it's own with brand recognition and more importantly, people wanting to buy products in relation to it in comparison to the rest of nintendo's staple of games. It is the only IP nintendo has that has reach outside of the gaming market. Just the shows ensure kids everywhere know of it and like it. Zelda might be the closest to it though.  "

You start off by making good points(although they aren't things I really disagreed with) but then things simply go off the rails from there. I'm really trying to see things from your perspective, because maybe there's a method to your madness, but saying stuff like "It is the only IP nintendo has that has reach outside of the gaming market" is not only completely wrong but verifiably false. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Mario are all titles that have recognition beyond gaming and it's hardly up for debate. Yeah yeah everyone likes to bring up that 3D mario games sell worse but that doesn't change the fact that they're bought by a lot of people who aren't gamers. I really doubt that Galaxy got to 11 million because *just* gamers wanted it, if anything after Galaxy most gamers seemed tired of Mario until Odyssey was announced. Saying Zelda is the closest thing to Pokemon is also head scratching. While I do love that Zelda 2k17 has gotten to a wider audience than previous entries, Zelda is one of the most hardcore franchises Nintendo has and the only reason I can see Zelda going to 9-11 mil is because it increased it's mindshare with RPG/Open world fanatics(even if it isn't an RPG), a.k.a people who were already hardcore gaming fans. Consider that titles like Mario Kart and Smash bros are multiplayer phenomena and again I have to question where you're coming from. In what world do you suppose that every Nintendo title is niche except Pokemon? Sales aren't everything - there needs to be some context, which is why i'll agree that something like an Animal Crossing game is more for a specific audience than people beyond the gaming spectrum, because besides in Japan it doesn't push as much hardware as most Nintendo franchises and acts more like a companion piece to the hardware than a reason to buy it. But the other games I just don't understand how that can be applied to.

They have with Portables and what logic dictates that a platform has to sell over 70m to not be niche.

Can't remember if it was you but this reminds me of when I had to argue with someone that games selling in the area of 5 to 10 million copies aren't niche.

Yeah but the only evidence you have for this is an ESRB system. If you look at the people buying the Switch - a lot, a lot of them are adults. Nintendo last generation had marketing almost entirely cattered to kids, which was a problem because so much of the Wii U audience was adults. The Switch's marketing rectifies that by showing Adults and teenagers. Honestly looking at gaming forums, pictures of people waiting outside for the system, the people commenting on the system and the games - almost all of them seem to be adults. Of course this is anecdotal and a gaming forum is hardly great evidence, but the social media following around the Switch has been so adult oriented, and not just the marketing from Nintendo. It's hard to argue that the Switch mostly appeals to adults when it's selling because of titles like Zelda(a game that is "accessible" by kids but nowhere near a kid game) and Splatoon, a shooter that is harder to play than COD or BF and doesn't have the instant gratification of either. I'm not going to say there aren't kids, but I think this is a case of looking at an art style and making false representation after that.

That's part of it but hardly the only thing. Anyone who's objective about it can see and admit that Nintendo designs/markets their games towards that demographic in general. From the commercials, character designs, theme of the games, game covers, etc it's fairly evident that it is the case. That doesn't mean that the the older nintendo fans are immature or anything like that just because they play nintendo games. I know that part of the reason why a lot of nintendo fans are so defensive about this particular thing is that they think it's being implied or said that they are immature for playing those games. Granted they are people who say that to troll them but it's not true and I don't know of many gamers who say that sort of thing about nintendo gamers. 

Honestly, when i do see switch commercials, they're showcasing the games that appeal to kids but I don't interact with many things that would get me to see them in the first place. I could be wrong on that and yeah, it's andotal. It's not why I think that about nintendo though. I'm basing it on nintendo's history for the most part. I've been gaming a long and nintendo has been doing that with their consoles for the most part. Anyway, I think their strategy is and has always been to get a kid to want it and he/she tells their about parents about it. The parents see their a few games that they might want to or could play so they just buy it as a birthday gift or christmas present or some form of present. I think most parents are more likely to buy their kid something when they can use it to. That strategy should work better these days with alot of adults playing games or have played video games before.

Uh.......yeah it would. Have you seen any gaming statistic in the last few years? Kids as a whole take up a minority of the gaming demographic , the majority are adults and the closest following are older teenagers. Which is another reason the "Switch gets sales from kids and young teens" just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The mindshare of kids has gone down since what it used to be because gaming has become more accessible and acceptable. People under 18 have consistently only taken about 27-29% of the market for a few years now. Now obviously it's hard to know what are considered "games" but a lot of these studies specifically focus on computers and consoles titles , which is much better than including mobile titles. 

My last response applies to this so it's pretty much my reponse to this as well but I'll talk about the gaming statistics here since you menitoned it and I did look at some a bit ago. I think they're flawed for the most part because of the people who are doing the surveys/data collecting aren't gamers so they're just lumping things together. Mobile and social shouldn't be included into the totals at all. I wouldn't call mobile/social players, gamers per se because most of them are completely ignorant of gaming culture and the other gaming markets. 

I tried to look up worldwide statistics on gaming demographics, couldn't find any. Plenty of by country though. I also tried to look up demographic stats just on the handheld market for the us or ww but nope, there's only stats on the gaming market with handheld being included into it. 

You start off by making good points(although they aren't things I really disagreed with) but then things simply go off the rails from there. I'm really trying to see things from your perspective, because maybe there's a method to your madness, but saying stuff like "It is the only IP nintendo has that has reach outside of the gaming market" is not only completely wrong but verifiably false. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Mario are all titles that have recognition beyond gaming and it's hardly up for debate. Yeah yeah everyone likes to bring up that 3D mario games sell worse but that doesn't change the fact that they're bought by a lot of people who aren't gamers. I really doubt that Galaxy got to 11 million because *just* gamers wanted it, if anything after Galaxy most gamers seemed tired of Mario until Odyssey was announced. Saying Zelda is the closest thing to Pokemon is also head scratching. While I do love that Zelda 2k17 has gotten to a wider audience than previous entries, Zelda is one of the most hardcore franchises Nintendo has and the only reason I can see Zelda going to 9-11 mil is because it increasedt and Smash bros are multiplayer phenomena and again I have to question where you're coming from. In what world do you suppose that every Nintendo ti it's mindshare with RPG/Open world fanatics(even if it isn't an RPG), a.k.a people who were already hardcore gaming fans. Consider that titles like Mario Kartle is niche except Pokemon? Sales aren't everything - there needs to be some context, which is why i'll agree that something like an Animal Crossing game is more for a specific audience than people beyond the gaming spectrum, because besides in Japan it doesn't push as much hardware as most Nintendo franchises and acts more like a companion piece to the hardware than a reason to buy it. But the other games I just don't understand how that can be applied to.

I meant "It is the only IP, nintendo has that has reach outside of the gaming market" to be with "Pokemon is in a league of it's own with brand recognition and more importantly, people wanting to buy products in relation to it in comparison to the rest of nintendo's staple of games.".  i didn't mean that people don't know of nintendo's characters. People know of nintendo's staple of characters but that doesn't mean that want to buy anything related to them. They don't have the kind of consumer appeal/reach outside of gaming that pokemon does on a wordwide level with products related to it. it's why I used the show as an example.

We've been over niche before, haven't we? I'm sure it was you I had this talk with on it. I used it in the way i did before in a different thread but yet again, you're conflating it as "the games being niche". I didn't call nintendo games or it's staple of characters niche. I was referring to the part of the market that nintendo focuses on being niche.