What kind of context do you want exactly? I guess it's about my "the market didn't respond well to Labo" statement, in which case let me change it to this: The Japanese market didn't respond well to Labo factoring in the huge marketing push Nintendo gave it and, using the theoretical framework of Blue Ocean Products and disruptive Technology, I doubt Labo will fare much better in the long run worldwide. Does that sound better to you?

Labo is not Blue Ocean just because it mixes cardboard and games! Blue Ocean products create new markets (Labo isn't a new market, it just added something to an already existing toy concept - it's more a sustaining innovation), they are developed to avoid the competition (Nintendo isn't avoiding Sony and Microsoft with this one - it's just a single game that caters to an already existing market of products for kids), they create a new kind of demand (like the DS, which dramatically increased the pool of people interested in buying games with Nintendogs, Brain Training, etc. Labo doesn't do that, it just wants to have some of the kids toys cake), they dramatically change the expenses:profits formula for a company (the DS did that: bad and cheap graphics compared to the PSP, but created a new market and because of the weak CPU the hardware business made insane amounts of money for Nintendo, a novum in the market) and lastly the blue ocean strategy changes the direction of the whole company toward low costs and differentiation. Labo doesn't do that in the slightest, it's just a product that mixes cardboard and mini games and won't do anything for the Switch's direction in the long run.

Lastly, hey you could be right about Labo selling well over the long run, that's absolutely true. But my statements are certainly not based on nothing. If Labo sells well for the next year (without the big marketing push it's getting right now) then that's cool and I'll admit to being wrong. But the first week sales certainly haven't been as big as Nintendo expected - you don't flood Japan's stores with advertisements (and hire Bill Nye in the west) for 120k sales in Japan of two different Labo products combined. 

Edit: And we have news that Labo only sold through 30% of its initial shipment in Japan (which would put the shipment at about 400k units). Clearly Nintendo, a company that is often conservative with its shipments (Switch, SNES Mini, Wii...), expected more of this.

How often do Blue Ocean Products start out with massive sales right off the bat? Or how about new IPs aimed at kids/family/casual gamers in general?

GB Pokémon Red / Green / Blue FW 140.074 / LTD 7.936.360
NDS Tomodachi Collection FW 100.371 / LTD 3.692.859 
3DS Yo-kai Watch FW 52.901 / LTD 1.332.971
NDS Style Savvy FW 86.446 / LTD 891.076
PS1 Monster Farm FW 60.876 / LTD 729.063
NDS Inazuma Eleven FW 41.458 / LTD 401.820

NDS Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! 44.166 / 3.847.136 Nintendo 19/05/2005
WII Wii Sports 176.880 / 3.724.565 Nintendo 02/12/2006
WII Wii Fit 254.009 / 3.561.787 Nintendo 01/12/2007
NDS Nintendogs: Labrador / Dachshund / Chihuahua & Friends 135.674 / 2.080.644 Nintendo 21/04/2005
WII Wii Play 171.888 / 2.804.201 Nintendo 02/12/2006
WII Wii Party 223.595 / 2.389.549 Nintendo 08/07/2010

Its not uncommon for games aimed at kids/families/casuals to sell 10-20x their FW sales.

As for the 30% sell-through, Golden Week started like 8 days after Labo launched, clearly retailers wanted to have plenty of stock for the holidays.

Your first question: That actually happens quite a lot. The products that sell bad at first a lot of the time are disruptive technologies not blue ocean products. 

I know that it's not uncommon for those games to sell over the long-run. But again, considering that Labo is not a blue ocean product, not disruptive and had moderate sales despite a big marketing push I still think Labo is not going to be as big as Nintendo wanted it to be and won't sell as many consoles as Nintendo had hoped. By the way, if Labo is going to develop legs and lift platform sales, it's probably going to show around week 8-10. Iwata said that - for some reason he didn't know himself - the expanded market games on Wii and DS started to give the platform a boost after that period of time. I just don't think Labo will do that.

If it happens all the time than you should be able to provide some examples. What are some new IP aimed at kids, families or casuals that had massive first week sales?

Why are you moving the goalposts? I was talking about blue ocean products, not products aimed at kids and families. But if you want to do this, what about the examples you gave? Wii Sports, Wii Play, Wii Fit? The first Mario Party was a big hit, the first Kirby game... But again, I was merely saying that blue ocean products can sell very well right from the start. It's disruptive technologies that often start at a low market tier that isn't very profitable and then move upmarket (mini mills, personal computers, the tiny disk drives used in the iPod, digital cameras, etc.). The Wii was actually an anomaly in this regard as Sony and Microsoft were totally overshooting the market (599$ PS3 and HD even though only about 10% of households had an HDTV in 2006) and thus the console sold extremely well from the start, which surprised Nintendo.

But that wasn't really what we were arguing about. I'm still saying that Labo (with it not being a blue ocean or disruptive product and having seen only moderate sales in Japan so far) is not going to be the big mass market hit Nintendo wants it to be. That's all I'm saying and I'm basing this on two widely known business theories and Japanese sales compared to Nintendo's marketing push. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think the more interesting questions are more closely related to this thread (so back to topic I guess): Is Nintendo going to meet their sales targets this year? What kind of games do they have up their sleeves? Will the Switch mostly be aimed at existing Nintendo fans in the future or will Nintendo's new president try to expand Nintendo's market beyond the 3DS + Wii U (+ maybe the Vita in Japan) pool of customers? My prediction is that a Switch aimed at the existing Nintendo fan base will see decent but not amazing sales (70-90m) but a Switch that also targets the lapsed gamers and the expanded market will be extremely successful (120-150m units lifetime). 

How am i moving goalposts?

Your original statement that i quoted was that the market did not respond well to Labo.

I asked what that is based on and you said FW sales in Japan.

I provided a dozen examples showing that FW sales of new IP aimed at kids, families or casuals do not mean anything and asked for examples of these type of games with large FW sales.

You have yet to provide any examples.

You keep giving long winded responses that dont really pertain to anything we are talking about, you cant use FW sales as proof of the market not responding when most new IP aimed at the target demograhic do not have large FW sales.

I cited two well-known business theories as basis for my prediction and you ignore it. You yourself gave multiple examples of IP's aimed at kids and casuals that sold extremely well from week 1 which I pointed out to you and you ignore it. I even changed my original statement to make it clear that I'm *not* basing this off first week sales alone but the theories of disruption and blue ocean products and yet you ignore it as if this didn't have any weight and call my responses "long-winded" even though they are way more based on facts than just saying "some family products sell well over a longer period". I'm not sure what I can do anymore - in my experience theories based on market data are way better at predicting market reactions and sales than anything else.

So, once again: My statement that Labo was not well received by the market is based on first week sales compared to Nintendo's marketing push, sell-through data and the theories I cited. Nintendogs sold well over the long run because it was a blue ocean product (Brain Age as well). The Wii series sold well over the long run because they were disruptive products. Pokémon sold well because it was an extremely good game that could sell to a huge audience and captured the imagination of millions of kids. I don't see Labo having any of those qualities. I could be wrong, though! Of course I could and because of that I already changed my original statement a few posts ago. 

Also, this is a way better basis for predicting sales than saying "some family products sell well over the long run", because I'm absolutely sure the majority of games or products aimed at casuals, families and kids did not sell well over the long run but just disappeared from the market (like the hundreds of Wii games aimed at those markets that failed to sell). You pick a tiny minority of games aimed at these demographics that sold well over a long period of time to make a point. But if we look closer at your argument, your argument actually supports my theory because it predicts that the majority of kids and casual games is not going to sell well over the long run. It's just that our memories are biased towards the ones that sold well - because of course we don't remember the hundreds of kids toys and products that just disappeared into the nether after a few months. So in the majority of those cases, first week sales actually did predict quite accurately the sales performances of these games. Nintendo games actually bucked the trend during the Wii / DS era, which was why everyone, including Iwata, was surprised by their performance and legs!