Master analyst, Michael Pachter, predicts that Switch will not sell near Wii.

[Mnementh]

Kyuu said:

I honestly don't know how to make it simpler.

2x the power when the other variables are fixed is definitely a factor. Switch being significantly more powerful than initially thought (Pretty sure the vast majority didn't think it had a 2x+ advantage over PS360) is a factor that helped it selling and getting more ports. It may not be all that important by itself from the perspective of the average consumer, but when complemented by other concerns, it starts to make a difference in forum dwellers' expectations. A $300 9th gen console being as weak as a 2006 X360 didn't sit well with Nintendo's fans before anyone else lol.

My expectations were very high compared to the majority of VGC users, including Nintendo fans. But I can understand why some thought it wouldn't hit a 100 million or possibly even 80 million. Even though I thought it was guaranteed to exceed 90 million and anyone expecting less was wrong. Who else misses Quickrick the cliff lord? :P

And no, Mnementh! It isn't weird to consider the launch of the platform because having a headstart is arguably the bigger advantage unless the power gap is absolutely massive and the price is around the same. PS2 launched a year before GameCube and Xbox, the realized power gap between them was nowhere near generational (the same goes for PS1 which launched like 2 years before N64?), but it was still a big enough selling point that helped Xbox outsell the GameCube; a decent achievement from a newcomer.

Wii U on the other hand came out 6-7 whole years after the aging PS360, and a single year before the actual next generation systems (yet many games played and looked worse IIRC). Of course price, form factor, and other Nintendo screw ups contributed to its failure but you can't even make a shadow of a comparison between Sony and Nintendo's approach on power since the Wii. At no point were Sony's consoles severely underpowered, the PS1 and PS2 had a huge wow factor that helped them selling and being supported. They were powerful consoles.

Whatever Xbox and Gamecube had going for them just wasn't enough to make up for the PS2 advantages. This doesn't confirm that power is unimportant, it confirms that power isn't the deciding factor and there is so much more to making a successful platform.

I know you aren't saying power is completely irrelevant, but I feel like you're underselling its relevance.

I already said it: thinking the Switch wasn't significantly more powerful than PS3/360 was buying into hyperbolic exaggeration. We all knew the WiiU was more powerful than PS3/360, starting with 4 times the RAM. The hyperbolic exaggeration was, that the differences basically didn't matter so it was *the same power*. Then the Switch was obviously more powerful than the WiiU (twice the RAM again), but the hyperbole was, that it was again the same. Putting together two completely unrealistic statements makes an even more outlandish statement: that the Switch wasn't much more powerful than PS360. But the reality was and is different, and everyone thinking through it with calm mind knew that Switch obviously outperformed PS360 by a lot. So if you say:

"Pretty sure the vast majority didn't think it had a 2x+ advantage over PS360"

you are basically saying the vast majority was complete morons. Everyone programming know the importance of RAM and in clear numbers Switch has 8 times as much as PS360. That is only one factor, others are much harder to pinpoint, but the more modern architecture surely does a lot here.

"And no, Mnementh! It isn't weird to consider the launch of the platform because having a headstart is arguably the bigger advantage unless the power gap is absolutely massive and the price is around the same. PS2 launched a year before GameCube and Xbox, the realized power gap between them was nowhere near generational (the same goes for PS1 which launched like 2 years before N64?), but it was still a big enough selling point that helped Xbox outsell the GameCube; a decent achievement from a newcomer."

"Wii U on the other hand came out 6-7 whole years after the aging PS360, and a single year before the actual next generation systems (yet many games played and looked worse IIRC). Of course price, form factor, and other Nintendo screw ups contributed to its failure but you can't even make a shadow of a comparison between Sony and Nintendo's approach on power since the Wii. At no point were Sony's consoles severely underpowered, the PS1 and PS2 had a huge wow factor that helped them selling and being supported. They were powerful consoles."

So you construct the weird statement, the PS2 was the most powerful at start, while denying the same factor for WiiU, although it absolutely is? That is incredibly weird.

"I know you aren't saying power is completely irrelevant, but I feel like you're underselling its relevance."

I don't think so. No evidence points in any way to the power being a deciding or even major factor in any generation.