I don't think there's any chance it sells less than the Wii U. Especially if it gets Pokemon.

I expect between 40-60 million units sold.

Im not making any sales predictions until i see how the market reacts. I don't want any claims i make coming back to bite me in the ass 4 years from now.

(I got your back future think-man)

Price and value are two very different things. The Wii was priced incredibly high considering its hardware, but the perceived value was high.

This is where I think Switch has a big advantage over the Wii U. The Wii U's perceived value was low because a lot of people didn't know what it really what the value proposition was. What should have been the system's main selling point, assymetrical mutliplayer, was convoluted and hard to explain. The features of the gamepad were poorly utilized by Nintedo's key software titles, with few of them using it well.

At the very least, people will get the point of the switch, since they made that very clear. It's a much clearer value proposition, which makes the console instantly better off than the Wii U. Not enough there to say it will be a flat out success, but I'd be really surprised if it did worse than Wii U.

Gamecub and wii u where definently successful...

The GameCube has the highest attach rate for a Nintendo console. Sounds nice until you realize that the Wii, of all things, comes second.

The Wii U was successful at being a failure.

What? Those two where definently trying their own thing. The GC will their silly disk format and lunchbox look, and wii u with the tablet. This is just a glorified nvidia shield.

The 3DS tie ratio is closer to 70% of Wii U.

Handheld games cost less, but also take less development cost than console.

With its worst offenders being only the launch price and paid online, I think it's way better off than the Wii U. It even has an awesome Zelda on launch, a sweet looking Mario on holiday, and some good games in the middle. It can def do much better than the Wii U.

Nintendo ALWAYS tries to be different.  They started after the extremely distant 2nd place finish of the N64, their last truly traditional console.  Interestingly, the start of a LONG history of being behind the times.  And sorry, but the Wii U is the Wii 2.  That was Nintendo's intent, hence the "funny" play on 2 with the U.  It's the EXACT same strategy.  HW that's slightly better than last gen.  This also allows it to launch much cheaper than its competition.  It had gimmicky controllers, this time a tablet to try to continue to appeal to the casual market, and even relied on the Wiimotes for multiplayer. 

The Switch is the exact same thing, an alteration to the Wii model.  Weaker HW.  Gimicky controller, this time combining the Wii U pad with the Wiimotes.  Now, they just made it mobile. And it would have been cheaper, but Nintendo decided to go with Nvidia, who is known for charging console makers more.  The reason Sony and MS went with AMD.  Had they gone with more readily available tablet chipset, even higher end ones, they probably could have launched for $199-$249.

The problem with all this?  The Wii was a fad. Nintendo refuses to see this, as do some gamers, but its a fact.  For ~3 years it appealed to casuals, mostly people who don't normally game.  They went over to a friend or relatives house and played Wii Sports or Play, thought it was fun, and since it was only $199-$249 they went and got one for Xmas.  But, once mobile started kicking off, casuals found a new gaming platform and sales dropped incredibly.  It's the only time a console has finished 100M+, while 2nd and 3rd place finished only ~15M behind it.  Reason being that the core audience mostly stuck with the HD Twins, and maybe got the Wii as a secondary console.  In other words, the Wii was lightning.  It was what casuals wanted at that time, but not what the core gamer wanted.  The casuals are gone and Nintendo needs to realize it.

Ridiculous. Pokemon on that beast of a handheld will outsell Wii u.....