Uncharted was different to those established franchises, Uncharted used to be a growing IP in the last generation but can the same be said for many of Nintendo's existing IPs ? (Nintendo IPs declined going from WII/DS > WIIU/3DS, remains to be seen if it will increase going from WIIU/3DS > Switch) 

But even after discounting FireRed/LeafGreen, the trend is the second iteration sells less than the first release on the same platform so that basis doesn't change ... 

I don't assume that literally EVERY single person who has bought the current Pokemon games to have bought previous Pokemon games but I do imagine that Pokemon games have a fairly high retention rate of 80+% going into the next releases and the changing demographics behind Pokemon's audience seems to match my assertion as Pokemon customers are growing older ... 

Games of the same IP having different audience appeal is not new ... (as demographics and content keep changing so do the customers as well)

Did I claim that the Switch was only going to sell 40M units ? 

"40M units sounds like it's obviously in the cards at this point but by the end of 2019, we'll have seen the majority of what the most the Switch already has to offer with existing IPs ... " 

No, you misunderstood since you didn't take the time to interpret the context of my statement as 'the Switch will sell a minimum of 40M units' ...

Well as for the downsides the Switch still has a pricetag of $299 (maybe in the future it could be $249 with the Switch mini) but I guess that's not a realistic concern since Nintendo has a monopoly on portable gaming and better software support is arguable since the Switch has gotten more powerful and Nintendo has to deal with a new microarchitecture which adds cost to game development ... 

What ? LOL, don't just accuse others of partisanship in your argument otherwise you're the one putting feelings on the line instead of your opposition ... (Are you really going raise someone else's preferences, feelings and even go as far as to implicate their possibly in delusion even though someone as diligent as me took time out of their day to cross reference information ?)

It still remains to be seen if the Switch will keep up the 3DS's price advantage and software potential (drought was an issue on 3DS but once the software was sorted out it picked up pace but the Switch doesn't have this issue) ... 

Nintendo handhelds usually have 5 year life cycles so next generation will coincide nicely with the release of the successor to PS4/X1 in 2021 and the successor to the Switch in 2022 ... 

The Switch will probably have better Japanese support than the Wii (eventually) with less third party support from Western developers than Wii. In 2007-2010, developers could support PSP, DS, Wii, or PS3 in Japan. This era, 3DS is already declining, Vita is fairly irrelevant, and PS4 is probably going to peak this year and next year in Japan for software. We don't seem to be getting a 3DS or Vita successor anytime soon either.

So what would you do if you were a Japanese company and wanted to release games in Japan...?

Good job... thanks!

Yes, a new platform can obviously reset image and perception but IP growth is different and I didn't think that there would necessarily be a decline either ... (I thought that the strength of Nintendo IPs would have either held constant or maybe grow by as much as 15% with the Switch) 

The pace does point to an increase however it's hard to dissociate how much of that is due to a better software output so far or just more pure innate interest in the hardware remains to be known ... (MK7, SM3DL, OoT Remake, dogs + cats (not sure this IP matters anymore), MH Tri vs MK8D, SMO, BotW, ARMS, Splatoon 2, MH XX is the tally so far between the 3DS and the Switch but it does look like the Switch has the early advantage) 

Holding a monopoly is not an argument for the implication of growth. I would argue that Nintendo already held a monopoly with the 3DS with a market share of 80+% but that also assumes that of what little userbase Sony had with their portables doesn't overlap with being customers for Nintendo handhelds too so Nintendo could very well have higher penetration rates than what market share data would suggest ... (very little to be had on capitalizing a weak competitor such as Sony in portable gaming) 

Nintendo still has to give an incentives over the platforms lifetime for consumers to purchase the Switch just like they did for the 3DS even well after the fact that Sony is gone ... (Just like how Sony had to get games for the PS4 that customers wanted in Japan despite practically having a monopoly with home consoles and they'll still most likely only get PS3 numbers over there)

I am well aware of the Switch's so called 'hybrid' nature and all of it's advantages or drawbacks. Revisions are going to become more scarce in the future as Moore's Law slows down and I realistically expect at most two paths for the Switch to take ... (the first being the 'Switch Pro' and the second being the 'Switch Slim' both using the same chips designed by Nvidia and manufactured on TSMC's 7nm transistor technology, Switch Pro will have the same form factor while sporting a more powerful chip and the Switch Slim with a smaller form factor for lower power consumption envelope and then there's the third possibility with a full Switch home console too)

Of the 5 handhelds including the GBC (which had exclusive games too for it) from 1989 to 2016, Nintendo handhelds held an average lifespan of 5.4 years ... (DS lasted for 65 months which translates to 5.4 years and 3DS lasted 70 months which translates to 5.8 years which isn't quite 6 years) 

I'm not overestimating the life cycle of Sony or Microsoft consoles. If anything I think the life cycles of home consoles DID drastically change from 5/6 years to 7/8. (I honestly think I'm doing it right for home consoles when we consider that the PS3 lasted for 7 years straight and Xbox 360 lasted for 8 years. It looks like both of them are waiting as long as possible to capitalize on more advanced transistor technology gains and so far the consensus seems to point to late 2020 or late 2021 for the next generation HD twins) 

FWIW, I expect the Switch to have a similar life cycle which is 5 and a half years ... (my claim of a 2022 release still matches with the data we have so far at hand so I'm not sure why you're grilling me for it when the successor to the Switch could very well launch in late 2022)

If my feelings are getting in the way then the same probably applies you guys too since you were vested enough to mention it ... (those with partisanship can also raise valid points so the debate isn't impeded either way, in fact that's how it goes most of the time since one can't avoid it) 

I did not have much originally in the predictions with regards to the Switch but so far I'm expecting at least a north of 40+M units and I'm still uncertain how much further it can go ...

And maybe I did fall victim to the AAA fallacy but I don't think I fell into the third party trap yet and Nintendo had a monopoly with handhelds regardless of whether or not another party like Sony existed on that front as we can see with the 3DS ... 

You don't remember because most likely I was only watching from the sidelines for the most part ... (can't really strike an invisible man such as myself but I do have some very hard questions for the Switch)

?

DS lasted from November 2004 to February 2011, which is 75 months, or 6 years and 3 months.

3DS lasted from February 2011 to March 2017, but it launched at the very end of February anyway, so we can call that an even 6 years.

Thanks for being patient with me so far rol ... 

I can see your point in software library robustness but the Switch is doing fine as it is for software output in it's first year so I assume that Nintendo consolidating as much support as possible from whatever scraps Sony had left is just for insurance ? (All of this still hinges on the possibility of whether or not that support will mostly undividely transfer to the Switch. I checked all of the PS Vita's titles that was able to make a dent (clear 300K) with this sites data and surprisingly enough a relatively high portion of the games that have sold over 300K appear to be either IPs owned by Sony or has a history of being exclusive to Sony platforms from publishers like Namco Bandai and Sega both of which also frequently releases PS4 versions of these games so I'm not sure how that mess will play out with the PS4.) There's multiple variables to account for before we factor in whether or not a significant porportion of Vita's userbase will matter for selling Switch hardware like a developer's choice of platform, how sharing these games with the PS4 will affect the outcome and how much portability matters to these customers ... 

I don't think Nintendo are going to stop making Switch games FWIW, it's how I wonder the Switch is going to grow beyond already having it's biggest established IPs. (maybe it'll be time to introduce a new AAA IP ?) 

Revisions are mostly dependent on the transistor technology and usually come with cost savings (we've exhausted this until the next generation starts, most chip designers are transitioning for reasons because of pure performance and perf/power rather than perf/$) so most of the cost savings on a new possible Switch revision will come from making the other components smaller like the motherboard, display, battery, casing and cooling solution instead of the memory or logic chips. (cost structure is arguably more tighter this gen since these chips are not getting cheaper to produce, the only thing console hardware designers can do so far is take advantage of the lower power consumption to lower the price and the Switch is probably not ever going to sell for sub-$149 like the 3DS able was through the 2DS for as low as $79) 

I'm also not sure if my imagination that we'll get 3 new Switch SKUs will translate to reality either ... (Why would Nintendo ever want to make a Switch home console to sacrifice one of it's biggest selling point known as portability ? So that Nintendo can appeal to it's premium hungry customers that usually don't care about hardware power other than for the possibility that they do for Nintendo games ? How are some games going to function without the touchscreen if Nintendo decides to not include a controller with an integrated touchscreen ? These doubts are exactly why I can probably rule out the idea of a Switch home console altogether and reiterate that there is realistically at most 2 possible SKUs on the horizon or they could decide not to make my theoretical 'Switch Pro' and only make a moderately cheaper 'Switch Slim'.) 

I stand corrected for DS but don't stand corrected for 3DS depending the differing supply chains at the start of each region. I could very well have a double standard but I'd argue my prediction is more based on a strange heuristic because home consoles really do seem to have longer lifespans now ... (consensus is still 2020 or 2021 for new home consoles) 

Recouping cost is a valid motivation but it can most definitely be more than just that because sooner or later we'll come to the point where chip manufacturing technology will stagnate. Digital technology can't keep growing on an exponential rate forever so we'll eventually come to a halt and that day is approaching fast with the next generation most likely being the last one since there's no cost advantage to be had in releasing new and more powerful hardware ... (this is most likely going to be our 'post-Silicon' future where our consumption for digital devices will be drastically reduced shortly thereafter, in this ironic twist of fate just as how solid state physics predicted vast possibilities it'll come to abrupt end) 

I have another reason why the Switch may launch in 2022 and it maybe because Nintendo could afford a slightly shorter hardware cycle if they decide they want their next system to be backwards compatible and Nvidia will be ready to deliver the new SoCs in a strict schedule ... 

We'll see how it plays out. I think it will do around 30 to 40 mil, could be lower tbh. It's IPs mainly appeal to a niche part of the market (gamers) outside of pokemon and it's price is too high. Without at least decent 3rd party support (or new & different IPs) to supplement it's staple of 1st party games, it won't be able to grab the attention of the general gamer. Threads like this make for fun necros.

What are you on about, sales of Smash, Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, Tomodachi, Splatoon and so on highlight that outside of Pokemon their IPs are anything but niche and as far as price goes the market has shown it's not too high regardless of the opinions of people on forums. The sales have shown it has grabbed the attention of the general gamer just fine.

I know we already had this conversation before, but your points make even less sense now. You say it appeals to a niche part of the market - "gamers" - but Nintendo games have a much wider demographic than any other and beyond that "gamers" take up a majority of the console market. And then you say it wont sell to the general gamer. What?

Nintendo have so many successful franchises that sell widely different to the point that people pit games in different tiers. Even though this is logical it often goes to the point of ridiculousness - like when people said Prime 4 was "too niche" to be made, or that Zelda should have been Holiday title because "its not that big" or when people thought only Pokemon could save the Switch. Pokemon is probably Nintendos most consistent selling series but honestly people forget that Mario Kart and Smash bros can do about the same as pokemon. Both franchises have had an increase in attach rate and will probably sell 13-15 mil depending on if they are original games or not. Add to that Zeldas market share increasing to 9-11 mil, and it is very possible animal crossing and a 3d mario will meet Pokemon. Splatoon 2 is also debatable. 

He says stuff like this consistently. I d9nt mind an... artistic approach to the word niche but this is too far