RolStoppable said:
Mummelmann said:
"More or less" is key here. There is zero grounds for expecting a 100% increase for the Switch in 2018 at this point in time.
I always treat the DS and PS2 as anomalies, they're not exactly realistic targets for console sales.
|
It sounds more like the key here is that "the conclusion is correct, if we exclude everything that contradicts the conclusion."
There are actually parallels between the DS and Switch. Both systems are unconventional and their full scope wasn't immediately understood. For the DS it was the touchscreen and dualscreen setup, for the Switch it's that it's going to take a while until it will settle in that it combines the software output of what was previously Nintendo home console and Nintendo handheld. Right now there's no Pokémon officially announced for Switch, but that IP will be key in conveying the message that Switch is truly two-in-one. The DS's steep surge in sales stemmed from games and something similar happening to Switch can't be ruled out because the Pokémon example is too good to be brushed off.
Although the Switch might not need a ~100% increase in its second year to begin with. If it pulls off 12m in 2017, a 50% increase in 2018 would suffice to reach 30m.
|
Like you've said yourself a few times during the last few months; we have little to no historical data of use when predicting the world's first hybrid console and its prospects, this is a sentiment I agree with. That leaves us with suppositions and assumptions. While your suppositions and assumptions are based on parallels to an older console that released in a completely different market than today and the belief that a combined library will lead to higher combined sales than Wii U+ 3DS, mine are based mostly on the fact that the home console market is currently undergoing a fairly large contraction, the handheld console market is suffering what could easily be labelled as a collapse and the mobile market is growing faster than any other market segment in the past 2-3 years. And before you or anyone else go there and use the age old "Nintendo aren't competing directly so this doesn't apply", I need to remind you that they're the ones who are feeling the burn more than anyone else in the 8th gen, relative to their past performance, the console market contraction is mostly on Nintendo directly and it's reasonable to assume that if the 8th gen ends up selling about half of the 7th gen (!!!), that's about 250-260 million short, Nintendo can be attributed with a large part of that loss, no less than 160 million at least, which is a complete disaster no matter how you choose to spin it.
We can't rule out a title like Pokemon causing a sales surge, but it's not that cut & dry to define from where we're sitting exactly what this would entail, nor is that in and on itself any reason to talk about 100% yoy increases or Wii like lifetime sales, especially given the massive shifts in the market since the beginning of the 7th gen. Stating that the Pokemon Go craze that caused a 3DS sales bump is some sort of guarantee for the Switch to sell outrageous amounts is ludicrious.
Look, we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right. From where I'm sitting though, with the current and likely future market movements, the fact that the 3DS is still around and seemingly for at least another year or so, combined with what is once again looking like drab 3rd support and a release schedule that isn't exactly knocking my socks off (relying on a refurbished Wii U game to carry momentum until Splatoon 2 is risky) and still showing signs that Nintendo are having issues getting software output to match their ambition, little wiggle room for pricing strategies and a mobile/tablet sector that is growing stronger every month, I just find my own suppositions and assumptions a lot more logical and grounded. They could still be wrong, but anyone versed in analysis would be hard-pressed to claim that yours make more sense in this setting.
"the conclusion is correct, if we exclude everything that contradicts the conclusion" could very easily be flipped towards yourself, seeing as neither of us have historical, relevant data to lean on and your suggestions and arguments rely mostly on comparisons to products and market factors more than a decade old. In addition, you seem unable to grasp the potential weaknesses the Switch as a concept has and might have, from its form factor to its reliance on physical media and severe lack of functionality, thinking that motion gaming will have some huge comeback is also pretty far-fetched, all things considered. As for software; software didn't keep the Wii U and 3DS from losing the vast majority of Nintendo's 7th gen installed base. And the Switch is still a really pricey handheld console for all intents and purposes.
Combining software for handheld and home console, when this eventually happens, is no more a guarantee of selling amounts equaling 3DS + Wii U, any more than the 3DS and Wii U offering DS and Wii software equaled the same sales total, so assuming beforehand that this is a huge incentive for consumers doesn't make much sense, especially for a product that is willingly putting itself in the direct line of fire of the most successful line of products in consumer electronics history and simultaneously picking up the torch from two separate platforms that each signified an era of severe reduction and loss of market influence and presence. Yes, the Wii U was a terrible disaster but the 3DS has done quite well, and there are few things to go on in assuming that the Switch will beat the 3DS by default, the new form factor might just as well work against it as for it when all is said and done.
Quite frankly; you're not making much sense to me and you're relying on arguments that work just as well, if not better, against yourself. I get the feeling that you realize yourself that you have very little to base your case on for now, at least I have some actual, tangible market precedent that is observeable right now to back up my statements. I'm basically saying that things will keep on going more or less the way they have since there is no apparent and logical catalyst for major change, while you're saying that huge things will happen, more or less on the grounds that they happened before and can't be ruled out entirely.
