yeah i know, and they are better for it

Check your facts.

First 10 weeks:

Wii Sports: 3.7M

Wii Play: 1.2M

Wii Fit: 1.4M

Nintendo Land: 1.6M

1-2-Switch: 0.5M

Lifetime:

Wii Sports: 82.5M

Wii Play: 28.9M

Wii Fit: 22.7M

Nintendo Land: 4.5M

1-2-Switch: ???

Do you know why Nintendo Land ended up selling just 3x more its initial 10 weeks while the others ended up selling 20x more? Because the others were a novelty and they took some time to educate the market. When Nintendo Land came the market was already educated. It turned out to be a flop, it didn't drive console's sales and Mario games ended up being the best selling WiiU games.

1-2-Switch is even worse. Not only it's selling very, very, VERY poorly (one third of Nintendo Land's horrible performance) but also it's not driving any console's sales. At least Nintendo Land was the best selling title at that time. 1-2-Switch is just another title, like Bomberman. Both will probably finish out of NS's top 10.

It will have great legs, and it probably cost next to nothing to develop, so it's already making money, I guess. Since it's about to reach 1m sales already. As the Switch userbase grows, so will the sales of 1-2 Switch. And also, the main hardware driver in the launch period was Zelda anyway. It's good that it wasn't 1-2 Switch, because now it is mostly ex gamers who buy the system. They have the cash, they have the interest to buy more games. The casual crowd doesn't.

Another thing is the vocabulary you use. How can sales of 1.6M in the first 10 weeks be horrible? How is even 0.5M poor when the game had low costs? We do not have the production values of either games, so calling it poor or horrible is not possible because of lacking context.

absolutely nothing.

Its also doing about 50% better than 3DS, 15% better than XBO & 75% as much as PS4.

What does that tell you?

You kind of make my point. It's still too early to tell about NS's success.

zorg1000 said: "With each passing day your prediction gets more and more unrealistic.", which is not true.

Development cost and return on investment is not the point here. The point is that these games are supposed to drive hardware sales. Wii Sports did that brilliantly, so did Wii Play and Wii Fit. PS3 and X360 were loaded with top quality hardcore games and yet Wii sold better than any of those systems. Why? Because of Zelda? Because of Mario Galaxy? Because of SSB Brawl? No. Those experiences were already on previous generations and could only cater to a 20-30M clientele. The other 70-80M came from those "super-original" titles.

1.6M in the first 10 weeks is horrible because the market was already educated. It should have been 10M in that period so that the game could aspire to reach Wii Sports levels. It didn't, and it didn't drive hardware sales. The result? Nintendo went from hero to zero (from their best selling console - Wii - to their worst selling console - WiiU), presented losses for the first time in history and got crushed by the competition. That's not a success at all. That's a catastrophe.

1-2-Switch is even worse. Nintendo won't avoid another catastrophe this way. Is that enough context for you?

I don't think so. Nintendo Land got surpassed by 4 Mario games and even Splatoon (launched 3 years after).

That's the problem. Mario 64 was N64's best selling title, SSB Melee was GC's and MK8 was WiiU's. If Zelda turns out to be NS's, the console is screwed.

It tells me that your initial comment has no grounds. If NS follows WiiU's pattern, my 20M prediction is extremely accurate. It's far too early to tell that my prediction is getting more and more unrealistic.

Can you show us your analysis to reach such arbitrary number?

Mhm. Well, if you say so.