Have they confirmed that though?  Or are you just basing that off the rumor from inside sources from Financial Times?

Basically the only Bundle I could find after 2010 for the Wii, so I wouldn't call it that insignificant. 

Got it, so it's not confirmed then nor did Nintendo state this. That's all I needed to know.

The thread is old, but more 2017-Blockbuster ala The Evil Within 2 ect do not appear on switch. The E3 has shown it. Do not understand why this is so bad for Nintendo fans to be honest. Actually, the thread would have to get an update.

More than 20M then. We're on the same boat.

Any prediction is easy to criticize when we don't make our own.

You owe me nothing, zero. Zero is also my consideration for critics to my predictions from people that don't make their own.

First week of sales / lifetime sales:

Wii: 0.53M / 101M

WiiU: 0.47M / 14M

NS: 1.40M / ???

Either you believe NS will sell more than 250M or generations (at least for Nintendo) are becoming more front loaded.

Too much work for me. Feel free to do it yourself and I'll accept your numbers.

It would benefit you if you came with a number instead of a (infinite) range because this way you're not as committed as I am, and then your critics are not really critics. They're just attacks from a person that doesn't quite understand how hard it is to make a real prediction.

I have opened all the links from the OP and didn't find it. Please post it here.

3 generations is already a lot considering the whole videogaming history has at most 9. And we don't have N64 and GC data, so it may be even more than 3.

2% isn't really a trend reversal. If generations go from 7x more front loaded to 2x less frontloaded and so on,they go from 0.5% to 3.5% to 2% to 14% to 8% to 56%, etc. That's clearly an upward trend. A trend reversal is if NS does more than 250M in order to go as low as Wii.

You said: "Your prediction has no grounds in reality anymore, because it would require a dropoff in sales rate that is unprecedented."

I haven't denied it. I just replied: "WiiU was unprecedented", which means unprecedented things do happen and they have grounds in reality because they are reality themselves.

Oh, really? "More than 100M" isn't an infinite range? Are you sure?

Your prediction is not comparable to mine. I didn't say "less than 20M", I said 20M. This means I acknowledge I won't nail it and that I am expecting the real number to be under or above my prediction. I didn't come up with a high number X I was comfortable with to say "less than X". Nor did I come up with a low number Y I was comfortable with to say "more than Y". I came up fully committed with a number (one number only) that would translate precisely my thought.

Imagine this alternative scenario. I see everybody coming up with predictions for NS between 150M and 200M. Then I criticize one person for predicting 180M. He's not saying more than 180M, he's not saying less than 180M, he's saying 180M. He tells me it's easy to criticize him without making a prediction. Then I tell him I predict less than 100M. Deep inside I believe 20M. But saying that "wouldn't have had any benefit for me, rather it would have only made it harder for me to be right". So I act sly and unfair and tell him "I could understand your criticism here if my minimum value was 180m, because that would be such a high bar that it would be easy to end up being right. But a maximum value as low as 100m doesn't make it easy, especially when 150m is already considered a pessimistic outlook by the vast majority". See the problem?

It's becoming more and more clear to me how easy it is to criticize and how hard it is to make an actual prediction.

No, that's the one I already saw. That poll goes from 10M to 10M, so it's not balanced because it concentrates low-number predictions and disperses high-number predictions. This would be more balanced: <10M ; 10M-20M ; 20M-40M ; 40M-80M ; 80M-160M ; >160M.