That makes even less sense. The end goal of this new product is to avoid another Wii U situation. It is a risk reduction strategy. The Wii U was such a failure that it detracted from the profitability of the 3DS. From Nintendo's perspective "3DS + Wii U" doesn't even make sense because the Wii U was a net negative. The Switch could be much more profitable for them than the 3DS and Wii U "combined" were even selling less than the 3DS.

It's an interesting comparison in a "hey these numbers look kind of similar" way, but utterly meaningless in the end. By focusing on a single platform, Nintendo hopes to create a single strong product rather than two strong products. Theoretically it should aim to surpass the 3DS, Nintendo's only strong platform last generation, because they no longer have to worry about some other platform. But the amount by which the Switch should aim to surpass the 3DS is unrelated to any number associated with the Wii U.

It's as nonsensical as saying Mario Odyssey should aim to outsell Mario 3D Land and 3D World combined. This is not an additive equation.

That just sounds like a pre-made excuse, to be honest.  They're attempting to merge two markets, not disolve one so they can focus on the other.  What you're saying is that they're embracing retraction but there is no business--or investor--that would be happy with that as an outcome.  They need growth and they need it badly.  They've said as much in the past.

The home console market is clearly not dead.  The Wii U was a failure, not a new baseline.  I doubt anyone at Nintendo really believes that they couldn't do better.

No, they have to culture growth over last generation and they know it.  It's not just about margins, it's about long-term brand health.

They are merging two markets that overlapped. That's why simply adding them together numerically makes no sense.

In a sense, they are retracting their expectations. With Wii U & 3DS they clearly hoped for two simultaneously very successful products like the Wii and DS. Their goal was two 100-million-ish selling platforms. They wound up with two disappointments. So, what is the Switch? Do you think they expect it to represent the Wii and DS successes added together, or have they accepted a single lower-risk huge success rather than trying to score two at the same time again?

There are better ways to measure growth than console sales, and even in that regard growth over last gen would mean growth over the 3DS. The Wii U isn't a factor because it was a huge failure. The only purpose for selling hardware is as a platform for software and accessories, the main sources of Nintendo's income. Wii U sold so little hardware that the investment was a net negative. The install base (therefore the target market of all software & accessories) was so small that it wasn't worth investing in. Nintendo was stuck funding games that had little chance of turning a decent profit, but the much worse effect of this is that other companies had little interest in developing Wii U games.

Whether the Wii U sold 1 million or 10 million consoles, what does that matter to the Switch? The Switch needs to sell well enough to provide a market for Nintendo's software and accessories, as well as attract third parties. The 3DS attracted third parties, but the Switch can do better, and that should be its goal.

Nintendo is absolutely trying to grow their brand and their business, but not by trying to hit Wii + DS status in the console market again. They are expanding elsewhere, into mobile and multimedia content.

and here's a good website where you can check the relative proportions of any country :D
thetruesize.com

Sold? Or Shipped?
I'm seeing conflicting reports around the web.
Though given Nintendo's love of artificial scarcity, it's probably safe to assume at this point that however many are shipped will be swiftly snapped up.

As I said to begin with, that's not normally something you'd do, but the Wii U's numbers were so low that Nintendo certainly wants to do more than the 3DS + Wii U total.  I'm not adding the numbers, I'm saying that merging the two markets should be worth more than the 3DS + Wii U total and Nintendo would not be happy with the amount of retraction that would represent.  The Wii U's total is far too low to be considered acceptable.

"The only purpose for selling hardware is as a platform for software and accessories," is not really true, either.  There will be peaks and valleys, obviously, but if you're going steadily backwards then your brand is losing value.  Even if you're making a profit every year, your userbase is declining.  In business, a lack of growth is the same as dying.  Nintendo, especially, has a problem where they've been depending on a small pool of die-hard fans instead of growing their base of new fans.  That's why they were concerned that Amiibo did not work as intended.  They have to start selling more hardware, which would indicate that they're bringing new consumers into the fold.  Otherwise, they'll eventually atrophy.  

Now, if you're saying that the Wii U does represent Nintendo's potential in the home console market, and that they could not do better, then you have that right, but we'll have to disagree.  I think the Wii U was just a badly designed product and that the home console market has a lot more potential for them than that.  Merging the handheld and home console markets should represent more sales than either market alone and it should bring a higher attach rate.  

I think it on scale (maybe not exactly, but sort of). Australia is 7.7 million km², Europe is 10 million km².

It seems to me you are the one using the Wii U's sales as the baseline of Nintendo's home console market, since you're the one using it in your calculation of the figure to beat. If you think the Wii or any other platform represent their home console potential, why aren't you using 3DS + Wii? YOU have accepted the contraction to Wii U sales.

You should proofread the bolded, what do you think "the Wii U + 3DS total" means when contrasted with a contraction? You claim you aren't adding the numbers? Your first post on the matter was "They have to at least want the Switch to sell Wii U + 3DS numbers," in response to a statement I made merely pointing out that this is not an additive equation.

If you want to know what Nintendo and their investors "want" or expect, just take a look at Nintendo's sales projections for the Switch and their stock performance. It doesn't match up with the hand-wringing among console warriors over some nonsensical, imaginary "X + Y" benchmark.

Let's flip the script. 3DS and Wii U sold a combined 26+ million consoles in Japan. Do you think Nintendo will hang their head in shame if the Switch tops out at a mere 25 million?

3DS old over 13 million its first year, Wii U over 5 million by he end of 2013. You're calling for nearly 20 million sales in 9 months? Has any console ever done that? And again, if you think the Wii U is not representative of the true potential of Nintendo's home consoles as you claim, you should use the Wii, which sold over 10 million in its first 9 months. Now, does 23+ million in 9 months sound like a realistic expectation based on the real world, or does it sound like goalpost-moving? Let's consider that Nintendo is calling for about 13 million sales at the 13-month mark, and their investors aren't fleeing in horror.

The hell are you talking about?  I never said that.  That's dishonest and I expected better of you.  The idea that cumulative totals have to match up perfectly each year and in each region makes no sense.  Obviously, Nintendo is hoping the Switch has a longer tail that the Wii U.  

I really don't know how you aren't getting this.  I'm saying that Wii U did not sell enough to be representative of the home console market potential.  

Also, "if the Wii U isn't representative then the Wii must be representative" is clearly made-up nonsense.  You're being disingenuous by trying to create a false dichotomy where nothing exists in the middle.  There is nothing to indicate that both aren't outliers.  

I thought it sounded like you were attempting to establish a very low bar for the Switch and that seems to be the case.  Why, I don't know.  Nintendo is merging two markets and they have to show that doing so will grow the brand.  Barely selling more than ONE product line would not accomplish that.  Crisis isn't imminent by any means but brand erosion is a real threat unless they expand their userbase.

Then you need not have entered this discussion by making a counterpoint. V

This discussion was literally about tracking Switch sales vs combined 3DS + Wii U and linked to a thread in which their weekly sales are compared.

By measuring it against the 3DS, I have established a higher bar for success for the Switch than Nintendo has. Take it up with them.

You are still talking about "growing their brand" and "expanding their userbase" as though this 3DS + Wii U equation has any relation to either of those things. Nintendo has multiple major mobile games and they're building a freaking theme park. They are growing their brand outside of the contracting console market. Do I have to explain again that Nintendo's "user base" last gen is not calculated by adding 3DS and Wii U hardware sales, as though each sale represents a unique customer? That's a disingenuous perspective, not my simple observation that 3DS + Wii U is literal nonsense. A cute comparison perhaps, but an utterly vapid one.