Well... the switch did end up selling more than people predicted, but the recurring 3rd party problems won't be going away. Also curious to see what will happen and how long the hype effect will last. It seems the core Nintendo fans were still willing to forgive Nintendo for the Wii U, wich is surprising to me.
I'd like to see a study to know wich segment they managed to recapture or if this is a movement of their portable market.

People were heavily (and unnecessarily) divided on this, which was stupid, between "CONSOLESRDEAD" and "GREATEST EVARRRRR!"

N64 and Gamecube disagree.  I mean 3 out of their last 4 consoles had done badly in total sales.  Although this is kind of a hybrid so I guess we average the handhelds and consoles to see what it should sell?  Eh who knows.

Now they dont, in most cases they are not true at all, It's not really high price for hybrid, you cant rely have high power with hybrid, Switch exclusives are killing it, just Zelda BotW is one strongest ever game like launch game for any system, target audience was obvious from start, home console and handheld lowers in same time, concept of Switch is very strong and its system seller alone.

But people don't think price is high, and that's why sales are so good and Nintendo can't keep with demand,most of people who thought like that didn't realise that Switch is real handheld and real home console in same time, and that offers two controllers out of box for multiplayer. Depends how you look at it, if you look like handheld its incredible strong (in handheld mode its stronger than Wii U/PS3/Xbox 360), if you look it like home console it weak but again its around 3x stronger than Wii U/PS3/Xbox 360, so at end, Switch is strong enuf for what it is. Zelda BotW wasnt only exclusive, and we talking about one of strong launch game ever. Targeting home console market and handheld market in same time was very smart and very logical, from start was obvious that will be one strongest Switch selling point.

Switch from start had 3 things that are among most crucial for success of Nintendo hardware, great concept, great system seller game like launch title, and great branding and marketing, and later great schedule of games where we have one bigger or stronger Nintendo game on around every month. That alone tells us that Switch will do much better than Wii U in any case, in comparison Wii U failed with all those things, but some people failed to see that and predict that Switch will faile.

Except the are other threads I have linked in the topic and people in those threads doing the same thing, if you failed to read through the thread to see links it's not my concern.

Your figures are ridiculous its only really in memory capacity the Switch beats the 360 and PS3. As a portable and docked the Switch has less cpu resources than 360 and PS3. It also has less memory bandwidth and graphically it's harder to measure but the Nvidia Shield TV box uses the same chipset as Switch but run at higher clock speeds for the gpu and much higher clock speeds for the cpu and that box has games which are inferior to 360 and PS3 versions.

Realistically its highly unlikely the Switch will get the range of games of the scope and quality of ps3 and 360 while docked. It has limited storage and cpu resources.  Some games on ps3 had amazing 7.1 soundtracks, large amounts of pre-rendered 1080p video and made heavy use of its cell processor which could be in the order of 3x more powerful than the Switch in cpu terms.  It's just not possible for the Switch to ever compete with that. 

We will get a better idea when Skyrim gets reviewed and see where it sits in the pecking order, where it succeeds, where it fails compared to other versions. The great thing about the Switch is its very easy to develop for so should be a good indicator of its performance level. While old, Skyrim does require good gpu and cpu resources. I have a windows tablet with more cpu resources than Switch but much less gpu resources and only 2GB it can only run it well at minimum detail and at a lower 800x600 resolution.  I do get great battery life though probably 4-5hrs playing the game but then its based on a more advanced fabrication process than Switch, 14nm compared to 20nm and its gpu is only about 100 gflops. 

I'm expecting Switch skyrim to play well but I expect it will be close to 360/PS3 performance even while docked but we shall see.

Are you serious!? Switch CPU is incomparible much more modern and more capable than PS3/Xbox360 CPUs, that espacily goes for GPU its around 10 generations newer GPU with all modern features and capabilities, on top of that you have 6x more usable RAM memory for games. And thats goes only for portable mode, Switch GPU in docked mode has much higher power that basicly force 720p resoultion to run at 1080p. Even Wii U is more powerful than PS3/Xbox360 (has more stronger and more capable GPU, more RAM, but slower CPU), and Switch is around 3x stronger than Wii U. 

Switch has some parts like Nvidia Shield, but Nvidia Shield is basicly PC, while Switch is full console with own IPs, tools, softwares, development process espacial for Switchh...in order to use most of Switch hardware. Comparing Nvidia Shield and Switch is like comparing PS4 and PC with same specs, and using some game runing at that PC like example of what PS4 is capable.

Switch is enuf capable that could probably run every PS3/Xbox 360 game at 1080p with better frame rate. Latest example is Minecraft, it runs at 720p on PS3/Xbox360, while on Switch runs at 1080p with much bigger world. We already saw Skyrim, it runs 720p in portable mode and has good frame rate (definitely better than PS3/Xbox360 in any case), and it seems that look better, fact that runs at 720p in portable mode means that probably will run at 1080p or at least at 900p in docked mode. Talking about frame rates, currently rearly any Switch game has frame rate issues, PS3/Xbox360 in its 1st years had tons of frame rate issues, actualy most of current Switch games runing at 1080p with stable frame rate, while you have few 1080p PS3/Xbox360 games, not to mentione frame rate.

I really want to say these are joke/troll threads, but on VGC, you never know; there are some pretty far out ideas.

I really don't think it's the Nintendo fans that are devouring stock before it hits shelves. Most of that demographic probably pre-ordered. 

One could make an argument that the e-Bay/Amazon flippers are monopolizing stock, but secondary market prices are directly dictated by what the end buyer is willing to pay. Currently, that's trending at $72 over MSRP. Who is buying? 

Naturally, there is a bit of buzz over the Switch, and seeing empty shelves where there should be product will psychologically trigger the perception of scarcity, which in turn triggers consumer desire to buy, but again, who buys a product at $72 over MSRP on e-Bay because they see empty shelves at retail outlets?

I don't think it's parents buying consoles for their kids; the reality is most kids these days are playing games on their parents' old smartphones, so unless you have some Millenial parent who grew up loving Nintendo and wants to pass that on to their kids, I'm thinking most of the Switch stock is going to adult gamers. 

Where the Switch varies from the Wii is that a single player/account can own and use multiple consoles like a handheld. I haven't personally plugged mine into a display yet and use it exclusively as a handheld. I'm not convinced I'm alone in that boat, so there are people treating it like a handheld. 

While this generally only effects consumers who dual platform game on portable and console, which I believe is not a majority demographic, the Switch does the clever job of consolidating both markets into a single device/platform for Nintendo fans, and that right there may well be the X factor that's selling so many units. The assumption is that the Switch will be receiving both 3DS and Wii U franchises. 

People thought the price was high. There were complaints about it all over the place. You can't possibly have missed that. It doesn't matter what's happening now because that's hindsight. If you want to talk about the accuracy of predictions, you can't use information that's available only after the prediction has been made. Back when the predictions were made, there were lots of complaints about the price and no one had bought the console yet, let alone tons of people. Criticism about the price was a valid concern back then. Like I said: Turns out price is not a problem, but people had every reason to assume it was back then. Also, it's completely irrelevant what you get for the price if people feel like the price is high.

Let me try to clarify this. I'm not arguing Switch is too expensive, or too expensive for what it has to offer. I'm also not trying to argue those predictions before the launch were correct. I'm only trying to argue that criticism about the price was valid before the launch because there were lots of complaints about the price.

I never said Zelda was the only exclusive. Read my post more carefully before you imply anything more about what I say. You're also looking at the target audience part differently than me. I'm not arguing it's not smart to try to attract both the home console and the handheld console audience at the same time. Again, read my post more carefully to see what I actually said about it.

As to your last paragraph, I must once again direct you to read my previous post more carefully. I must also ask: Did you give any though to my post or did you just jump to opposing things in it without thinking what I might have meant? I'm just saying there were a lot of reasons why people might have been skeptical about Switch before its launch, so it's understandable why the predictions might have been skeptical too. There were a lot of things backing up the success of the console as well, but there were also many negatives, and seeing whether the good things of the bad things were going to prevail was a pretty difficult thing if you really tried to think about it and assess all the things.

In case you're still not getting it: I'm not arguing anything about whether Switch is successful now, whether it offers enough good things to consumers, whether it's powerful enough or not, or anything about what we know now. I'm only trying to argue how it seemed back then when the predictions were made, which is mostly before the launch and before we knew anything about how things actually turned out. Everything that's happened after the predictions were made is hindsight, and everything's easy in hindsight. The predictions were wrong, but there were good reasons to be skeptical. You can criticize the predictions all you want, but ridiculing them for more or less reasonable reasoning seems stupid to me.

Expecting me to read every single post and open every single link in them is just stupid. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. You didn't even label your links properly so I had no idea what was going on behind them. Seriously, what should I expect from 'I think the threads here were more hilarious tbh.'? Just because you posts links to something doesn't mean I'm interested in what's behind them, and because you say you posted links doesn't mean I have to look for every single post of yours in this thread just to see which ones contain relevent links. If you want to prove a point, you should provide me with the posts directly and not point me to all around the place.