I'm amazed that you don't know what a game having legs means.  Legs are about consistently selling long after launch. 

But when it's relevant, you can't just ignore it either.

Fatslob claims that for a game to qualify as having legs, it must remain in the top 20 every chart regardless of the consistency of long term sales. To manage this, it must sell at a rate that is irrespective of the 1st week sales but is instead measured against other titles.  Legs are a measure against itself.

For example: with specific regards to install base, to breach the top 20 a game must sell ~50,000 units globally each week.  For Switch, that is a game that must have a sales ratio of 1:140 against a PS4 game of 1:1300 and XOne of 1:640.  Combined they are 1:1940. This shows it is more difficult for a Switch title to maintain a position in the top 20 than for any old or new title to appear in the top 20 (again, old or new title, that doesn't matter). 

And that doesn't even take into consideration the install base of the game itself.  LoZ:BotW has already sold 4.7 million units.  That means new sales have a 2.3 million Switch pool to purchase from (plus whatever new console sales are for the week).  Now that ratio dropped to 1:46.

Install base matters when maintaining a presence in the top 20 and these numbers prove it.  And again, maintaining a top 20 presence isn't even the qualification for having legs.  That's just an arbitrary goal post Fatslob put up.

And by the way, that's using VGC and global figures.  If I used NPD, I'd have to account for the fact they combine SKUs across platforms, do not track Switch digital sales, and they rank according to revenue (not units sold).

See my previous reply... for the legs of the current games launching, saying PS4/X1 have much more userbase is irrelevant. But also there is little value to say the Switch games weren't on TOP 20, the month may have had a lot of solid releases. The legs of those games (which I agree will probably be very good).

On LoZ:BotW is one of the few situations were we surely would need to consider the lack of available userbase to sell through because the attach rate is immense. But legwise it's possible it won't have much unless it breaks by a lot all of Zelda previous installments for total sale, because it is already quite high.

Anyway, from what we know from at least Wii and WiiU, Nintendo flagships have legs (although the guy didn't say the games of Switch won't have legs, just that it will be smaller than Wii) but we really can't be sure how much better or worse its leg will be compared to the flagships in Wii.

Yes but he moved the goalposts. Originally he was comparing like to like, then he began yammering on about MP8 and NSMBW, which have nothing comparable on Switch atm. It seems to be a particular favourite of his, either moving the goalposts, or cherry picking the exact piece of tiny data to back up his claim, however irrelevant it is.

Well, comparison can be complicated... but yep, writing off the legs of a game because it released couple months ago and isn't charting on October-Dec rank doesn't make much sense...

Still I agree that will be hard for Switch games to achieve the legs of Wii games (some charting high after a year of release) and also selling on the levels of MK on Wii, that was monster level.

Well, (his examples) MKWii. I don't think MK8D will ever match up to that. Zelda, a bad example on his part, as BOTW likely to smash Twilight Princess on Wii and Splatoon, which, apart from doing really well, it has nothing to compare to on Wii. What was really strange tho was saying they had to stack up selling 70% of LTD in 18 months or something. Very specific and obviously tailored to his narrative. Cherry picking at its finest.

I think he were more likely showing that the game hitting 70% of LT sales on its first 18 months wouldn't have big legs... from what I remember most games would hit that 70% in 12 months or less.

So, really, it's far too early for him to start using such a formula yet then.