A graph with NPD numbers for various systems was posted in this thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8680023

The GBA beat the Switch by 1m units. It's at 5.8m after ten months. The Switch line on the graph stops at month 5 because it's an old graph, but we know from Nintendo's announcement that it managed to sell 4.8m. That's good enough for a comfortable second place, but still notably behind the GBA.

Well, it's not neccessaryly my point, even though I agree with it, but Rols in the first place. That being said, again, that's not what I'm saying. Not sure why you're bringing up 360 and Ps3 either, as those two are about as traditional as homeconsoles get. There was never a reason for third parties not to jump on board.

The whole point is that third parties would be sceptical with jumping on board of a hybrid console no matter who brought it to market.

So yes, if Sony had announced the Ps4 with Switch specs (already unrealistic since the chip wasn't even out yet, but bear with me) as a hybrid and brought it market in 2013, with no traditional homeconsole in sight, third parties absolutely would have been highly sceptical. Especially if Sonys two competitors came to market with largely traditional and vastly more powerful consoles. It's even worse if you reverse the situation to MS, who don't even have any experience in the Handheld market at all. 

Sony has a lot of goodwill from third parties, while Nintendo has a damaged relationship with a lot of them, but my point was that the individual companies standing with third parties is laregly incedental to the third parties being sceptical of new concepts.

Nintendo has a history of know-how and success in the handheld space, aiding that aspect of development greatly, and has the IP and money to survive without full third party support, wich neiter MS nor Sony do.

It was never 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a Hybrid console', it was 'nintendo are the only ones who could make a hybrid console work'. BIg diffrence.

If you think sony could have pulled it off, fair enough. I personally have my doubts seeing the less than stellar support the vita recieved and MS would straight up have not survived trying the hybrid concept, they don't have the neccessary hardware expertise or IPs.

So you really do look only at a single sentence despite his follow-up post that should have removed all ambiguity for what he meant.

The trust for the PS1 came from the distrust for Nintendo and Sega. Many third parties were unsure about the PS1 at first, but as soon as the console presented itself as a viable alternative to Nintendo and Sega, things got really rolling for the PS1. Other competitors in the early '90s (3DO, CD-i, Pippin, Jaguar) had failed spectacularly. Sony being an electronics giant didn't mean all that much in the big picture, because companies like Apple or Philips couldn't take advantage of their successes in other fields. For third parties it was clear that they had to find an alternative to Nintendo and Sega, but it wasn't until the PS1 that a serious opportunity arrived. Nintendo had strict policies to prevent a repeat of the Atari crash, Sega ultimately wanted to be like Nintendo; that's why Sega wasn't the savior that third parties had hoped for.

If you believe that Nintendo could make a successful phone... I don't really have an answer for that.

The point was about PS1 and X360 being succesfull even thought they didn't had much 1st party content which nullifies the notion that Switch-like HW could only be sucessful with strong 1st party games. The point of they being skeptical isn't valid since the devs have put games for consoles and HH before, so the fact that it's hybrid shouldn't make it impossible when the companies have good relationship.

The companies could be skeptical, but that is what relationship and bringing aboard is about, and presenting the project in a way to entice they

There is a difference between could have and did. Sony pulled PSP good and screwed PSVita... doesn't mean their hybrid would be either of the cases.

If we were to put the failures as a mean of impossibility than Wii and Switch shouldn't be good sellers since N64, GC and WiiU were hard floppers. And GBA and DS should also be bad since Virtua Boy.

I've had nice conversations with you before, so rather than get into a fight I'll stept back here because at this point it feels like you're willfully missunderstnding me.

The whole point is that a hybrid IS and entirely new concept. Yes, both home consoles and Handhelds have been established in the market, largely by Nintendo for amost 30 years now. A hybrid is not. Third parties are sceptical of new things.

This is not me making unsubstatiated claims either, there's literally industry talks about the topic (of new things) long preceding the Switch and heck official press releases about the Switch itself stating as much. AAA third parties do not like any kind of risk. There would not be full third party support for any console makers hybrid console out of the gate.

I don't feel like there can be much contention on that point without turning a blind eye to basic industry realities. If you disagree, fine, have a good night (it's nightime where I am..:P).

1. Sony couldn't pull off a hybrid because it would be a new concept and third parties would be skeptical as a result, moving towards Xbox where they get what they want. The PS1 was a straightforward home console; nothing about it was new.

2. Nintendo couldn't make a successful phone because the market is already too crowded in all price segments. The only selling point Nintendo could add would be games, but people don't buy phones to play games. The necessity for physical buttons would lead to compromises in the design of the phone which in turn would make it unattractive to pull it out in public spaces like other phones. Anyone who is looking for gaming on the go would stick with dedicated Nintendo handhelds due to superior hardware design and much better games. A Nintendo phone would inevitably be caught between pointless and not good enough.

No issue man. It's basically just opinion that you think Sony/MS couldn't make hybrid first and be a success while I think Sony could, but since this won't ever happen since Switch already is a sucess it's a fruitless discussion =] good night.

it didn't reach 10 million before Ps4. your comparing a launch holiday, to post launch holiday, it's a very unfair comparison, and is the only reason switch is ahead of wii, and ps4. PS4 first holiday it was sold out the whole time, in fact, it had a million preorders 3 months before launch, and wii well that was much worse, they shipments were around 1 million for nov-dec sold out the whole time. 

It is, but here's a secret: Switch isn't the fastest selling video game system in the USA like the thread title wants you to believe.

There's a reason why NIntendo's press release reads "home video game system", so you can figure that the things that got excluded have the real #1. Would it surprise you if I told you that the DS did better than Switch?

No?

But it should. The only video game system that sold faster than Switch in the USA is the Game Boy Advance.