These kinds of predictions are ridiculous and just serve to make quickrick think he's right.

Miyamotoo, i was very specific on talking about the sales, be it 250M or 150M.

Yes, sequels can be different, but the audience, not so much.
That's the problem with sequels: they already capture a good part of it's audience with the first game. And in the case of an amazing game like BoTW, it will be hard to create something as appealing anytime soon.

I'm not denying that new IPs - or even 3rd party games - can't further boost Switch.
But let's face it, odds are that it most likely won't happen.
If you look at recent history 3DS was helped by the popularity of Pokémon Go and Xb360, by how well Kinect was received. I really can't find an exemple where a game helped a console so much as to change it's natural course, besides FF7. A game that truly helped PS1 become a hit.

"for instance, you have some people that want to buy Switch to play Zelda but they think price point is still high for Switch, than you have some people that want to play Zelda, but they want onother Zelda game at least, or you have some people that want to play Zelda but they want much more exclusive games for system"

If the entry price is an obstacle, why has it sold close to (probably more if we take into account recent numbers) 9 million copies? Every single system seller for Switch has sold amazingly well and even in less time than other entries in the respective franchises.
If what you are claiming was correct, those numbers wouldn't be so high, so fast.
Price clearly isn't the obstacle you think it is.

You can't compare Zelda and GoW: the first entry on Switch was a mainline game; the first entry on PS4 was a port.
Not only that, Zelda (using again as an example) already has close to 9 million users. How many users do you think will remain to get the console between now and when a sequel arrives?

"plenty of people see Switch like handheld on first place"
Saying that it's handheld HW is already a big stretch, but how do you justify the above when the system has been "sold" since day one as a home console system on the go, when the majority of it's sellers are home console experiences and everything about it is to sell it as a home console more than handheld?

Just because Switch can be bought one per person and not household, doesn't mean it will actually be that way.
What you are also forgetting is that even when the price reaches the plateau to make that happen, the console will have more competition (PS5 and XB2) and it means that parents also have to buy two copies of games. Not the best proposition now, is it?

"Talking about revisions, Switch will have multiply revisions and different price point, including low price offer similar like 2DS was for 3DS."
We have talked about this before.
What makes you believe that Nintendo is willing to go that low when it's console is selling a lot?
They have a different proposition to their customers, therefore, they don't need to act based on old ways that were reflex of a certain type of proposition.

If Sony can sell more than 80M consoles at a price not lower than 300$, why should Nintendo, who is selling a lot of Switchs, need to go that low? To make less money?

"Switch is NIntendos unifed platform, so they have much more options for support because they will suporting just one platform"
With this i fully agree.
Problem is, it's been this way since pretty much late 2014, early 2015 and we haven't seen the fruits of this. Not even 2017 is a good example, when MK and Zelda were basically ports and Splatoon 2 clearly uses a lot of the work done with the first game.
Using 2nd parties or paying for exclusives is another story.

Also, we have no idea what type of games Nintendo is preparing: are they more or less heavy on the human resources front? Will they all use new assets or old ones?
What first party games (and i mean only 1st party games) do we know about for 2019? A port of NSMBU; Animal Crossing and what else? Really, what are Nintendo's own studios in Japan and outside of Japan, preparing?
Shouldn't we have more by now?

To be honest, this option, of streamlining their games production, has been my dream since early 2014 - when Iwata started talking about this. But so far, it's more of a letdown.

Switch is outselling 3DS because it's much more appealing. Game librar's alone is proof of that.
That argument kinda proves my point that higher price points aren't always an obstable for big sales!

No, 3DS didn't have any type of competition at all. Switch clearly does.
The fact that all 3 companies are doing ok to great, doesn't mean that suddenly the market found room for all.
Switch's condition is unique: it came at a time where there were more than 80 million consoles had been sold. That's a big userbase ready for something new.
The fact that 70% of Switch owners already have a PS4 or XB1 shows that people aren't in a situation to have to choose, they can, now, justify having both. That's why Switch is selling so well.

In a scenario where Switch was released at the same time as PS4 and XB1, you can bet things would be completely different.
Also, the fact that Switch isn't stealing costumers shows that in such a situation Switch wouldn't be doing as well as it is doing now.

To me, Switch doesn't have the potential to go past 100M. There's no signs of a disruptive tech or game that can help Switch; by the end of 2019 most system sellers will already be out and we don't know if Nintendo can produce new ones of that caliber; 3d party support is lacking and there's no signs it will improve (in quality) and PS5 and XB2 are coming in 2020, if not before.
Consoles that go past 100M don't magically do it, they require sustainability. And Switch hasn't shown that yet.

Switch has already matched Wii and DS's 10M+ sellers with ~10 released/announced (BoTW, MK8D, Spla2n, Odyssey, Mario Party, PokLG, Smash, NSMBD, Pokemon-main, AnimalCrossing)
They have another easy ~7 in the bag (SMB6, Kart9, 2 more Pokemons, Switch Sports, BoTW2, Odyssey2).

Do people seriously think a record breaking 15-20 x 10M+ sellers are all gonna squeeze onto a 70-80M install base?

That's pretty funny.

Also, we're due another plague soon. If it hits around 2020 then that'll boost Switch to crazy numbers before Nintendo had planned to peak.

Again, because your points sound like you talking generaly about Switch sales not just about those 150m sales.

But fact is that any bigger or different game sells consoles in some degree, that goes for sequels, new IOs, 3rd party exclusives, even multiplatform 3rd party games. People have different preferences, more new releases in any case, in combination with already build strong availible line up of games, plus lover price cut means more sales in any case. For instance even games like Octapath Treveler and Diablo 3 moved in some degree Switch units, not to menotione that Fortnite that's available on every platform also moved Switch units.

I dont see how that goes again anuthing I wrote? Zelda BotW is still one of must have Switch tittles in any case, point that every quarter sells more than 1m proves that, so that actualy proves my point that not everyone that wanted Zelda already bought Switch. Same goes for MK8D, Odyssey and Splatoon2, point that they keep selling great prove my point. Switch price point is obstacle for people that didnt bought Switch yet, not for those who did bought.

Well Zelda BotW is technical Wii U port so actually I can. We can only assume how much next 3D Zelda can sell, we dont know nothing about next Zelda game (if will be more similar or different compared to BotW) and when could arrive.

Fact is that Switch is handheld hardware. Simple Switch is selling great from first day because has great concept and great games, but offourse there plenty of people that see and and want to use Switch only like handheld and they think Switch price is high and that waiting lower price point, same like plenty of people that think $300 is too much for "secondary console".

Actually that's Nintendo ultimate goal with Switch and I dont any reason why it couldn't be selling like device per person. PS5/XB2 will not be real competition similar like PS4/XB1 are not currently for Switch, buy time PS5/XB2 arive on market with price pints of $400-500, Switch will have price point of around $200, ti would have at least one or two availible revisions, and will still have its biggest difference compared to PS5/XB2, handheld side. Also, you need one copy of game when you have family account.

Because Nintendos ultimate goal with Switch is to selling like device per person while they said that price point is not still there. It tottaly make sense for Switch to have different price points including low price point offer.

But fact is that Sony did selling regulary PS4 at lower price point than $300, last year they were selling PS4 for Black Fridy for $200, they also had very offten different type of deals, if I recall last or previous year, almost hole summer they were selling Uncharted 4 bundle for around $250, you could regulary buy PS4 for less than $300.

Talking about support, all you need to know they are focused now just for supporting one platform, and thats huge gain in any case compared to past genertaions, also I dont talk only about 1st, 2nd party or 3rd party exclusive games, I talking also about marketing push and deals, revisions...they will in any case be much more focused on Switch support than they did with past platforms.

For next year they confirmed, NSMBU, new Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Luigis Mansion 3, Fire Emblem, Yoshi, Town...so already 7 cofirmed games while we are still in 2018. so this is not hole Switch 2019. lineup when comes to Nintendo, more 1s party games and more 3rd party exclusives are expected in any case. Talking about unannounced games, this could gave good idea, for instance Mario Maker 2, new game from FromSoftware (they are working on new game from last year), Paper Mario, New 3D Zelda, New 3D Mario, that rumored Star Fox Racing developed buy Retro Studios, Pikmin 4, new IPs, more Wii/WiiU ports...thats just part of what most likely they are working on currently.

And thats my point exactly, Switch is far more appealing product in any case than 3DS was, my point is that when Switch actually has price point thats closer to handheld price point and start selling like device per person, Switch will have huge boost in sales, espacily in Japan.

Actually biggest 3DS competition was from mobile gaming, 3DS/Vita felt biggest hit from mobile gaming, also Vita was competition also in some degree in beginning. But actualy it proves that, point that all 3 have great year (I mean PS4 still sales at least 2-3x than XB1 in any case) proves that at least PS4 and Switch are not real competition. But huge majority of that 80m user base will not be willing to buy new PS5 at launch for $400-500, actually you can expect that part of them will buy for instance $200 Switch that will be around $200 at that time period. 70% is from perspective of Switch owner (70% of Switch owners in US have PS4/XB1), not from perspective of PS4/XB1 owner, and with point that with last officall numbers Switch was at around 20m and PS4 at around 80m, that means that Switch still huge room for grow along PS4/XB1 ownwers.

Maybe, but again in that situation Switch maybe would be done even better because it wold be lowest price point on market compared to now.

What Switch is showing this FY is grow in sales compared to last year whithout price cut and revision compared to last year, thats clear example of sustainability. Like almost always, disagree with you, actualy all point that Switch can pass 100m easily:

-Very healthy and strong sales without price cut or revision

-Great Switch concept that will keep selling Switch in following years also and despite PS5/XB2

-Expected price cuts and revisions that will push Switch to sell like device per person, and increase Switch appealing on market (by aiming at different price point segments of market)

-Nintendo plan that Switch be longer on market than usual 6 years

-Full and undivided support from Nintendo where Nintendo puts hole its focus on just one platform

-Increasing 3rd party support..

I mean we can go with this days, you will not agree with me (despite I gave you same clear facts) and I will not agree with you, so I dont see point continue with this, I will not reply any more.

You read that way because you, as before, misread what i wrote. Now, it's probably due to us changing the conversation a bit.

Of course that sequels and more games help sell a system, but if what your trying to say was true, then sales of a console would keep on rising insteading of falling in later years.
Also, if price cuts were enough to increase sales, then, again, sales wouldn't fall in later years, despite having a more mass market price and better libraries. But they do.
What new games, sequels, price cuts, do, from a certain point, is, hold the fall in sales more than turning things around.

Every product has it's sweatspot [price].
You don't necessarily need to lower it to get more sales. What you'll probably get is a small boost and then sales keep falling and you just lost money, with the price cut, on future sales.

"point that every quarter sells more than 1m proves that, so that actualy proves my point that not everyone that wanted Zelda already bought Switch"
That would be a good counter argument if i had said that literally everyone interested in the game had already bought a console or the potential for Switch Zelda owners was shrinking.
I never said any of that.
That's why i asked you how many people do you think - of those that want Zelda BOTW - will be left between now and when the sequel arrives: "How many users do you think will remain to get the console between now and when a sequel arrives?" (my question to you in the previous post).

I asked you this because you were implying two things: 
1 - Switch's price is an obstacle.
2 - Zelda sequel would do a lot for the HW sales.
I pointed out the numbers for Zelda and you ignored. Those numbers clearly show that price isn't an issue.
I also said that a normal game of a given franchise will attract that specific userbase - which is exactly what it's doing. And because of that, sequels, even if they sell more don't necessarily bring that many people because a good part of the audience is already there.

Remember that Zelda is already close to 10 million, if it hasn't surpassed that milestone already!

You can call it a port - as i do - but you can't say, like you can say for GoW, that the game was already out for two years and then sold that much.
That's the difference!

When Switch is selling the way it's selling (fastest selling console in the US, btw), exactly who is waiting for the price to drop so Switch fits their vision of what they want to pay for handheld gaming?
Those people are clearly the minority.
If people thought 300$ was too much for making the Switch the secondary console, then Switch would have sold way, way less; it's games would have sold way, way less.

Miyamoto, you can claim all you want that 300$ or 329€ is an obstacle, but the market is proving you wrong. Not me. The market.

"Actually that's Nintendo ultimate goal with Switch and I dont any reason why it couldn't be selling like device per person"

It sounds great in theory, but when you look at it, it's really not that feasible. Not to mentio it actually goes against your idea that Switch's price is an obstacle at 300!
Imagine that the console is at 199$. Buy 2 and you pay 400$ (price isn't an obstacle now?). Then you have to get your kids the same games (what you said about account sharing is only valid for digital purchases, not physical).
Do you really believe that parents will really be willing (in meaningful numbers) to spend that much? If you believe that 300$ is a big obstacle, then, you can't say that paying 400$ + double the game prices, is a viable option or even a likely scenario.

Of course that PS5 and XB2 will be "real" competition… they are competing for the same market, afterall.
Price might be a factor if those consoles aren't that attractive. Because if they are, then, taking into consideration the adoption rate for consoles this gen, price won't matter all that much.
PS4 made a killing at 400$... 400$.
XB1 didn't do better because of it's mistakes.

I already said that Sony had deals for the PS4 that helped it get a few extra million below 300$. No arguing there.
But they did wonders at 400$ and even 300$. Why? Because people saw the value and price stopped being an obstacle.

You bring their streamlining game's strategy and then mix it with second party and even 3rd party games…
If we are talking about Nintendo's own studios, then we are talking about just that. And in regards to that, i still stay by what i said: so far, there's no fruits of that strategy.
Not that there won't be, it's just that there aren't. Period. And after 4 years, we should have seen more.

In terms of marketing push we are indeed seeing that, as Nintendo keeps being one of the company's that spends more on advertising.

"my point is that when Switch actually has price point thats closer to handheld price point and start selling like device per person, Switch will have huge boost in sales, espacily in Japan"

Things aren't that linear as you make them to be; it's not how economics works. 
Just because you lower the price, it doesn't necessarily mean that sales will skyrocket or reach a higher plateau. For that to happen, Switch shouldn't have crossed 6 million in Japan, already, for example.
That is a signal that the market isn't waiting for a price drop to buy the system. Why? Because they already see enough value in it (hybrid nature, for example) to buy it at a higher price.

What you are doing, is treating Switch as if it wasn't a hit or as if it was an expensive handheld. It's no-no for both scenarios. Therefore, you have to adapt your thnking to Switch's unique proposition and how the market is perceiving it and adopting it.
Again, the "more than one per household" is a financial burden, as i tried to show you above.

"But actualy it proves that, point that all 3 have great year (I mean PS4 still sales at least 2-3x than XB1 in any case) proves that at least PS4 and Switch are not real competition. But huge majority of that 80m user base will not be willing to buy new PS5 at launch for $400-500"
Two things:
First: you are looking at sales and are completely overlooking how these sales came to be. It really doesn't matter if people are buying it as a secondary console and not choosing Switch over PS4/Xb1, if there were already enough users who owned a PS4/XB1 for years. Context is irrelevant to you. 
Second: have you forgotten how many consoles Sony sold at 400$; how much PS4 and XB1 sold at launch at 400/500$?

"Switch was at around 20m and PS4 at around 80m, that means that Switch still huge room for grow along PS4/XB1 ownwers."
Exactly. But the room to growth isn't because people are choosing Switch over the others, As in, creating it's own market. It's because it's getting the majority of it's sales from an existing market.

You didn't show that there is sustainability. Sustainability is something for the medium to long term. Short term wins don't necessarily have that consequence.
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo has a lot more IPs to be released after 2019, but you can't say that;
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo is gonna get the best of the best 3rd party support, but you can't prove that;
You could try and defend it by saying that Nintendo is gonna sell more than one device per household, but you can't demonstrate that while at the same time saying that 300$ is a meaningful obstacle (you would be contradicting yourself);
You can't also really "prove" that focusing on Switch will actuall provide those awesome results when you don't know what what games they are making. For all we know, they can come up with a bunch of franchises and only one becomes the next Nintendo system seller.

Your clear facts have been nothing more than hypothesis or theories that you haven't been able to materialise in actual facts. Not to mention how you keep ignoring market trends and reasonable thinking.
In other words, you have in no way proven that after 2019, Nintendo can continue sustaining Switch's success. You have only provided hypohotesis.

See you in a future thread!

I doubt next gen will be as "weak" as the 56.  At least not the PS5.  PS5 is using Navi, which should have some gains in performance over Vega.  And if the rumors are true, it was designed to be cheap competitor to the 1080/1080Ti, which is where I think the PS5 will lie.  I'm also expecting something more along the lines of a Ryzen 7.

@ OP

Good job at lowballing the numbers.  More like 350M+.

If Switch Sells 250 million before it's discontinued I'll cut off both of my arms.

Are you nuts?!?!?!

225M at best.

Thats the spirit! Good for you

Indeed. So ironic people coming to laugh at this prediction and drop more joke material