Your post was a very convoluted way to express your support for EricHiggin.

This sounds like something of a strawman to me, as do a lot of "someone else said something different so that means YOU are moving goalposts" arguments.  You can always find different statements from different people.  

I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the Wii U represented a healthy or even viable baseline for Nintendo.  No goalposts should be set there, to begin with.  Bettering those numbers should be an expectation.  On the other hand, I don't think the Wii represented a normal baseline, either, so a new console certainly doesn't need to reach those heights to be successful.

As for the core of the "combined" argument itself, a merged product line does need to cover projected lost profit to some degree, though that would really be held against Nintendo itself rather than the Switch.  What makes that murky is the idea that Nintendo faced declining sales in both the handheld and home console markets, which means we really have no idea where the real baseline would end up.

If I were running Nintendo, I'd want strong hardware sales in other to keep production costs low, but I really wouldn't care about any sort of comparisons to "home+handheld" numbers.  I would absolutely analyze the economic pluses and minuses of running two hardware production lines against one production line, obviously, but I think a totally new product has to establish its own numbers.  

Software is a different beast.  It would absolutely need to generate strong profitability compared to "home+handheld" numbers.  A drop in revenue is understandable but the final margins need to be higher.

However, at the end of the day, there was one overwhelmingly serious need that Nintendo had to address this generation: engaging new consumers.  They said themselves that this was a hugely important issue for them and most of their other measures had failed, as they were mainly depending on a carryover audience.  I know I criticized the cheap plastic toy things, and with good reason.  That the Switch seems to be a major success in that area really transcends the numbers.  This was both what they really wanted and really needed.  Nintendo has to be pleased and relieved--though not too relieved, as we know success in one generation shouldn't be taken for granted in the next. 

Now, that being said, in dick-waving threads like this, especially when the dick-waving is about beating two product lines already slated for replacement, I think people pointing out negative factors is totally fair game.   

As long as the dick waving makes you feel good.... that's all that matters. The rest of your entire post is bullshit....like the dick waving comment is. Just stop. Jesus. What the hell is wrong with people here.

This means you came to the defense of people who pointed out negative factors without even knowing what they actually posted in this thread.

Or more accurately, you defended EricHiggin specifically because the first line of his post was the only thing you read.

I don't know, but you should fit right in.  Seriously, though, if you're unable to type out an intelligent argument beyond "ur post is bullshit" then just stop.  I mean, at least try.  Stop wasting everyone's time if you can't write something meaningful.  Know your role or crawl back to GameFAQS.  Jesus.

Or more accurately, I responded to the post I quoted as its own thing.  I didn't come to anyone else's "defense"--don't mix me up with you.  I mean, I know what you're trying to do, it's very Trump of you with the forced dichotomy, but it's also kind of silly.  Really, this whole "if you're not 100% with us then you're the enemy attackattackattack" party-politics thing, where people have to fit everyone into camps, has really fucked up these forums and it's driving away everyone but the extremists.  Maybe that's what you want.  I know I'm tired of it.  I'm having less and less regrets about skipping out on console gaming.  The funny thing is, I was just looking at the Switch Lite today because increased downtime at work but, goddamn, I seriously do not miss this fanboy shit in the least.

Look man, coming from the dick waving man himself, your comment is just as useful as.... dick waving. So, try again, and take your own advice, and produce something useful, then, I'll respond with something better. I cant make a better response to the garbage you came up with. So blame yourself. Kettle, meet pot.

This sounds like something of a strawman to me, as do a lot of "someone else said something different so that means YOU are moving goalposts" arguments.  You can always find different statements from different people.  

I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the Wii U represented a healthy or even viable baseline for Nintendo.  No goalposts should be set there, to begin with.  Bettering those numbers should be an expectation.  On the other hand, I don't think the Wii represented a normal baseline, either, so a new console certainly doesn't need to reach those heights to be successful.

As for the core of the "combined" argument itself, a merged product line does need to cover projected lost profit to some degree, though that would really be held against Nintendo itself rather than the Switch.  What makes that murky is the idea that Nintendo faced declining sales in both the handheld and home console markets, which means we really have no idea where the real baseline would end up.

If I were running Nintendo, I'd want strong hardware sales in other to keep production costs low, but I really wouldn't care about any sort of comparisons to "home+handheld" numbers.  I would absolutely analyze the economic pluses and minuses of running two hardware production lines against one production line, obviously, but I think a totally new product has to establish its own numbers.  

Software is a different beast.  It would absolutely need to generate strong profitability compared to "home+handheld" numbers.  A drop in revenue is understandable but the final margins need to be higher.

However, at the end of the day, there was one overwhelmingly serious need that Nintendo had to address this generation: engaging new consumers.  They said themselves that this was a hugely important issue for them and most of their other measures had failed, as they were mainly depending on a carryover audience.  I know I criticized the cheap plastic toy things, and with good reason.  That the Switch seems to be a major success in that area really transcends the numbers.  This was both what they really wanted and really needed.  Nintendo has to be pleased and relieved--though not too relieved, as we know success in one generation shouldn't be taken for granted in the next. 

Now, that being said, in dick-waving threads like this, especially when the dick-waving is about beating two product lines already slated for replacement, I think people pointing out negative factors is totally fair game.   

It's just another instance of you not expecting to get called out on a post and then reacting with condescension. You also cornered yourself with your statement that you are unaware of the things that were posted in this thread. You labeled this thread as dick-waving and excused poor posts in this thread for not being any worse than my original post (said comment of yours is still up there in the quote box). In your next post you claimed that you don't even know what was posted in this thread, then in your most recent post (quoted above) you describe my behavior as "fanboy shit" when you yourself had no problem to come into this thread to excuse poor posts for no other reason than you not liking my thread.

The funny thing about your last sentence is that after all these years you still try to claim the moral high ground by mentioning interest in a Nintendo console and implying to have no stake in console wars, but who in this community would actually believe that pokoko has had serious consideration for a Nintendo console. An additional factor is that you once stated that the Vita taught you that handheld gaming is just not for you. What you've displayed here is as fake as it can get.

If you want to come across as credible and having some sense of objectivity, the first step would be that you clearly distance yourself from what EricHiggin posted and call his argumentation nonsense, whataboutism or whatever suits your fancy. Then the second step is that you acknowledge that the quality of my original post is notably higher than the arguments that were made against it, so your initial assessment of "fair game to point out negative factors" has to be revised because you entered at a point where the thread was already way beyond the line of reasonable arguments against this specific accomplishment of Switch.

Yes, you've said it before that you'd like to play Zelda and Fire Emblem games, but those comments are as hollow as when you pretend that an Xbox could have ever been an option for a console purchase for you.

As for your first post in this thread, the reason why I didn't comment on anything beyond your closing paragraph that attacked my thread is that you didn't really say anything particular interesting. You outlined a bunch of metrics, all of which meaning that Switch is very successful because it's verifiable via Nintendo's financial reports, then you turned around and ruined your post with the closing paragraph because it's apparently not okay for someone else to point out how successful Switch has been.