Nu-13 said:

Why waste time writting all that? The switch is the only 9th gen system and 35m is too low compared to what it will actually sell.

At least now you know that he is basing his predictions on wrong assumptions. Like Nintendo said a couple of days ago, the conventional wisdom suggests that Switch has now hit the midway point of its lifecycle, but there are actually plenty of growth opportunities left and Nintendo will pursue them.

Shadow1980 is falling into the same trap again in that he views the market in too much of a home console context and on top of that he ignores that the old market dynamics don't provide a good model for analyses because Switch doesn't follow those old dynamics. With Switch being Nintendo's only console, it's 100% a given that Nintendo will make all of their games for that single console and that is major stimulative factor for longtime sales that none of the Nintendo home consoles and handhelds of the past 30 years had.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
GProgrammer said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

I've seen some uber spin on this site in my many many years here. I'm actually quite impressed by some of it. Lawyer-level quality XD

Yes there was this guy on this other thread saying "Some still seem to have this weird notion that Nintendo fans are like these cultists that will ONLY stick to "their brand."

Top 20 selling games on the Switch

1 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Nintendo
2 Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Nintendo
3 Super Mario Odyssey Nintendo
4 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Nintendo
5 Pokémon Sword and Shield Nintendo
6 Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! Nintendo
7 Splatoon 2 Nintendo
8 Super Mario Party Nintendo
9 New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe Nintendo
10 Luigi's Mansion 3 Nintendo
11 Super Mario Maker 2 Nintendo
12 The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening Nintendo
13 1-2-Switch Nintendo
14 Mario Tennis Aces Nintendo
15 Fire Emblem: Three Houses Nintendo
16 Kirby Star Allies Nintendo
17 Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze Nintendo
18 Ring Fit Adventure Nintendo
19 Arms Nintendo
20 Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle Ubisoft !!!!!!! <-- how did nintendo let this one get into the top 20

Is 1-2-Switch better than all the 3rd party games?

I'm a Nintendo fan. Of the 18 Switch games I own, 13 are third party.

That said, exactly what games have third parties released on Switch that have the brand power, marketing, and appeal that they should have sold on par with Nintendo's games, outside of Mario + Rabbids?



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
GProgrammer said:

Yes there was this guy on this other thread saying "Some still seem to have this weird notion that Nintendo fans are like these cultists that will ONLY stick to "their brand."

Top 20 selling games on the Switch

1 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Nintendo
2 Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Nintendo
3 Super Mario Odyssey Nintendo
4 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Nintendo
5 Pokémon Sword and Shield Nintendo
6 Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! Nintendo
7 Splatoon 2 Nintendo
8 Super Mario Party Nintendo
9 New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe Nintendo
10 Luigi's Mansion 3 Nintendo
11 Super Mario Maker 2 Nintendo
12 The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening Nintendo
13 1-2-Switch Nintendo
14 Mario Tennis Aces Nintendo
15 Fire Emblem: Three Houses Nintendo
16 Kirby Star Allies Nintendo
17 Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze Nintendo
18 Ring Fit Adventure Nintendo
19 Arms Nintendo
20 Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle Ubisoft !!!!!!! <-- how did nintendo let this one get into the top 20

Is 1-2-Switch better than all the 3rd party games?

I'm a Nintendo fan. Of the 18 Switch games I own, 13 are third party.

That said, exactly what games have third parties released on Switch that have the brand power, marketing, and appeal that they should have sold on par with Nintendo's games, outside of Mario + Rabbids?

Clearly, they want high sales from games that didn't release. And due to convinience they never compare sales of multiplatforms on all 3 consoles because even late ones on switch tend to easily beat the xbox one version. All while the small and mid games usually have over 50% of sales on switch. So all sales data give us a clear message that switch is the place for all the quality games, but they need to get released to sell (shocker).



Ryng said:

Where are the proof that Nintendo agree with them?

The problem with your logic is that you only count home consoles. Switch is both.

Switch is the new generation of 3DS and Wii U. 3DS is a 8gen console, you can't have Switch in the same generation as 3DS.

RolStoppable said:

Nintendo doesn't agree. They don't say anything because they don't care, but that's not the same as agreement.

Wikipedia is edited by its users, so the gen 8 declaration on there merely reflects the consensus that the gaming community has reached. It's a consensus that was reached based on two big assumptions, namely that Nintendo consoles have short lifespans and that the PS4 and XB1 won't be replaced until 2021/2022. If those assumptions were correct, the PS5, Xbox 4 and Switch successor would all be launching in 2021/2022 and that's why Switch had to be generation 8 to preserve alignment.

From a Nintendo press release published at Business Wire:

"In September, the Nintendo Switch system was once again the top-selling current-generation console hardware, according to the NPD Group, which tracks video game sales in the United States."

And from Nintendo's very own website:

"Nintendo Switch has become the fastest-selling video game system of this hardware generation through 21 months, according to The NPD Group."

[emphasis added on both quotes]

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. NPD classifies the Switch as current-gen alongside the PS4 & XBO. Nintendo have given their tacit approval to this classification. Ergo, the Switch is Gen 8. Game. Set. Match.

Re: Wikipedia. Nintendo press releases were used as a valid source for determining in which gen to classify the Switch.

Oh, and if you want to argue that Switch is Gen 9 because it comes after the Gen 8 Wii U, I understand the rationale. It's clean, simple, and intuitive. But reality is often messy, complicated, and non-intuitive, and that includes classifications (we see it all the time in biology). If we apply this "system's gen = predecessors gen +1" rationale to other systems, it becomes quickly ridiculous.

If we classify the Atari 2600 as Gen 2, then that means the 5200 is Gen 3 and the 7800 is Gen 4. But the 5200 was discontinued in May 1984, which was during the Big Crash, and over two years before the NES was released nationwide in the U.S. (and only 10 months after the Famicom was released in Japan, if you want to count that). The 7800 was released around the same time as the NES and Master System and was discontinued just over 16 months and four months, respectively, after the Genesis and SNES were released in NA. Do you really want to consider the 5200 being in the same gen as the NES and SMS, or the 7800 as being in the same gen as the SNES and Genesis?

Speaking of the Master System, unless you agree that the Sega Mark-III/SMS was an upgraded SG-1000, then would you claim that since the SG-1000 launched nearly concurrently with the Famicom that it is Gen 3 and that therefore the SMS is Gen 4 and the Genesis is Gen 5?

And that's not the only complication. To go back to Gen 2, long before everyone started referring to all pre-Crash of '83 cart-based systems as "Second Generation" (with Pong machines being Gen 1), some sources gave conflicting accounts of what system from back then belonged to which generation. Some have stated that the 2600, Odyssey², and Intellivision belonged to Gen 2, and that the ColecoVision and 5200 belonged to Gen 3, with the NES and SMS being Gen 4 (which would mean). But the 2600, despite being released in 1976, didn't really hit it big until around 1981 according to various sales figures I've seen, meaning it spent its best years competing directly with not only Intellivision but also the ColecoVision and even the 5200, which was intended to be a higher-end companion to the 2600 (the Intellivision and ColecoVision being more powerful systems), not necessarily a full replacement. Despite those older sources splitting the pre-Crash consoles into two distinct generations, the fact that we had all those systems being nominal competition against each other in the early 80s has led most of us to lump them together into a single "Gen 2."

It's clear that the NPD considers the Switch Gen 8 based on "competition" criteria. Nintendo had to ditch the Wii U prematurely because it failed, leading them to release a new system mid-gen. It has spent the last three years serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO. By time the PS5 and XSX really start to take off, the Switch will likely already be well into the decline phase of its life. No Nintendo console has lasted more than about six years before being replaced (if you count handhelds, only the Game Boy lasted longer than that, but it was an anomaly and nobody expects a system to last a decade before being replaced). Assuming a Nov. 2023 release for its successor, that means it will have spent most of its primary lifespan, and nearly all of its best years, serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO, not for the PS5 and XSX. If 2023 is indeed when the Switch's successor is released, then it will have launched closer to the launch of the PS5 and XSX than the Switch did to the launch of the PS4 & XBO. If Nintendo keeps running shorter gens, that will continue to complicate things. What if the PS5 releases in 2027 and the Switch's "grandchild" system releases in early 2029? Will we seriously argue that a Gen 11 system is coming out only 16 months after Sony releases their Gen 9 system?

If we're going to classify things, we need something that makes sense in the big picture, not what seems immediately simple and intuitive. Either we need to stop putting Nintendo systems into a specific generation, ditch the generation classification system entirely, or use some criteria that doesn't result in absurd situations over time or when applied to historical consoles.



There's no need for so many mental gymnastics. The thread was derailed enough.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Nu-13 said:

Why waste time writting all that? The switch is the only 9th gen system and 35m is too low compared to what it will actually sell.

At least now you know that he is basing his predictions on wrong assumptions. Like Nintendo said a couple of days ago, the conventional wisdom suggests that Switch has now hit the midway point of its lifecycle, but there are actually plenty of growth opportunities left and Nintendo will pursue them.

Shadow1980 is falling into the same trap again in that he views the market in too much of a home console context and on top of that he ignores that the old market dynamics don't provide a good model for analyses because Switch doesn't follow those old dynamics. With Switch being Nintendo's only console, it's 100% a given that Nintendo will make all of their games for that single console and that is major stimulative factor for longtime sales that none of the Nintendo home consoles and handhelds of the past 30 years had.

What data are you basing your claims on? You can't simply ignore historical precedent and then resort to "new market dynamics" or other speculative concepts that have no real factual backing. Simply giving good software support to a system and continuing to release games on it will not result in some unprecedented streak of good sales. We know for a fact that even systems with very good software support eventually reach a point where they can't grown any more and start to decline. Every system has had some sort of grow-peak-decline shape to its sales curve (though some peaked so early as to nearly bypass the "growth" phase). Eventually, the console maker just starts to run out of people to sell a particular system to, no matter what they do to try to boost sales. Price cuts and new hardware models are historically the best stimulant for sales, with individual games almost always giving short-term boosts. Nintendo will get more out a price cut to the base Switch than they will out continuing to put out strong first-party titles.

And even with them being able to put 100% of their efforts into a single platform, that still will not change the fact that it will peak sooner or later, likely sooner, and there is no reason to assume it will set some kind of longevity record for a Nintendo system (excluding the Game Boy's record-setting 10+ years). PlayStation system have followed normal rules of console sales since the beginning, both before, during, and after the existence of Sony handhelds. Xbox has always had just the home consoles, and they follow normal rules of console sales. There's absolutely no reason to think that the Switch sets some sort of new precedent. I prefer to base my predictions on established facts, not pure speculation conjured out of whole cloth, and the historical sales record is the only data we have to go on in guessing how a particular system will sell.

Could the Switch sell 40M+ in the U.S.? Yes. I cannot discount the possibility entirely. But I don't think it will. I'd love to be proven wrong, because I want the Switch to do as well as possible. But, based on the current body of data, I cannot honestly project 40M+. What I'd like to see and what I think is plausible are two separate things.



Shadow1980 said:
Ryng said:

Where are the proof that Nintendo agree with them?

The problem with your logic is that you only count home consoles. Switch is both.

Switch is the new generation of 3DS and Wii U. 3DS is a 8gen console, you can't have Switch in the same generation as 3DS.

RolStoppable said:

Nintendo doesn't agree. They don't say anything because they don't care, but that's not the same as agreement.

Wikipedia is edited by its users, so the gen 8 declaration on there merely reflects the consensus that the gaming community has reached. It's a consensus that was reached based on two big assumptions, namely that Nintendo consoles have short lifespans and that the PS4 and XB1 won't be replaced until 2021/2022. If those assumptions were correct, the PS5, Xbox 4 and Switch successor would all be launching in 2021/2022 and that's why Switch had to be generation 8 to preserve alignment.

From a Nintendo press release published at Business Wire:

"In September, the Nintendo Switch system was once again the top-selling current-generation console hardware, according to the NPD Group, which tracks video game sales in the United States."

And from Nintendo's very own website:

"Nintendo Switch has become the fastest-selling video game system of this hardware generation through 21 months, according to The NPD Group."

[emphasis added on both quotes]

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. NPD classifies the Switch as current-gen alongside the PS4 & XBO. Nintendo have given their tacit approval to this classification. Ergo, the Switch is Gen 8. Game. Set. Match.

Re: Wikipedia. Nintendo press releases were used as a valid source for determining in which gen to classify the Switch.

Oh, and if you want to argue that Switch is Gen 9 because it comes after the Gen 8 Wii U, I understand the rationale. It's clean, simple, and intuitive. But reality is often messy, complicated, and non-intuitive, and that includes classifications (we see it all the time in biology). If we apply this "system's gen = predecessors gen +1" rationale to other systems, it becomes quickly ridiculous.

If we classify the Atari 2600 as Gen 2, then that means the 5200 is Gen 3 and the 7800 is Gen 4. But the 5200 was discontinued in May 1984, which was during the Big Crash, and over two years before the NES was released nationwide in the U.S. (and only 10 months after the Famicom was released in Japan, if you want to count that). The 7800 was released around the same time as the NES and Master System and was discontinued just over 16 months and four months, respectively, after the Genesis and SNES were released in NA. Do you really want to consider the 5200 being in the same gen as the NES and SMS, or the 7800 as being in the same gen as the SNES and Genesis?

Speaking of the Master System, unless you agree that the Sega Mark-III/SMS was an upgraded SG-1000, then would you claim that since the SG-1000 launched nearly concurrently with the Famicom that it is Gen 3 and that therefore the SMS is Gen 4 and the Genesis is Gen 5?

And that's not the only complication. To go back to Gen 2, long before everyone started referring to all pre-Crash of '83 cart-based systems as "Second Generation" (with Pong machines being Gen 1), some sources gave conflicting accounts of what system from back then belonged to which generation. Some have stated that the 2600, Odyssey², and Intellivision belonged to Gen 2, and that the ColecoVision and 5200 belonged to Gen 3, with the NES and SMS being Gen 4 (which would mean). But the 2600, despite being released in 1976, didn't really hit it big until around 1981 according to various sales figures I've seen, meaning it spent its best years competing directly with not only Intellivision but also the ColecoVision and even the 5200, which was intended to be a higher-end companion to the 2600 (the Intellivision and ColecoVision being more powerful systems), not necessarily a full replacement. Despite those older sources splitting the pre-Crash consoles into two distinct generations, the fact that we had all those systems being nominal competition against each other in the early 80s has led most of us to lump them together into a single "Gen 2."

It's clear that the NPD considers the Switch Gen 8 based on "competition" criteria. Nintendo had to ditch the Wii U prematurely because it failed, leading them to release a new system mid-gen. It has spent the last three years serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO. By time the PS5 and XSX really start to take off, the Switch will likely already be well into the decline phase of its life. No Nintendo console has lasted more than about six years before being replaced (if you count handhelds, only the Game Boy lasted longer than that, but it was an anomaly and nobody expects a system to last a decade before being replaced). Assuming a Nov. 2023 release for its successor, that means it will have spent most of its primary lifespan, and nearly all of its best years, serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO, not for the PS5 and XSX. If 2023 is indeed when the Switch's successor is released, then it will have launched closer to the launch of the PS5 and XSX than the Switch did to the launch of the PS4 & XBO. If Nintendo keeps running shorter gens, that will continue to complicate things. What if the PS5 releases in 2027 and the Switch's "grandchild" system releases in early 2029? Will we seriously argue that a Gen 11 system is coming out only 16 months after Sony releases their Gen 9 system?

If we're going to classify things, we need something that makes sense in the big picture, not what seems immediately simple and intuitive. Either we need to stop putting Nintendo systems into a specific generation, ditch the generation classification system entirely, or use some criteria that doesn't result in absurd situations over time or when applied to historical consoles.

Current gen=/=gen 8, it means the current devices on the market. I cannot recall NPD, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft ever referring to generations by numbers.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Shadow1980 said:
RolStoppable said:

Nintendo doesn't agree. They don't say anything because they don't care, but that's not the same as agreement.

Wikipedia is edited by its users, so the gen 8 declaration on there merely reflects the consensus that the gaming community has reached. It's a consensus that was reached based on two big assumptions, namely that Nintendo consoles have short lifespans and that the PS4 and XB1 won't be replaced until 2021/2022. If those assumptions were correct, the PS5, Xbox 4 and Switch successor would all be launching in 2021/2022 and that's why Switch had to be generation 8 to preserve alignment.

From a Nintendo press release published at Business Wire:

"In September, the Nintendo Switch system was once again the top-selling current-generation console hardware, according to the NPD Group, which tracks video game sales in the United States."

And from Nintendo's very own website:

"Nintendo Switch has become the fastest-selling video game system of this hardware generation through 21 months, according to The NPD Group."

[emphasis added on both quotes]

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. NPD classifies the Switch as current-gen alongside the PS4 & XBO. Nintendo have given their tacit approval to this classification. Ergo, the Switch is Gen 8. Game. Set. Match.

Re: Wikipedia. Nintendo press releases were used as a valid source for determining in which gen to classify the Switch.

Oh, and if you want to argue that Switch is Gen 9 because it comes after the Gen 8 Wii U, I understand the rationale. It's clean, simple, and intuitive. But reality is often messy, complicated, and non-intuitive, and that includes classifications (we see it all the time in biology). If we apply this "system's gen = predecessors gen +1" rationale to other systems, it becomes quickly ridiculous.

If we classify the Atari 2600 as Gen 2, then that means the 5200 is Gen 3 and the 7800 is Gen 4. But the 5200 was discontinued in May 1984, which was during the Big Crash, and over two years before the NES was released nationwide in the U.S. (and only 10 months after the Famicom was released in Japan, if you want to count that). The 7800 was released around the same time as the NES and Master System and was discontinued just over 16 months and four months, respectively, after the Genesis and SNES were released in NA. Do you really want to consider the 5200 being in the same gen as the NES and SMS, or the 7800 as being in the same gen as the SNES and Genesis?

Speaking of the Master System, unless you agree that the Sega Mark-III/SMS was an upgraded SG-1000, then would you claim that since the SG-1000 launched nearly concurrently with the Famicom that it is Gen 3 and that therefore the SMS is Gen 4 and the Genesis is Gen 5?

And that's not the only complication. To go back to Gen 2, long before everyone started referring to all pre-Crash of '83 cart-based systems as "Second Generation" (with Pong machines being Gen 1), some sources gave conflicting accounts of what system from back then belonged to which generation. Some have stated that the 2600, Odyssey², and Intellivision belonged to Gen 2, and that the ColecoVision and 5200 belonged to Gen 3, with the NES and SMS being Gen 4 (which would mean). But the 2600, despite being released in 1976, didn't really hit it big until around 1981 according to various sales figures I've seen, meaning it spent its best years competing directly with not only Intellivision but also the ColecoVision and even the 5200, which was intended to be a higher-end companion to the 2600 (the Intellivision and ColecoVision being more powerful systems), not necessarily a full replacement. Despite those older sources splitting the pre-Crash consoles into two distinct generations, the fact that we had all those systems being nominal competition against each other in the early 80s has led most of us to lump them together into a single "Gen 2."

It's clear that the NPD considers the Switch Gen 8 based on "competition" criteria. Nintendo had to ditch the Wii U prematurely because it failed, leading them to release a new system mid-gen. It has spent the last three years serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO. By time the PS5 and XSX really start to take off, the Switch will likely already be well into the decline phase of its life. No Nintendo console has lasted more than about six years before being replaced (if you count handhelds, only the Game Boy lasted longer than that, but it was an anomaly and nobody expects a system to last a decade before being replaced). Assuming a Nov. 2023 release for its successor, that means it will have spent most of its primary lifespan, and nearly all of its best years, serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO, not for the PS5 and XSX. If 2023 is indeed when the Switch's successor is released, then it will have launched closer to the launch of the PS5 and XSX than the Switch did to the launch of the PS4 & XBO. If Nintendo keeps running shorter gens, that will continue to complicate things. What if the PS5 releases in 2027 and the Switch's "grandchild" system releases in early 2029? Will we seriously argue that a Gen 11 system is coming out only 16 months after Sony releases their Gen 9 system?

If we're going to classify things, we need something that makes sense in the big picture, not what seems immediately simple and intuitive. Either we need to stop putting Nintendo systems into a specific generation, ditch the generation classification system entirely, or use some criteria that doesn't result in absurd situations over time or when applied to historical consoles.

You missed the portion in Nintendo's press releases where it's explicitly stated that the statement is according to NPD. If I personally relay information and therefore say that Switch was the best-selling current generation hardware according to NPD, then that isn't at odds with my stance that Switch does not belong to the same generation as the 3DS and the Wii U, because I am merely stating which classification someone else uses.

As for the rest of your long post, logical consistence demands that you call the Dreamcast a generation 5 console, putting it into the same generation as the Saturn. As long as you do not explicitly do that, I won't bother to write a more elaborate response.

Shadow1980 said:
RolStoppable said:

At least now you know that he is basing his predictions on wrong assumptions. Like Nintendo said a couple of days ago, the conventional wisdom suggests that Switch has now hit the midway point of its lifecycle, but there are actually plenty of growth opportunities left and Nintendo will pursue them.

Shadow1980 is falling into the same trap again in that he views the market in too much of a home console context and on top of that he ignores that the old market dynamics don't provide a good model for analyses because Switch doesn't follow those old dynamics. With Switch being Nintendo's only console, it's 100% a given that Nintendo will make all of their games for that single console and that is major stimulative factor for longtime sales that none of the Nintendo home consoles and handhelds of the past 30 years had.

What data are you basing your claims on? You can't simply ignore historical precedent and then resort to "new market dynamics" or other speculative concepts that have no real factual backing. Simply giving good software support to a system and continuing to release games on it will not result in some unprecedented streak of good sales. We know for a fact that even systems with very good software support eventually reach a point where they can't grown any more and start to decline. Every system has had some sort of grow-peak-decline shape to its sales curve (though some peaked so early as to nearly bypass the "growth" phase). Eventually, the console maker just starts to run out of people to sell a particular system to, no matter what they do to try to boost sales. Price cuts and new hardware models are historically the best stimulant for sales, with individual games almost always giving short-term boosts. Nintendo will get more out a price cut to the base Switch than they will out continuing to put out strong first-party titles.

And even with them being able to put 100% of their efforts into a single platform, that still will not change the fact that it will peak sooner or later, likely sooner, and there is no reason to assume it will set some kind of longevity record for a Nintendo system (excluding the Game Boy's record-setting 10+ years). PlayStation system have followed normal rules of console sales since the beginning, both before, during, and after the existence of Sony handhelds. Xbox has always had just the home consoles, and they follow normal rules of console sales. There's absolutely no reason to think that the Switch sets some sort of new precedent. I prefer to base my predictions on established facts, not pure speculation conjured out of whole cloth, and the historical sales record is the only data we have to go on in guessing how a particular system will sell.

Could the Switch sell 40M+ in the U.S.? Yes. I cannot discount the possibility entirely. But I don't think it will. I'd love to be proven wrong, because I want the Switch to do as well as possible. But, based on the current body of data, I cannot honestly project 40M+. What I'd like to see and what I think is plausible are two separate things.

The data I am basing my claims on are numerous.

1. The sales curves of previous Nintendo home consoles and handhelds were influenced by Nintendo's need to support two distinct platforms with top-tier first party software concurrently. This means that Nintendo's top development teams have not been able to provide second half of lifecycle support that was anywhere close to the level of first half of lifecycle support. You can verify this for yourself by checking the release dates of top-selling Nintendo software across the lifecycle of their consoles. The only consistent late life support has been new Pokémon games on their handhelds, but their home consoles have hardly had any megahits see releases during the second half of the lifecycle. (Lifecycle for the purpose of this paragraph refers to the period between launch and the launch of a successor.)

PlayStation sales curves have no relevance here because Sony has never put their top development teams on handhelds like Nintendo has done. That's part of the reason why PS home consoles have experienced no significant changes despite the presence of PS handhelds.

2. Switch is now only one month away from making it a full three years before its first price cut. It will be the first console to accomplish this feat. There are multiple ways in which Switch doesn't line up with previous consoles, that's why it doesn't make sense to apply those old models to extrapolate future sales for Switch. As you already know, Switch continues to see growth whereas all the Nintendo home consoles you have on your graphs had entered their decline phase in the third year already. 

3. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2020/200131_2e.pdf

Starting with the final paragraph on page 8, Nintendo explains why Switch will have a longer lifecycle than previous Nintendo consoles. Because you've made an appeal to authority (Nintendo themselves) to argue that Switch is generation 8, you now have no choice but to concede to what Nintendo is saying in the above linked document, unless you are fine with being a hypocrite.

The length of the lifecycle is an especially crucial point because you are basing your prediction on the assumption that there's no way that Switch will have more than six years before it's getting replaced. Your thought process for sales extrapolation has proper logic within its contained realm, but the issue is that it is a construct built on fundamental assumptions that are very likely to be false. Too much of it rests on "this is how it was in the past, so that's how it will be in the future" despite Switch having already broken away from the pattern of previous Nintendo home consoles.

Switch is not like the past. One Nintendo console means that all first and third party software gets concentrated on one platform instead of being split. What your historic sales graphs should show you is that consoles with strong software support have softer declines and therefore longer tails. But what you do is look at Nintendo home consoles of the past, take the 17.0m LTD of Switch and do something like 7m in 2020, 6m in 2021, BOOM, DEAD! and arrive at 35m lifetime in the USA. Despite Switch's more robust software support and its long time to get its first price cut, you still apply a late life sales curve that logically shouldn't be considered anymore. Switch is tracking ahead of the PS4 in the USA and there's no good reason to believe that it will fall behind eventually.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Shadow1980 said:
Ryng said:

Where are the proof that Nintendo agree with them?

The problem with your logic is that you only count home consoles. Switch is both.

Switch is the new generation of 3DS and Wii U. 3DS is a 8gen console, you can't have Switch in the same generation as 3DS.

RolStoppable said:

Nintendo doesn't agree. They don't say anything because they don't care, but that's not the same as agreement.

Wikipedia is edited by its users, so the gen 8 declaration on there merely reflects the consensus that the gaming community has reached. It's a consensus that was reached based on two big assumptions, namely that Nintendo consoles have short lifespans and that the PS4 and XB1 won't be replaced until 2021/2022. If those assumptions were correct, the PS5, Xbox 4 and Switch successor would all be launching in 2021/2022 and that's why Switch had to be generation 8 to preserve alignment.

From a Nintendo press release published at Business Wire:

"In September, the Nintendo Switch system was once again the top-selling current-generation console hardware, according to the NPD Group, which tracks video game sales in the United States."

And from Nintendo's very own website:

"Nintendo Switch has become the fastest-selling video game system of this hardware generation through 21 months, according to The NPD Group."

[emphasis added on both quotes]

There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. NPD classifies the Switch as current-gen alongside the PS4 & XBO. Nintendo have given their tacit approval to this classification. Ergo, the Switch is Gen 8. Game. Set. Match.

Re: Wikipedia. Nintendo press releases were used as a valid source for determining in which gen to classify the Switch.

Oh, and if you want to argue that Switch is Gen 9 because it comes after the Gen 8 Wii U, I understand the rationale. It's clean, simple, and intuitive. But reality is often messy, complicated, and non-intuitive, and that includes classifications (we see it all the time in biology). If we apply this "system's gen = predecessors gen +1" rationale to other systems, it becomes quickly ridiculous.

If we classify the Atari 2600 as Gen 2, then that means the 5200 is Gen 3 and the 7800 is Gen 4. But the 5200 was discontinued in May 1984, which was during the Big Crash, and over two years before the NES was released nationwide in the U.S. (and only 10 months after the Famicom was released in Japan, if you want to count that). The 7800 was released around the same time as the NES and Master System and was discontinued just over 16 months and four months, respectively, after the Genesis and SNES were released in NA. Do you really want to consider the 5200 being in the same gen as the NES and SMS, or the 7800 as being in the same gen as the SNES and Genesis?

Speaking of the Master System, unless you agree that the Sega Mark-III/SMS was an upgraded SG-1000, then would you claim that since the SG-1000 launched nearly concurrently with the Famicom that it is Gen 3 and that therefore the SMS is Gen 4 and the Genesis is Gen 5?

And that's not the only complication. To go back to Gen 2, long before everyone started referring to all pre-Crash of '83 cart-based systems as "Second Generation" (with Pong machines being Gen 1), some sources gave conflicting accounts of what system from back then belonged to which generation. Some have stated that the 2600, Odyssey², and Intellivision belonged to Gen 2, and that the ColecoVision and 5200 belonged to Gen 3, with the NES and SMS being Gen 4 (which would mean). But the 2600, despite being released in 1976, didn't really hit it big until around 1981 according to various sales figures I've seen, meaning it spent its best years competing directly with not only Intellivision but also the ColecoVision and even the 5200, which was intended to be a higher-end companion to the 2600 (the Intellivision and ColecoVision being more powerful systems), not necessarily a full replacement. Despite those older sources splitting the pre-Crash consoles into two distinct generations, the fact that we had all those systems being nominal competition against each other in the early 80s has led most of us to lump them together into a single "Gen 2."

It's clear that the NPD considers the Switch Gen 8 based on "competition" criteria. Nintendo had to ditch the Wii U prematurely because it failed, leading them to release a new system mid-gen. It has spent the last three years serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO. By time the PS5 and XSX really start to take off, the Switch will likely already be well into the decline phase of its life. No Nintendo console has lasted more than about six years before being replaced (if you count handhelds, only the Game Boy lasted longer than that, but it was an anomaly and nobody expects a system to last a decade before being replaced). Assuming a Nov. 2023 release for its successor, that means it will have spent most of its primary lifespan, and nearly all of its best years, serving as nominal competition for the PS4 & XBO, not for the PS5 and XSX. If 2023 is indeed when the Switch's successor is released, then it will have launched closer to the launch of the PS5 and XSX than the Switch did to the launch of the PS4 & XBO. If Nintendo keeps running shorter gens, that will continue to complicate things. What if the PS5 releases in 2027 and the Switch's "grandchild" system releases in early 2029? Will we seriously argue that a Gen 11 system is coming out only 16 months after Sony releases their Gen 9 system?

If we're going to classify things, we need something that makes sense in the big picture, not what seems immediately simple and intuitive. Either we need to stop putting Nintendo systems into a specific generation, ditch the generation classification system entirely, or use some criteria that doesn't result in absurd situations over time or when applied to historical consoles.

This post is a mess.  But now I see that your misunderstanding about the Switch comes from a misunderstanding of console history.  The short version is that Atari 2600, 5200, and 7800 were 3 different generations.



That's all nice but has nothing to do with generations. A systems's gen is set in stone the moment it releases. Switch came too long after the start of the 8th gen, therefore it's 9th gen. Ps5 and xsx are coming too long after the start of the 9th gen, therefore they will be 10th gen. Eventually everyone will agree on that due to different reasons.