I don't think so.

There's no real benefit for companies to hit some arbitrary number either if it means having to devalue their product.

Sony could hit 200 million if they really were hell bent on doing so for example, but it would mean dropping the PS4 to $99 and selling it for another 7-8 years ... they don't want to do that. Because ultimately it means f*ck all to them. They don't get some special cookie or award for hitting some LTD target.

Selling 100 million systems at an average price point of $250 for example is more revenue/profit than selling 150 million but having an average price of $150.

This is why companies don't do this. Because they don't care about LTD that much, it's a nice feather in the cap, but it doesn't make sense.

You also don't want consumers conditioned to expect hardware at rock bottom prices. You *want* $300 to become the normal in their mind and hold there for as long as possible. A lot of people here just have no clue as to the business side of things.

I don't think so.

There's no real benefit for companies to hit some arbitrary number either if it means having to devalue their product.

Sony could hit 200 million if they really were hell bent on doing so for example, but it would mean dropping the PS4 to $99 and selling it for another 8-10 years ... they don't want to do that. Because ultimately it means f*ck all to them. They don't get some special cookie or award for hitting some LTD target.

Selling 100 million systems at an average price point of $250 for example is more revenue/profit than selling 150 million but having an average price of $150. Withholding newer hardware just to hit some LTD total is also even dumber business, you're basically sitting on something that could be making your company massive more profit and instead content to watch some $149.99 system spend years doing a slow motion death crawl to some imaginary number. There is a such thing as opportunity cost. 

This is why companies don't do this. Because they don't care about LTD that much, it's a nice feather in the cap, but it doesn't make sense when you take into account any other business metric. 

You also don't want consumers conditioned to expect hardware at rock bottom prices. You *want* $300 to become the normal in their mind and hold there for as long as possible. A lot of people here just have no clue as to the business side of things. 

Only on the condition, the Switch successor is considered part of the same line much like Game Boy Color and DSi,New 3DS.

First of all I don't know why every system needs a 3 letter acronym. Just call it the NS, gamers will get it.

Second, I'm not being pessimistic when I see that in 3 years, the NS has sold 50 million. It's not unreasonable to think that in another 3 years, sales will slow, and Nintendo will release it's successor... So I think I'm being generous when I say it'll "only" sell another 50 million.

Is anybody here talking about Nintendo's main goal to reach X units of Switch systems or we are betting at which number Switch hw sales will reach after Nintendo sustained a healthy platform for a indefinied amount of time? I probably have missed something in this thread...

I'm sure the Switch will sell over 100 million units.

At the end of the quarter it will have sold 55mil. That said the system has shortages and will peak this year or the next and it won’t sell only for 3 more years. 50mil is only happening if the system collapse 

That's what I'm saying all along - make a true successor but don't name it Switch 2 and ad the sales (in the official financial reports) to the current Switch models - that way the 150 mil. will be taken with a breeze!

Well, I was the first to believe that the Switch would do 100+ million, so sure.

I mean, at the pace its currently going, there is certainly a possibility.

108 Million.Thats it.Thats the post.