_For me the basis of this "argument" is saturation. It's not debatable if it will happen, but when. Naturally some will be right, some will be wrong. I can't be held to the arguments of others who essentially made different assessments from me on that saturation point. I think I already addressed the topic of AC being a potential outlier, including its alignment with Corona. The only thing to outline here is that I don't expect many (if any) system sellers of the kind we've seen already going forward in the next 3 years and thus I don't think numbers will maintain their current level next fiscal year, meanwhile you and others in this thread feel the opposite. I will keep my eyes peeled for the next AC size system seller


_None of this counters my point. The specific quarter Pokemon Sun and Moon was released was actually down 1m compared to Q3 of the year prior. The point is simply don't expect returning franchises to boost or sustain hardware levels to that  seen at the systems peak when said franchises first landed.

You're incorrect as that quarter was up from the prior Nintendo themselves reported the quarter was up 10% this counters your point

https://www.polygon.com/2017/1/31/14454408/pokemon-sun-moon-sales-nintendo-3ds-future

"Nintendo reported sales of 6.45 million 3DS units during its third fiscal quarter, a figure that was up 10 percent year-over-year. The quarter included the release of two limited-edition models of the 3DS, which sold out instantly; it remains hard to find 3DS systems in stores."

This shows a returning franchise had a boost to the point the platform did better than the prior FY and this was during a period when it was being replaced as well NS had already been revealed and in the following year 3DS still matched it's prior FY this goes against what you're trying to say.

The thing is you're repeating the same argument of others that's why someone pointed out that it's been parroted for years now the argument just gets adjusted from hindsight to be reissued again this time next year someone else will be using the same argument.

Oh sorry, my mistake, I was comparing the wrong quarters 

Interesting, the quarter before Sun/Moon was up even a higher percentage YOY. Pokemon Go alone lifted 3DS hardware

"Although Pokémon Go itself isn't a Nintendo game, the company said the ubiquitous smartphone app drove sales of 3DS hardware up 19 percent as well as sales of earlier Pokémon games for the platform. "

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/26/13414878/nintendo-earnings-q2-2016-switch

This still remains. "The point is simply don't expect returning franchises to boost or sustain hardware levels to that  seen at the systems peak when said franchises first landed."

Pokemon X/Y 2013
3DS hardware FY ending march 2014; 12m
Pokemon Omega Ruby/Sapphiere

Pokemon Omega Ruby/Sapphire 2014
3DS hardware FY ending march 2014; 8.7m

Pokemon Sun/Moon 2016 
3DS hardware FY ending march 2017; 7m


Even if you feel like blaiming the Switch impending arrival you could just look at the Pokemon Omega Ruby/Sapphire FY year

Its mind numbing that I'm having to make this argument so I will stop lol. If you think the Switch will sell 20m for the next 3 years due to returning franchises, i can only say lets see. I don't see any evidence so far

I kind of agree with @Otter here, from what i understand he's not saying sales are going to fall off a cliff, he's arguing against the idea that Switch will sell 20+ million for the each of the next few years and that annual sales will begin to taper down from this point. Whether or not that actually happens doesn't stop it from being a very realistic prediction.

Only time will tell but even if games like Bayonetta 3 and MP4 sell like 3 to 5 millions each, let's not forget this is a territory Nintendo has not really dabbled into with the Switch. I'm sure a lot of MP fans don't have the Switch and could own a PC/other console. They haven't shown anything of these 2 yet. Even if they aren't system sellers, they can make people change their mind to buy a switch once the price drops or something.
Not everything is about huge impact upon release but momentum. Switch's demand is HIGH rn cause new demographics wants it. Animal crossing has a big women pourcentage which is something the Switch didn't have before. Corona also makes it more interesting for families which can also be reached later with a price cut during holidays.
Switch might have it's peak year this year, but the next wave of first party titles seem to be giving us more mature vibes which is, again, something the Switch doesn't have much going on rn.

Your numbers for FY2016-2017 are wrong it seems from Nintendo themselves:

Q1 2016-2017 - 940k
https://www.perfectly-nintendo.com/nintendo-financial-results-1st-quarter-2016-17-april-june/

Q2 - 1.7m
https://gonintendo.com/stories/267425-nintendo-s-fy-2016-q2-earnings-full-details

Q3 - From earlier article 6.45m

From these 3 reports we already get a total of 9.09m that is not only an increase over the prior year but the year you touted with ORAS this further proves that such games can have such an impact, I can't find Q4 numbers anywhere for some reason for a full comparison but it seems S/M pushed the 3DS closer to X/Y than ORAS this counters your whole point and this was during the Switch transition as well. 

The core of Otter's argument is, "Switch sales have peaked, because Nintendo has already fired all of their 'big guns'."  Various people have made this argument and it is consistently wrong.  The reason why people have been consistently wrong with this argument is because the argument is fundamentally flawed.  A bad argument leads to a wrong conclusion.  And yet there are still people who make this argument.  The reasoning is still flawed.  It will still lead to the wrong conclusion.  

To see why this reasoning is flawed, let's look at the history of the argument vs what really happened.

End of 2017 argument: "Switch sales are going to plummet after this year.  They've already released all of their big guns: Zelda, Mario Kart, and Mario.  What have they got left?  Basically Pokemon and that's it.  Smash Bros will only do 10-12m."

What really happened 2018: Smash Bros wildly exceeded everyone's expectations (except tbone51).  It's currently at about 19m and is still selling strong.  On top of that 2018 had two more 10m+ sellers: Pokemon Let's Go and Super Mario Party.  Super Mario Party is selling better than it ever has before.  Pokemon Let's Go is just a spinoff title.  It's not a mainline Pokemon.  People treat it that way, because it has sold about 12m as of now, but it's actually just a spinoff title.

End of 2018 argument: "Switch has already peaked.  It already fired all of it's big guns: Zelda, Mario Kart, Mario, Pokemon, Smash.  What has it got left?  Animal Crossing and that's not as big as those other games.  Future Pokemon games aren't going to help much, because they already released a Pokemon game."

What really happened 2019: Switch sales kept increasing.  Pokemon released and they sold a ton of hardware during the holidays.  On top of that both Luigi's Mansion and NSMB U are selling well enough to likely become 10m+ sellers eventually.  This is on top of launching a bunch of other games which sold 1m+, and those games help move hardware too.  In reality, Pokemon Sw/Sh still moved hardware even after Let's Go.  Luigi's Mansion is an established IP selling better than ever and NSMB U is a port selling better now than on it's original system.  

End of 2019 argument: "Switch has already peaked.  They've fired all of their big guns.  All they have now is Animal Crossing and that was never as big as Pokemon or Mario Kart."

What really happened so far 2020: Animal Crossing had the best launch of any Switch title yet.  Games like Zelda and Smash are setting unprecedented records and yet Animal Crossing still even outdid that.  People are now asking if Animal Crossing can reach Mario Kart levels.  We also find out that Switch had 27 titles that shipped at least 1 million in the past fiscal year, including 9 third party titles.  All 27 of those titles are moving hardware.

Current argument: "Switch has already peaked.  They've already fired all of their big guns.  What do they have left?  It's just sequels to Pokemon and Zelda.  Sequels and price cuts can only slow it's decent.  There is no possible way for Switch sales to increase."

Reality of current situation: Switch has already been selling great because of games that are not traditionally considered "big guns" plus some other titles.  Here is the run down of what actually has been selling Switch so far.

Traditional "big guns": 3D Mario, Pokemon
Games performing far beyond previous series records: Zelda, Smash, Splatoon, Mario Party, Luigi's Mansion, and (of course) Animal Crossing
Ports selling better than on original system: Mario Kart, NSMB U
Spin-off title: Pokemon Let's Go
1 million+ titles: 27 games in the past fiscal year including 9 third party titles shipped at least 1m (and all the 1m+ titles from previous years)

It has been a lot more than traditional "big guns" that have been selling Switch.  Notably there are a lot of franchises that are overperforming.  Switch is a very popular platform.  We should expect more titles to overperform.  Also, Nintendo isn't just going to do nothing for the next 3 years.  They will still be making games.  Some will be ports, some spin-offs, and some new IP.  Any of these could be a 10m+ seller, because Nintendo already has 2 titles from these categories that have hit 10m+ (Mario Kart, Pokemon Go) and another on the way (NSMB U).  Of course some will be sequels like Pokemon and Zelda.  On top of that the Switch is going to keep getting 1m+ seller games, both first and third party, and these will continue to move hardware as well.

The reality is that "Nintendo has fired all of its big guns" is going to keep being a bad argument until they announce the Switch's successor.  That is when you can safely assume they have fired all of their big guns, because at that point the big guns are going to the next system.  Also, "Switch has already peaked" is a bad argument until after you can measurably observe YoY sales going down (especially after the launch of a big game).  Until that happens we can only guess when it is going to peak.

Nintendo has not fired all of their big guns.  They are going to keep making Switch games including some big ones.  Switch hasn't yet peaked, because we can see sales are up YoY.  These two basic facts destroy the argument "Switch has peaked because it has fired all of it's big guns."

He has repeatedly said his argument is that it won't do 20+ million after this current fiscal year (ending March 2021), not that it will fall off a cliff. Also what other people said in 2017/2018/2019 is irrelevant to what he is saying in 2020.

You seem to be arguing against points hes not actually making.

Incorrect on everything. 

I didn't use the phrase "fall off a cliff" anywhere in my post.  He is however making the same argument that has been made for years.  "Switch has peaked because they've got no big games left".  In fact I stated his argument under Current argument.  It's exactly what he's saying and it's not that different from what people have said before.

Impressive numbers for Ring Fit considering its been supply-choked for most of its released life. Will be interesting to see how high it flies once they can sort out its production.

And at the rate it's going, it looks like Luigi's Mansion 3 will join the ten million plus club eventually, though perhaps not til next year.