Forums - Sales Discussion - Will the Nintendo Switch overtake the PS4 in terms of sales worldwide?

I don't get hwy people compare switch to past Ninty home consoles and not nity handhelds because handhelds have always been the stars of the show for Ninty and now switch is the only star. 3ds has has decent legs and o believe DS did as well. Don't know about consoles before that. And sketch will for sure have longer legs because Ninty doesn't have to choose between 3 consoles when releasing a new one and can focus on 2 which might be fairly close in hardware design. The switch will have 7 years at least for sure and anyone who thinks otherwise is kinda puzzling to me. Why would Ninty not take advantage of the harvest period of the switch as much as possible when that is the period where most profits for consoles are made.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network

I'm starting to think it will due to the massive lead in Japan, and Sony seemingly willing to transition its playerbase to PS5 as quickly as possible rather than heavily dropping PS4 prices to maximize sales.



Didn't know where to ask but just what has happened to the weekly software sales?



DitchPlaya said:
Didn't know where to ask but just what has happened to the weekly software sales?

They stopped those last year January and now only use official shipments.



@ OP: You should really have put up a poll for this one

Chicho said:

To keep the thread on topic here is some data:

PS4 and Switch Quarterly shipments for the first 15 for PS4 and 13 for Switch. 

 Quarter  PS4  PS4 Total  Switch  Switch Total Difference
Q1 4.5 4.5 2.74 2.74 1.76
Q2 3.0 7.5 1.97 4.70 2.8
Q3 2.7 10.2 2.93 7.63 2.57
Q4 3.3 13.5 7.23 14.86 -136
Q5 6.4 19.9 2.93 17.79 2.11
Q6 2.4 22.3 1.88 19.67 2.63
Q7 3.0 25.3 3.19 22.86 2.44
Q8 4.0 29.3 9.41 32.27 -2.97
Q9 8.4 37.7 2.47 34.74 3.13
Q10 2.3 40 2.13 36.87 3.63
Q11 3.5 43.5 4.80 41.67 1.83
Q12 3.9 47.4 10.81 52.48 -5.08
Q13 9.7 57.1 3.29 55.77 1.33
Q14 2.9 60
Q15 3.3 63.3

edit: added Difference column 

The Switch has overtaken the PS4 3 times.

Edit 2: fixed error

And should now do so a 4th time, if not in Q14 then in Q15 latest. And from there, it should stay in front, at least for a while.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 17 July 2020

Around the Network

Looking at how consistent the Switch continues to sell is crazy.



Nintendo with the Switch:

Drakrami said:
noshten said:
What if Nintendo view the Switch as an ecosystem and they never launch Switch 2.

We are in a World where generations are meaningless, what the future holds in terms of what Nintendo does is unknown. Investors have been pushing them towards mobile for years and they haven't really invested all that much there. So what they do sometimes is opposite of what the market expects them to do.

In terms of the technology to deliver high-end AAA games on a hybrid console while being profitable, we are a few years away. So for now I'd expect Slight upgrades to hardware but not enough to warrant them retiring the Switch. So it could very well be that in 2025 Nintendo still is selling it's games on the Switch even though OG Switches might not support the latest games. Tablets like these will eventually break, and you would need to buy a replacement. So they could indefinitely slowly upgrade the core-parts in the Switch without ever dropping the price or changing the name. Like I mentioned a while ago, Tablet Technology isn't at this stage but Complimentary Computing devices or the aptly named ProDock might be the thing they use to both support AAA games on the console or stream to the tablet.

We shall see but I don't think it would be that difficult to outsell the PS4, the DS will be the real hurdle for the Switch.

Generations is only meaningless if you live in a Nintendo World. 

PS3 > PS4/Pro > PS5

X360 > X1/X1X > XSX

The generations are very clear and the upcoming generation is going to be a very nice upgrade in terms of power and graphics. Very much looking forward to it. 

Nintendo was never able to keep up in the hardware department, this is why the generations seems deluge to people who only follows Nintendo. 

You must be very young if you think Nintendo never kept up in hardware department.

NES, SNES, and N64 were all the most powerful popular systems of their gen (I say popular cuz I wouldn't count failures like Neo Geo). Gamecube was second most powerful system of its gen.

In fact it's only when Sony started trying to compete on power with the PS3, that Nintendo decided to not do the exact same thing as the other two companies in the industry (not saying the two are related as obviously Nintendo starting work on the Wii well before Sony announced the power of the PS3, but just saying the two companies switched at the same time - Sony going from making the least powerful systems to competing for the most powerful systems, and Nintendo going from competing for the most powerful systems to making the least powerful systems but doing that for a reason - making unique systems).

Only starting with the Wii did they decide to go with the creative route over the make really expensive high graphics route, and that is because if they stuck to what they always did they woulda just been in a lame 3-way competition all trying to do the same thing and the video game industry would just have 3 incredibly similar systems, also the probably realized continuing to do this would result in the $400-$600 systems we've seen from Micro/Sony and Nintendo I think prefers making affordable systems that are more consumer friendly. They certainly could have kept competing on power alone, and done well, but instead they built a separate market for Nintendo that makes them unique and very successful as long as they don't screw up on the creative factor like they did with the Wii U. Since changing their strategy in order to stand out from the console twins, two out of three systems have been their most successful consoles, with the Switch looking extremely likely to be their second most successful system ever behind DS.

And in what way are generations meaningless in Nintendo World?! It's the exact opposite! Sony and Microsoft you get more power but essentially the same, just upgraded, experience each new gen. Nintendo the past few gens you've got motion controls, a tablet second screen, and then a hybrid system. If anything the past 3 generations of Nintendo systems have been much more meaningful than those made by Sony and Microsoft.



Slownenberg said:
Drakrami said:

Generations is only meaningless if you live in a Nintendo World. 

PS3 > PS4/Pro > PS5

X360 > X1/X1X > XSX

The generations are very clear and the upcoming generation is going to be a very nice upgrade in terms of power and graphics. Very much looking forward to it. 

Nintendo was never able to keep up in the hardware department, this is why the generations seems deluge to people who only follows Nintendo. 

You must be very young if you think Nintendo never kept up in hardware department.

NES, SNES, and N64 were all the most powerful popular systems of their gen (I say popular cuz I wouldn't count failures like Neo Geo). Gamecube was second most powerful system of its gen.

In fact it's only when Sony started trying to compete on power with the PS3, that Nintendo decided to not do the exact same thing as the other two companies in the industry (not saying the two are related as obviously Nintendo starting work on the Wii well before Sony announced the power of the PS3, but just saying the two companies switched at the same time - Sony going from making the least powerful systems to competing for the most powerful systems, and Nintendo going from competing for the most powerful systems to making the least powerful systems but doing that for a reason - making unique systems).

Only starting with the Wii did they decide to go with the creative route over the make really expensive high graphics route, and that is because if they stuck to what they always did they woulda just been in a lame 3-way competition all trying to do the same thing and the video game industry would just have 3 incredibly similar systems, also the probably realized continuing to do this would result in the $400-$600 systems we've seen from Micro/Sony and Nintendo I think prefers making affordable systems that are more consumer friendly. They certainly could have kept competing on power alone, and done well, but instead they built a separate market for Nintendo that makes them unique and very successful as long as they don't screw up on the creative factor like they did with the Wii U. Since changing their strategy in order to stand out from the console twins, two out of three systems have been their most successful consoles, with the Switch looking extremely likely to be their second most successful system ever behind DS.

And in what way are generations meaningless in Nintendo World?! It's the exact opposite! Sony and Microsoft you get more power but essentially the same, just upgraded, experience each new gen. Nintendo the past few gens you've got motion controls, a tablet second screen, and then a hybrid system. If anything the past 3 generations of Nintendo systems have been much more meaningful than those made by Sony and Microsoft.

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

PS4: 130 mil (was 100 million) Xbox One: 55 mil (was 50 mil) Switch: 110 million (was 73, then 96 million)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Wman1996 said:
Slownenberg said:

You must be very young if you think Nintendo never kept up in hardware department.

NES, SNES, and N64 were all the most powerful popular systems of their gen (I say popular cuz I wouldn't count failures like Neo Geo). Gamecube was second most powerful system of its gen.

In fact it's only when Sony started trying to compete on power with the PS3, that Nintendo decided to not do the exact same thing as the other two companies in the industry (not saying the two are related as obviously Nintendo starting work on the Wii well before Sony announced the power of the PS3, but just saying the two companies switched at the same time - Sony going from making the least powerful systems to competing for the most powerful systems, and Nintendo going from competing for the most powerful systems to making the least powerful systems but doing that for a reason - making unique systems).

Only starting with the Wii did they decide to go with the creative route over the make really expensive high graphics route, and that is because if they stuck to what they always did they woulda just been in a lame 3-way competition all trying to do the same thing and the video game industry would just have 3 incredibly similar systems, also the probably realized continuing to do this would result in the $400-$600 systems we've seen from Micro/Sony and Nintendo I think prefers making affordable systems that are more consumer friendly. They certainly could have kept competing on power alone, and done well, but instead they built a separate market for Nintendo that makes them unique and very successful as long as they don't screw up on the creative factor like they did with the Wii U. Since changing their strategy in order to stand out from the console twins, two out of three systems have been their most successful consoles, with the Switch looking extremely likely to be their second most successful system ever behind DS.

And in what way are generations meaningless in Nintendo World?! It's the exact opposite! Sony and Microsoft you get more power but essentially the same, just upgraded, experience each new gen. Nintendo the past few gens you've got motion controls, a tablet second screen, and then a hybrid system. If anything the past 3 generations of Nintendo systems have been much more meaningful than those made by Sony and Microsoft.

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.

Totally agree that power doesn't win gens, was just correcting the kid who I guess has only been around for the past two generations.

Also I wouldn't count Master System as a popular system. NES was the most powerful that gen because it was a monopoly in its generation. Most people had never even heard of Sega until the Genesis...

Alright I just looked up Master System sales and I am very surprised to see it sold 13 million, but then I looked up North America sales and it was only 2 million. In the US nobody knew what the Master System. I had never even heard of it until probably a couple years after the Genesis came out, and I don't think I have never seen one in real life. Looks like only 114 Master Systems games came out in the US. I guess it was more popular in Brazil and Europe. As an American though, where the NES brought the industry back from its death bed and had a monopoly on the industry, Master System was a complete failure, and so I don't count it as a popular system.



Wman1996 said:

Actually the Master System was more capable than the NES. It may not have been a success, but it was not as big of a failure as the Atari 7800 and the very obscure 3rd Gen consoles. But power tends to not be the deciding factor for console sales.

The SNES is the only time I can think of where the most powerful console of a gen (again when looking at the heavier hitters in sales at the time) won the gen. 

Atari 2600 wasn't the most powerful, NES wasn't the most powerful, SNES was the most powerful (minus obscure outliers like the Neo Geo), PS1 wasn't the most powerful, PS2 wasn't the most powerful, Wii wasn't the most powerful.

Eighth gen is more complicated. Base PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. But the Xbox One X is more powerful than the PS4 Pro.

All this to say the fourth gen and kind of eighth gen are the only times the powerful console won.

The SMS and the NES were close> The SMS had a bigger color palette and could display more colors at the same time  but the sound on NES was better.