Wasnt it boosted by the DVD player, hahaha?

All this time mostly everyone focusing on what Nin could or couldn't, would or wouldn't do, to put the Switch over the top, above PS2.

Nobody really focusing on what SNY might try to do to make sure that doesn't happen... besides increasing the total sales known even further.

@Soundwave 

I won't get into the many points that were written by you, and from anyone else in answer to you (with which I agree by the way), but only ask you 1 question.

What will you say, and what will your side become, in the scenario where Nintendo keep selling Switch till 2030 (equaling market time to this of the PS2 - 13 years), but Switch keep selling low amounts and end up at 159M in 2030, and then it's discontinued. Then the primary point you make of the longevity won't be valid, since it will be the same period of 13 years for both and PS2 will have done 1M+ more, and even the average number per year will be slightly bigger for the PS2 ?

If Nintendo sells the Switch 1 through 2030, it will break 159 million, that's not just me saying that most people on this board would probably agree with that. 

That's not even factoring in Sony needed not only the extra 4 years+ but the system was massively discounted by that point to get to 160. Put the Switch 1 in similar situation and it would cross 160 with ease. I don't even know what the argument would be against that, it wouldn't be rooted in any kind of reality. Even give the Switch one measly price cut, just one single price drop and the same amount of time as the PS2 got and it would easily beat 160 million. 

That's not even factoring in Sony needed not only the extra 4 years+ but the system was massively discounted by that point to get to 160. Put the Switch 1 in similar situation and it would cross 160 with ease. I don't even know what the argument would be against that, it wouldn't be rooted in any kind of reality. Even give the Switch one measly price cut, just one single price drop and the same amount of time as the PS2 got and it would easily beat 160 million. 

I will again put my previous post on that matter here: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9630332

Selling for X amount of years, doesn't guarantee you that you will reach a certain milestone. It depends on the amount you sell.

Why no one is saying that if it sells until 2030 it will get to 200M but it will get to 160M ? because most don't think actually how much the sales can drop. Well if you sell very low, even a few millions more can be a stretch. It all depends on how much units will Switch sell in those years till 2030. If it sells more than yes, but if it sell less than needed per month, it won't get there. Just because it sell for X amount of years doesn't guarantee anything. PS2 sold for 13 years. Why it doesn't reached 200M ? Same. Because it didn't sold the required amount per month for that period to get there. Stop act like it's 100% sure. It's not. 

And whether or not is possible or not for you, just answer the damn question. Imagine it's selling till 2030 and it's selling so low that it reached 159M. What will your stance be then ? Answer on that example scenario ? When they are both equal and Switch does 1M less for the same amount of time.

If Nintendo sells the Switch 1 through 2030, it will break 159 million, that's not just me saying that most people on this board would probably agree with that. 

I don't think 6 million extra sold while needing a whopping 4 1/2 extra years to do so at a discount price range is impressive. 

Should I? Why exactly? 

If this was a sports discussion and there were two basketball athletes, Player A played for 11 years and Player B played for 15 years, player B barely scored more points than Player A ... no one would think Player B is the better player or even the better scorer in any sports discussion. Especially if Player A also beat Player B head to head multiple times (as the Switch has beaten the PS2 in a yearly sales rate from year 1 to 8 more often than not). 

There would be nothing controversial about that either, it's only video game statistics are some how supposed to be interpreted completely differently because logic doesn't apply here I guess? Even in game sales discussions you bet your ass when two games are compared if one game had an extra week or two of sales for a month, everyone and their grandma is pretty quick to point out one game had more weeks to sell than the other did, why is LTD sales of consoles are basically the only metric in which no context, no consideration of sales time on market is apparently allowed at all? It makes no sense whatsoever. 

I understand if it was only a extra few months difference, fine, you hand wave that away, but 4 fucking years extra? That's a bit much to just gloss over if you ask me. It's hilarious actually that this barely gets discussed at all when comparing the DS and PS2, it's a ridiculous gap of time.