I don't get the hope and excitement for Switch 1 hitting that number. For it to do that, and break records, means they won't release a full next-gen device until multiple years from now, a good 7-9 years after Switch 1 came out. I owned a Wii U and own a Switch. The Switch simply feels like a smaller, more portable Wii U. I owned numerous Wii U titles and have seen/owned some of them on Switch and they look basically the same. Whatever power difference the Switch has over Wii U is not really noticeable to people who aren't tech-obsessed (so don't come at me with meaningless specs because most people that care about that. They just care about the eyeball test). The power difference Wii U had over Wii was INSANE and the games looked absolutely stunning compared to Wii, and not just in graphics, but the scope, draw distance, etc.

I want to be excited like I was for Wii U games coming off the Wii, but the longer we have Switch 1 the longer we have Wii U-level games, for 12+ years we will have had that level games for the sad few of us that owned Wii U's. I know many on here are experiencing HD Nintendo games for the first time because you didn't own a Wii U, but those of us that owned Wii U's have already gotten used to this level of visuals/power/depth. I want to be blown away again, and no game on the Switch has done that compared to the Wii U, but many, many games on the Wii U did that compared to the Wii.

I'm not a graphics-obsessed person, and this may come off that way. I don't expect or even want Series X level graphics out of Switch 2. I just want to be, at all times, playing just one generation of graphics behind, not two (like the Switch is and will potentially be for the next 3+ years). At this rate, we are going to have Series X2 and PS5 Pro out before Switch 2, making the gap even more absurd. Making the Switch 2 even more exciting to me is the possible inclusion of DLSS, which would really future proof that device and enable it to have a really long life-span, but Switch 1 doesn't have that technology.

I feel like this thread is already outdated. You should revise it to 170 million. The odds of Switch successor coming before 2025 became astonishing low so the only reasonable thing that could cause a cliff (a Switch 2 launching with BC) is not on sight, Switch is going be effortlessly the biggest system of all time, the real question now is how far it can go 

What's even a mainline Mario game? 

This thread is now a week old and there has been hardly anyone who disagreed with Switch hitting 160m+ in its lifetime. That in and of itself is pretty telling how good the chances are.

I feel kinda wrong inside, if people talk about graphic and mean tech. Because that what it is. To separate it, people have started to talk about graphic and art-style as different entities. That as a precursor, just something to note, that when you say graphics in your post, you actually mean graphics tech.

I am an old gamer. Really old. I remember games that were praised for their tech, and years later they seemed old. That is the point. If all you have on offer is the newest tech, then you have a timer on the value of your game. It will become obsolete.

As an example: Doom and Quake were pushing the technological envelope of their time a lot. Really a lot. And back then they were praised for that. Now, don't get me wrong, these games have value beyond tech. They both nail gameplay and they have absolutely banging music. Really, I love especially Doom music, but also Quake is great. But in one regard they both fall flat: they both are butt-ugly. And they were back then. Yet still they had the best "graphics" at their time. How does that fit? Because "graohics" refers to the tech, and yes, that was bleeding edge. But if you play these games today, the main reason is their gameplay and music, not their tech, as you have newer more advanced games readily available.

Even back in the day I loved Duke Nukem 3D more, even though it did not push the tech as much. The reason is, that Duke Nukem has recognizable locations and settings. Which makes the game more enjoyable and immersive, even today. I recently played Heretic for the first time, and it used Doom tech, but put effort into recognizable locations. That pays off, even in todays standards.

I don't care about being one or two or seven gens behind in a game, because I play games from the 2020s at the same time as games from the 1980s. If the games from age old have more to offer than an advantage that will spoil over time, when they offer as much enjoyment as a recent game. So that means, I don't really care if Switch tech is one or two or more gens behind, what I care about is if it can offer me great gaming experiences. And as long as it does, I can wait for the next console.

I think the recent Nintendo Direct did a whole lot to convince people of the 160m+ argument.

Yeah, I agree.  

I also have to wonder what is the earliest tech Minecraft needed to be developed on.  It's clearly not pushing the cutting edge in technology, and yet it's the most popular game in the world.  I think a single player version could have been made on PS1, although maybe it requires PS2 because of all of the blocks that need to be rendered.  And then there is the multiplayer aspect.  So, I'm guessing Nintendo DS for the wireless multiplayer?  That is the minimum tech required for Minecraft I think.  

The most popular game in the world is essentially a Nintendo DS game.  That is how much the average gamer cares about cutting edge technology.

I think the recent Nintendo Direct did a whole lot to convince people of the 160m+ argument.

Yeah, I agree.  

I also have to wonder what is the earliest tech Minecraft needed to be developed on.  It's clearly not pushing the cutting edge in technology, and yet it's the most popular game in the world.  I think a single player version could have been made on PS1, although maybe it requires PS2 because of all of the blocks that need to be rendered.  And then there is the multiplayer aspect.  So, I'm guessing Nintendo DS for the wireless multiplayer?  That is the minimum tech required for Minecraft I think.  

The most popular game in the world is essentially a Nintendo DS game.  That is how much the average gamer cares about cutting edge technology.

Minecraft is on New 3DS but not the regular 3DS, that might help narrow down what type of hardware it can/can’t run on.

Showing a high number of objects can bog down Minecraft performance and also it needs RAM for that. So I don't think Minecraft is *that* easy.

Although performance at least could be improved, by using a tile-based 2D-sprite approach. The original UFO (X-COM in the US) used 2D sprites, yet allowed 3D gameplay. That was, because it was tiled in 3D, meaning each tile had not only a width and length, but also a height. You could switch layers with your characters by climbing or with the flight suit. This is not so differently to Minecraft I think, so I guess it would've been possible with much slower hardware. Still you would need enough memory to hold the environment, as everything can be changed and replaced. So I guess early consoles are not possible, but on PC it would've worked probably. Still, someone needed to have that idea, and that didn't happen.