By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - The Road to 160m+ for Nintendo Switch

Well I’ve contributed to 3 more recently, I upgraded my OG Switch to the OLED model and my 6 & 8 year old kids upgraded their 2DS’s to Switch Lites.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
Dulfite said:

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 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.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

If the Switch does get to 160M which I believe it will. It could come close to the combined sales numbers of the PS4+Xbox One, which is around 168 Million sold combined, which is crazy to think about.



IcaroRibeiro said:
RolStoppable said:

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 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 

I wouldn't say it's astonishingly low for Switch 2 to come out before 2025. Nintendo is one of the most unpredictable gaming corporations out there. They basically let the Wii fall of a cliff after 2010, they took forever to get a successor for the Game Boy, they launched the DS as a third pillar but then made it an outright successor to the GBA, etc. And they waited until 2022-2023 to release DLC for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which is pretty much a GOTY enhanced port of a 2014 Wii U game. 

It's likely enough that we won't get Switch until March 2025, but it's not a given at all. Even with parts shortages still in 2022, Nintendo could launch Switch 2 between March 2024-November 2024. While it's unlikely, they could surprise us and launch it November 2023.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 144 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million, then 125 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

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

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

Metallox said:
Kakadu18 said:

Some of those people also say that. Because Nintendo EPD developed them or something like that. Makes no sense to me. Mobile games are never part of the mainline series.

What's even a mainline Mario game? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XejJ6PzPtEw&ab_channel=janMisali



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

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

Mnementh said:
Dulfite said:

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 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.

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.



The_Liquid_Laser said:
RolStoppable said:

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

Mnementh said:

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.

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.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

The_Liquid_Laser said:
RolStoppable said:

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

Mnementh said:

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.

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.

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.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

It seems pretty possible.

The hardware is already dated and has been dated. So, if it hasn't really hurt them yet, the tide is not going to turn that drastically. Nintendo seems intent on supporting this thing for a while. The only reason to doubt is that 60 million is kind of a lot. Averaging 15 million over 4 years is pretty tough. Even with the possibility of price drops or revisions, it comes down to whether or not Nintendo has the games. This year's lineup looks great so far. But who knows what the future holds.



zorg1000 said:

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.

That is a good point.  Thank you.

Mnementh said:

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.

My main point is that the tech required for this game was already beyond what was needed when it was created.  The majority of gamers aren't actually after the most cutting edge graphics.  Instead they are looking for a fun new type of gameplay.  The popularity of Minecraft illustrates this point.