TBH, I posted it by mistake but then left it because I thought it still made the point lol. If Nintendo have to announce that they're bringing back the NES mini, that means they stopped producing it, it was discontinued. If Nintendo have to "confirm" the SNES mini is continueing production into 2018, that means there was uncertainty about whether more would be produced (they again discontinued both by end of 2018). When scarcity and finite production of the device is being communicated by the company, this informs the mark up and confirms these were more or less collector not meant for longterm production.

You can't compare the markup on a limited run item to a PS5 which will be in store shelfs for 8 years to come. 

@Otter

He is 100% spot on. The mini consoles are limited runs... meanwhile the ps5 will eventually be restocked. It is apples versus oranges.

In my experience (at my office) the big selling point was the handheld multiplayer mode, and the fact that this was the first Mario Kart where you could easily get up to 8-12 local multiplayer stable (the DS version had a lot of issues in the 6-8 range, and the 3DS, though considerably better, would still often crash on a disconnection when playing 8 players). Mario Kart was a big seller for the office, but Zelda was perhaps the game that pushed people over the edge for buying it for those wanting more than just a lunchtime hobby at that price.

I personally bought the Switch for Zelda, the hybrid form factor, and the fact it was a Nintendo console. As a decades long consumer, if a Nintendo console launches with something I want, I buy it with no hesitation. I’d say, even if Zelda was the only game on Switch for a year, I’d have bought it for the optimal experience -  I had to play Breath of the Wild, didn’t like playing games with the Wii U Gamepad, loved the idea of the joycons, and wanted true portability as an option.

In short, I feel that Breath of the Wild and Mario Kart 8D are more than just system sellers on the Switch, these are killer apps like Super Mario Bros, Pokémon R&B, and Wii Sports. Games that many millions of people had to play on the Switch hardware.

I am referring to your argument as a whole. Non exclusives and crossgen games can deffinitely be system sellers.

I would agree that reaching 100m could prove to be a challenge for PS5 depending on how much of Playstation's lunch Xbox gobbles due to Microsoft's acquisitions and the Series S, but it's unrealistic to expect 80m or less, even if Switch 2 is a mega-hit right out of the gate.  This generation will surely last at least as long as gen 7 and it's not like the chip shortage is only affecting Sony.

You have to consider everything else that would have to go wrong for Sony for <80m to occur.  The PS3, a console that launched a year after the 360, at a much higher price tag and also released against strong competition from both Microsoft and Nintendo still sold more than 80m.  The PS3 was also tricky to develop for compared to 360, whereas this time both companies have winners on their hands that are evenly priced and launched simultaneously.  Microsoft's acquisitions will indeed play a part, but most exclusivity there won't be a factor for a while at least.  And although many of Sony's games will also come to PC, Playstation is still a popular brand worldwide and when PS5 console exclusive like a brand new Spiderman show up coupled with an eventual price reduction, I certainly don't see the PS5 falling short of the PS3 in the end.

There are two very old arguments about gaming and hardware.  One goes like this: "Check out my PS3.  It's soooo cool.  It's the most powerful system and has the best graphics.  It has a Blu-Ray drive too, so the games can store more space than even an XBox360, and it's far more powerful than the Wii."  This is the "hardware sells hardware" argument.  The hardware is so cool and powerful, and the graphics on the games are so good, that you want to buy the hardware just for itself.  There is a version of this argument almost every generation, "Check out my Neo Geo..."  "Check out my Atari Jaguar..."  "Check out my Amiga..."  "Check out my XBox, it's so much more powerful than the PS2.  No one is going to want a PS2 now that the XBox is on the market."

The other argument goes like this: "Woah, that game looks awesome!  Can I play it on NES?  No?  We'll, I'm getting a SNES then."  In this situation, it's the game that matters.  The hardware is an obstacle to playing the software, but if the game is good enough, then the person will buy the hardware anyway.  This is the "software sells hardware" argument.  Another way of saying it is "the NES is just a box to play Mario", or you could just as easily say "the PS2 is just a box to play GTA".  The hardware isn't a feature.  It's an obstacle.  Good games are what overcome the obstacle and convince people to buy hardware.

These arguments never go away, because the most enthusiastic gamers are a very vocal minority that see the hardware as a feature.  Meanwhile the mass market always treats hardware as an obstacle.  People do not "get to" buy more powerful hardware.  They "have to" buy more powerful hardware.  It's a chore.  And yet, almost every generation you have super enthusiastic gamers who absolutely can't understand why the PS2 outsold the XBox or why the Wii outsold the PS3.

Crossgen games are basically the "hardware sells hardware" argument.  "People want a PS5, because it's a PS5.  It has great games, and people will want to play these games with the best graphics possible.  It doesn't matter that these games are also on the PS4."  This argument says that hardware is a feature and ignores the fact that, to the mass market, hardware is actually an obstacle.  Here is the opposite argument, "People won't buy a PS5 for Elden Ring, because they are already playing it on their PS4."  It's not the hardware that matters.  It's the games.  Crossgen games don't sell hardware, because hardware is an obstacle.  The mass market takes the path of least resistance which is to not buy hardware unless they have to.

So, the labels are different, but the argument is still the same.  People still think a powerful system with great graphics is what sells.  It isn't.  That actually prevents sales.  We might use the term "crossgen", but that is saying that hardware sells itself (assuming the person already has an older system that plays the game).  What actually causes sales are new games, games that are new to the person buying them.  And if a person can play the game on a system they already own, like a PS4, then they won't buy a system with the same games and better graphics, like a PS5. 

"Software sells hardware".  I don't care how many people argue against me.  It doesn't change reality.  Reality is still that software sells hardware, and hardware doesn't sell itself.  The mass market will not pay $500 extra for a PS5 if they can play the same games on a system they already own.

Nothing magic about it, we live in a hyper-consumerist society where people want the latest hot trendy product, especially if it's in high demand and difficult to attain.

The PS4 wasn't exactly swimming in killer apps for its first few years, but it still sold at a rapid pace right out of the gate.

Killer exclusives are not the only reason people buy consoles.

Playstation has a very long History of support, when you buy a Playstation you know a fair share of the best games of each generation are coming. Those games are announced years in advance and they absolutely help to sell hardware. Early adopters don't buy for the existing library, they buy to keep playing games for years. You get a PS5 and you know you're know you're getting the next Good of War, Uncharted, Spider Man, Final Fantasy, FIFA, The Witcher, Dark Souls and GTA. It's just a matter of either choosing to get it early or delaying the purchase until any of your favorite titles is released.

You are among the ones who likes to wait? Nice. Early adopters obviously don't, that's why they go for the new hardware and choose to play the cross gen titles in the new hardware. Sales of cross gen titles selling better on PS5 compared to PS4 despite the huge gap in userbase and the fact PS4 are cheaper are screaming in your face PS4 userbase isn't really that eager for those cross gen titles. 

It's perplexing this debate is even happening. Do you really believe people buy hardware to get 2 or 3 exclusives instead of buying the hardware to play a dozen of titles regardless of them exclusive or not? I mean, according to you nobody should buy a Xbox, all their games are on PCs

I just looked up PS4 games in 2015 which would have been the equivalent of this year.  Here are some games:

Bloodborne
Witcher 3
Batman: Arkham Knight
Rocket League
Just Cause 3
Until Dawn
Mortal Kombat X
Axiom Verge
Dying Light
Fallout 4
Star Wars Battlefront
Assassin's Creed Syndicate

None of these games appeared on the PS3 and a couple are actually PS4 exclusives.  There are also some significant heavy hitters in there sales wise.  By 2015, Generation 8 was well underway.  PS5 does not have a lineup anywhere near this.  Where are the Gen 9 games?  Where are the exclusives?  PS4 actually did have plenty of titles that were not cross gen by this time.  PS5 is pretty pathetic in comparison.

Of the 12 games you listed, only 2 are exclusives.

PS4 also sold great in 2013 and 2014 when heaps of games were still crossgen.