Luigi's Mansion 3 is closing in on 13 million and still has a chance of 15 million lifetime.
Absolutely wild to watch the series go from 2+million to 6+million to now nearly 13 million for one of its games. Luigi's Mansion can be a Nintendo mainstay now, and 4 will probably sell like hotcakes as well. It would be a great title to launch the next system, or at least come out in the first year.
And Switch's total units for the fiscal year is a notable drop, but not a cliff. Even with more declines coming, it will still do well (considering its age).

Comparing the Switch to the DS or the PS2 at this point in their lifecycle is a little tricky because both Nintendo and Sony were pretty much giving away DSs and PS2s at 99.99 dollars. A more worthwhile comparison would be how much profits these consoles generated.

Never really heard the "our sales forecast is a stretch" line before lol, doesn't sound like they are too confident. Furukawa is blunt I guess.

Think this points pretty strongly to Switch 2 in 2024. All the talk about the current Switch having a long product cycle left seems to have been replaced with "keeping sales momentum of a system this old is very hard". They know they are in the end portion of this product cycle from how they are talking. 

Looks like no new hardware coming this fiscal year to give the current Switch a boost either. Switch OLED is your Switch Pro, it always was, changing the chip would've cost Nintendo too much money for not enough of a gain. 

140m+ by end of March 2024 sounds good. Next gen definitely ain't coming during this fiscal year (wasn't ever any reason to expect it to), though likely next gen will release sometime in the next 8 months after that (by Nov 2024). So Switch should end up at least well into the 140 millions if not 150m, depending on post-life legs.

It's cool that BotW is probably passing 30 million juuuuust before TotK releases.

Wow really surprised at the weak Metroid Prime numbers. Between releasing digitally first plus all the stories of shortages of physical games I figured it was selling plenty (at least once the shortages ended). I thought it would be at 2 million, not 1 million. Honestly very surprising, I thought this was a lot more popular than it is. Especially considering its a complete graphical overhaul and only $40, that's a rough pill for the Prime series leading into possible remasters of 2 and 3 and the eventual release of 4. And they must have barely shipped any physical games at first considering these sales and it released digitally first and the huge shortages of the physical game when it first came out.

Damn impressive that BotW actually outsold Smash for the fiscal year. I don't expect BotW to actually pass Smash but impressive it managed to be ahead for the year. And Odyssey closed on Sw/Sh and is basically tied with it now, which I guess isn't surprising seeing as how most people would buy V/S over Sw/Sh now. I guess Odyssey is gonna move into 5th place in sales unless V/S or TotK can pass it eventually.

If Nintendo prez says 15m might be a stretch is sounds like they aren't planning any price drops, which is just bizarre. Just a weird thing to refuse to do a price drop late in the life cycle as sales slow. Especially considering if next gen comes out 12-18 months from now it'll probably be priced same as OLED which would be ridiculous having a model for a 7+ year old system the same as a brand new next-gen system. They should just drop to like 170/250/300 this year to help sales, then maybe drop again to 150/230/280 next year. Then they can keep selling Switch's likely at a small profit, and have the Switch be the cheap system while the Switch 2 is the new next-gen premium system at like $350 or whatever.

Next system is probably gonna start at $399.99 and they probably will sell out at that price anyway. 

Price slashing hardware to get a small bump is just dated console philosophy at this point it seems, neither Sony or Nintendo subscribe to it anymore. 

I did the math on this but the amount of extra hardware a company would have to sell to even justify a $50 price drop is massive. 

$400 seems a bit high. I mean it could be, but I'd put better chance at it being $350. I doubt Nintendo is gonna bump its launch price up by $100 from one gen to the next, especially if it is indeed a very similar system like most expect (a Switch 2) which wouldn't require loads of R&D to create.

And not really on the price cut stuff. They just have to sell one more game to make up the difference on a price cut. Someone who wasn't gonna buy the system at $300 but buys it at $250 just has to buy one $60 first party game and Nintendo makes up the difference. That's of course only for bringing in extra buyers, but presumably those extra buyers would buy several first party games, and that alone offsets the loss of $50 from some of the people who would've bought at the original price anyway, and then you offset more of that loss from the new buyers (at $300 vs $250 you offset 5 'were gonna buy the system anyway' buyers with each single extra buyer), so most of the revenue lost is made up right there. Add in whatever fees Nintendo charges from third party publishers for games bought by the extra buyers, and its easy to see how the math works out.

Also if system is $50 less maybe those people get one more game than they would have, not to mention possible new people paying for NSO, or just in general new fans who then maybe are more likely to buy the next system a few years down the road. The Math definitely works out for price cut. And like I said if Switch is still $300/$350 when Switch 2 comes out at $350 (or even if they go with a real high price and launch at $400) that just gets confusing and complicated and silly for consumers. Only way I see that working out in any way that makes sense is if they just stop producing original and OLED models when Switch 2 releases and only sell the cheap Lite, but then again you're just cutting off potential sales of Switch to late buyers. Any way you look at it, price cuts makes a lot of sense for the Switch this late in the game due to several factors.

I think what the industry moved away from was simply competing on price cuts. There's only 3 players and they are all established, so as long as those 3 decide to not do price cuts very often all three can keep prices higher longer. It's not like there are new entrants into the industry trying to undercut each other the way Sega/Sony/Microsoft came into the industry in the 90s and early 2000s. I don't think price cut wars not happening has anything to do with the Math not working out, the Math clearly works out as shown above (I mean the simple fact that most money is made off software/services/peripherals, not HW sales, proves the point alone), but has to do with all the players are established and no one new is coming into the industry so there is no reason to compete on price cuts. But that doesn't mean doing a price cut for other reasons (like to keep sales going late in a life cycle) aren't worth it.

A billi, a billi, a billi

Pretty sure the R&D bill for Switch 2 will be higher, it actually will have a new chip basically built for it, whereas the original Switch just used the Tegra X1 which was an already existing chip. Also inflation, you have to factor that in. The current Switch could've honestly launched at $350 and done well, it was pretty well sold out for most of its first year. 

Budget shoppers tend to buy fewer titles I would guess so I don't think the "well people will just buy an extra game!" thing actually works out in reality. You're selling hardware at a lower profit margin ($50 lost per unit) AND you're selling it to people who don't buy as many games (late gen adopters). 

I'm pretty sure Nintendo and Sony have run the math on this, it's why they don't chase this market any more. 

Like just as a basic breakdown if the Switch's profit margin is $80 and you cut that by $50 (to only $30), Nintendo could jump from 15 million units to even 30 million units and they'd still make less profit on hardware, people really don't get how much of a loss losing $50 of profit per unit is. It makes some sense earlier in a product cycle when you're trying to build userbase but later probably not. You make more money selling 15 million units @$80 profit/unit than you do selling 30 million @ $30 profit (this is an extreme example anyway since a price cut is going to give you no where close to 30 million).

Sony not only did not drop the price of the PS5, they increased it in almost every region, lol. Nintendo hasn't dropped their price, they introduced a more expensive model. So this trend really is not in favor of the "lets just sit around and wait for price cuts" crowd. I don't think Sony and Nintendo want to encourage the "I'm not buying your system until you cut the price multiple times" folks, it's becoming "look this is the price of entry, either you pay it or move along there's 2 people behind you willing to pay full price". 

Kinda interesting how Mario Odyssey remains the best selling Mario platformer even on a yearly basis.

It outsold NSMBU Deluxe and Mario 3D World last fiscal year again, even though those games released later on Switch.

BOTW outselling Smash and close to Animal Crossing is very impressive too. 

1 billion software sales following $1 billion at the box office for the Mario movie. Nintendo sure has a lot to be happy about even w/ declining Switch sales.

It’ll probably be closer to 14 than 15 million this next FY, but they can still meet it. Having a great Q1 to jumpstart it thanks to TOTK will certainly help.
But it’s gonna need a strong holiday lineup, which, as of now, we have no idea what that’ll be.