• iOS/Safari issues when launching the site from mobile home screens should now be fixed! A2HS button compatibility on Android Firefox has also been fixed! Add some purple to your home screen today.

PS4 sell through at 91.6 million as of Dec 31st 2018. Spider-Man sell through over 9 million. (Sony PR)

May 14, 2018
144
I agree. Same OS, but upgraded features and UI.
I really don't think the UI will change much/at all between PS4 and PS5. PlayStation is going to be 1 unified architecture hardware/software going forward. Difference being only how well games run and some titles requiring a PS5.

This is so developers don't have to worry about supporting a "PS4" version of their game/app and a PS5 version– it'll be the same version running on both (much like how iOS works).

Also, why I think "PS4" will sell more over time than PS2– generational lines will continue to blur.
 

Iwao

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,327
I really don't think the UI will change much/at all between PS4 and PS5. PlayStation is going to be 1 unified architecture hardware/software going forward. Difference being only how well games run and some titles requiring a PS5.

This is so developers don't have to worry about supporting a "PS4" version of their game/app and a PS5 version– it'll be the same version running on both (much like how iOS works).
I hope not, that would be so boringggg. There are so many improvements I'd like to see on PS4's UI (such as having a grid interface for games in folders), but with 6.0 being very underwhelming I don't see Sony focusing much on exciting new firmware for the rest of the gen, and more on the games. I see what you mean though. It wouldn't surprise me if that approach appeals to Sony for not having to put extra effort into making things look fresh for a new device, especially if it makes things easier for developers as well.

At some point though, I think trying to balance feature parity on both devices will start to become a pain in the ass, and given that the OS footprint for PS5 is likely to be much greater they wouldn't be able to add stressful features on both, if it slows down the performance on PS4. Either way, I'd hope they're planning some cool upgrades for the current UI in time for PS5.
 
Last edited:
Nov 10, 2017
2,865
Which wouldn't be a problem if it's lifespan is as long as PS2's. And that's not even necessary. PS4 sells 18.320.000 units per year average. PS2 went on for 13 years and sold 158.000.000. That's 12.153.846 average. So PS4 is outselling PS2 if you take the yearly average amount of units.

PS4 would need another 66.400.000 to match PS2 sales. With 18.320.000 they can achieve that within less than 4 years. To be precise, it would need 3,62 years to get to 158 million. I know this is very rough and one year isn't the other, but these are interesting numbers.

In other words, if PS2 would have sold as much as PS4 average yearly, it would've been sold 238.160.000. ;-)
I think this is possible, especially if a lot of games are cross gen with PS5. I could see Sony keeping the PS4 around for suuuuper cheap for a long time after the PS5 comes out- especially if they share the a big portion of their libraries. Most Indy games don’t need the power of a PS5, so there’s no use forcing people to upgrade just to be able to play them.

Sell the PS4 for $99, the PS4 Pro for $249 and the PS5 for $399.
I know :)

I look forward to the day when PS4 becomes the best selling console in history and the resulting implosion of Era. Lol
Thanks for all of your replies, you guys make me think it's actually possible for PS4 to actually match or even outsell PS2.

Interesting numbers BTW!
 
May 14, 2018
144
Thanks for all of your replies, you guys make me think it's actually possible for PS4 to actually match or even outsell PS2.

Interesting numbers BTW!
In a few years I think we'll have to ask ourselves whats considered a "PS4"? I think we'll see another hardware rev that's even smaller, cheaper etc. I think it's also possible we'll see a smaller/cheaper/quieter PS4 Pro. I really think they're going the mobile model here with multiple systems that run the same software. If you want to play the new shiny software at 4k60, you have to get the PS5. But if you're ok with 1080p30 you can stick w/ the Pro. 900p30 on the base system. Some games will require a PS5.
 
Oct 25, 2017
249
I think PS4 will surpass 130M.

2019 - 16M (107.6M) - 2M
2020 - 12M (118.6M) - 4M
2021 - 09M (127.6M) - 3M
2022 - 06M (133.6M) - 3M
2023 - 03M (136.6M) - 3M
I'm thinking this as well and wouldn't be surprised if it's close to 140M when everything is said and done. It's an absolute juggernaut of a console and the PS5 will just sell itself out of the gate if it's remotely decent because of the goodwill. Unlike the jump from the PS3 to 4, I won't be in a hurry to switch even with BC and I'm sure many gamers will also wait it out and opt for a cheap PS4 so it should last until ~2023-24.
 
Oct 8, 2018
774
To answer the question of who sold the most in 2018, i decided to look up numbers, seems that since the start of 2018 to end of Q3 2018 nintendo shipped 8 million units, and sony now said they sold through 18m consoles in 2018.... so unless if nintendo sold like 12 million consoles just in Q4 (we are talking about shipped vs sold, having shipped 8m consoles means they probably sold somewhat less than that), i think ps4 still sold more than the switch in 2018.
 
PS2 sold over 155 million consoles worldwide in its lifetime, so PS4 would have to sell more than 60 million additional consoles to reach PS2 level.
Maybe not 60 million but it’s gonna sell another 30 at least. 15 or more this year and another 15 next year. That should put them around 120 million.

After 2020, they’ll probably drop to single digit years. I’m guessing 8 million 2021 and 6-7 million 2022. That should put them in the area of 134 million. If they drop the price to $199, these numbers could slightly increase.

That’s my take on it anyway.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Sydney
Oct 27, 2017
3,002
Why would sony suddenly retire a profitable system that's still selling 4 million units a year? They haven't even officially retired the Vita, and that thing sold only around 15 million units over about 7 years.
They haven't officially retired it, but they aren't producing it anymore.

don't know where you get theses numbers
These things are just found on WIkipedia with their sources:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110524023857/http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps_e.html
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/finance/historical_data/xls/consolidated_sales_e1703.xlsx
 
Oct 28, 2017
81
Time to start a new thread "Prediction: How many PS4 will be sold by the end of 2019"

My prediction: They hit 100 million sold by June/July after holiday season 2019 they easily hit 110 or 116 million before PS5 gets revealed early 2020.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Sydney
good, nintendo numbers seems really up to date but sony report is no longer updated since 10 years now sadly
If you read the page, PS1 sold nothing from March 2005. It was officially discontinued in March 2006.
It is the final total for PS1.

It is a webarchive page from 10 years ago. Sony's current reporting can be found here:
https://www.sie.com/en/corporate/data.html
But it is worthless since they wanted to hide the terrible PS3 performance and they never fixed that once the PS3 turned around.
PS3 never really 'turned it around' they just doubled down on the massive losses and helped it sell mediocre for a long time.

See here for the best figures we have:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/is-there-a-trend-of-3rd-consoles-failing.65920/page-3#post-12211572
 
Nov 2, 2017
8,849
Oct 27, 2017
399
“Sell mediocre” how is releasing a year late with a $599 price and still managing to sell +80 million and reaching competition is mediocre exactly? On units alone PS3’s performance was great.
In units, yes. But it had been generating losses for how long? Four consecutive years? I'm not sure whether this is only consoles+digital or retail discs as well - maybe somebody could clarify?
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,002
PS3 never really 'turned it around' they just doubled down on the massive losses and helped it sell mediocre for a long time.
There are four consoles that have sold more than the PlayStation 3. It is just that three of them are named PlayStation, and the fourth was its competitor.

In units, yes. But it had been generating losses for how long? Four consecutive years? I'm not sure whether this is only consoles+digital or retail discs as well - maybe somebody could clarify?
Hardware-only.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,002
Sorry, bad wording. What I meant was that hardware losses were so huge that they had to sell a lot of games to get even. No mentioning being in the black. We had this chart showing PlayStation division revenue since PS1 but I can't find it...
Ah this thing: yeah, that was the loss of the entire division. But that would include R&D and things like that as well.
 
Aug 6, 2018
1,842
In units, yes. But it had been generating losses for how long? Four consecutive years? I'm not sure whether this is only consoles+digital or retail discs as well - maybe somebody could clarify?
The ps3 generating huge losses was planned from the beginning. Sony took a gamble that taking a bath on it to push Blu Ray and the Cell processor would pay off in the long run.

Blu Ray succeeded as the only disc based HD format, but Sony didnt see the rise of streaming services just decimating the market for physical discs.

The Cell never panned out at all as a general purpose device. That thing was never intended to be a ps3 only processor- it was substantially more capable than the 360 processor, and is even stronger than the cpu in the ps4 despite hitting the market 7 years earlier. A less ambitious CPU and a more traditional GPU would have made a cheaper, easier to work with console.

On top of those two things, there was a dispute with Nvidia who made the RSX and refused to lower costs on it, ensuring that the ps4 remained very costly to produce late into its lifespan.

All of these things contributed to the losses of the ps3, but none really reflect poorly on it as a gaming device. It was almost all non gaming business decisions that caused it.

By any metric, 85 million or whatever it was the PS3 ended up selling is a phenomenal achievement. The 360 only managed to "about tie" it despite an extra year on the market, equivalent performance and a way lower price point. No other home console system not named "playstation" or "wii" outsold it, and two of those werent by much.

Finally, we can't overlook that the way Sony continued to support the ps3 with great software well into the twilight years of that system while nintendo and MS were experiencing software droughts had a lot to do with the high amount of goodwill the ps4 received at launch. Sony had proven with the ps3 that they were still hyper focused on quality games for their base even in the worst of circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Sydney
“Sell mediocre” how is releasing a year late with a $599 price and still managing to sell +80 million and reaching competition is mediocre exactly? On units alone PS3’s performance was great.
Mediocre is probably a bit harsh, but certainly middling or 'just decent'. Especially in a generation where 500 million consoles were sold, its market share was very low.

Its best year was 14 million sold.
PS2 had SIX better years than PS3's best year.
DS sold over 30 million two years in a row, and had five years higher than PS3's best year.
Wii had four years higher than PS3's best year.

PS3 and 360's final totals benefited a lot from 1) the generation's home console winner dropping off a cliff due to no third party support to carry its tail as first party shifted to next gen (completely unique for any generational winner) and 2) a Microsoft/Sony cold war at the end of the generation. Both delayed their next consoles to try and recoup some of their losses and so PS360 had 2-3 extra years without a new generation. No other consoles in history have been on the market without a new competitor for so long, even the stillborn Wii U was 2012, 6/7 years after the PS3/360, and it was 7/8 years between PS360 and PS4Bone, unheard of lengths.

As such, it had seven years as the latest Playstation. PS3 sold from crap to 'okay', but over an elongated period.

And by official figures the 360 outsold the PS3, the closest we have to final totals is 83.8M PS3 to 84M 360. Anything else is guesses, not data.

The ps3 generating huge losses was planned from the beginning. Sony took a gamble that taking a bath on it to push Blu Ray and the Cell processor would pay off in the long run.
PS3 lost possibly as much as ten billion dollars. Nobody plans for that.

All of these things contributed to the losses of the ps3, but none really reflect poorly on it as a gaming device.
Yes they did, it was poorly designed as a console, they rushed in a GPU because Cell wasn't enough, and it ended up it cost more 99% of games looked worse than on the cheaper 360.

The 360 only managed to "about tie" it despite an extra year on the market, equivalent performance and a way lower price point. No other system not named "playstation" or "wii" outsold it, and those two werent by much.
No, Game Boy and DS also sold much more. And GBA and 3DS are damn close too, and all four made buckets of money instead of losing billions (same with PSP too most likely which also got close).

And by official figures the 360 outsold the PS3, the closest we have to final totals is 83.8M PS3 to 84M 360. Anything else is guesses, not data.

Finally, we can't overlook that the way Sony continued to support the ps3 with great software well into the twilight years of that system while nintendo and MS were experiencing software droughts had a lot to do with the high amount of goodwill the ps4 received at launch. Sony had proven with the ps3 that they were still hyper focused on quality games for their base even in the worst of circumstances.
This was indeed smart and set them up to have some momentum that continued with the PS4, and when Microsoft and Nintendo both royally screwed up they ended up cleaning up.

But that has nothing to do with losses, the PS3 was a disaster they literally bought themselves halfway out of. In the largest (500 million consoles sold) most profitable (Nintendo made 6 billion in profit in a single year) generation in history, Sony, coming off the most successful console of all time, lost every territory and lost billions of dollars, and by official figures came fourth in the generation, behind DS, Wii and 360. PS3 had ~16% market share of its generation. PS2 had ~55%.

I guess you could say some of the sustained PS3 losses were in service of building an audience, no matter the cost, to set up the PS4 better. Which was a smart move because PS4 will possibly become the most profitable console in history, beating out the Wii.
 
Last edited:
Oct 31, 2017
35
You are wrong. Psx sold more than Wii.

101 vs 105 millions
PS1 sold more than Wii... anyways I don't doubt that PS4 will surpass both to become 2nd highest selling console ever
Right, my bad.

Anyways point is, the top 3 best selling consoles of all time are going to end up all being Playstations. Which is kind of crazy since they only released 4 consoles. With the exception of the PSWii60 gen they've basically dominated the market since the 1990s.
 
Aug 6, 2018
1,842
Mediocre is probably a bit harsh, but certainly middling or 'just decent'. Its best year was 14 million sold.

PS2 had SIX better years than PS3's best year.
This is disingenous. The PS2 didn't launch at the equivalent of $750. The PS3 was NEVER going to hit PS2 level sales and Sony knew this when launching it. It was simply too expensive with far more competition than the PS2 had. Sony knew this, and saying that "Well, the PS2 had six better years than the PS3's" means nothing. The PS2 sold 50 million more units than the most similar system to it. Nothing has come close to selling what that thing did, with the possible exception of the PS4- but that remains to be seen.

DS sold over 30 million two years in a row, and had five years higher than PS3's best year.
Wii had four years higher than PS3's best year.
I'm going to stop you right here pal. Home consoles and Handhelds do not have similar business models AT ALL. Handhelds sell one per person, not one per household. This is why handheld tie ratios for software are nowhere NEAR console tie ratios- the business model is different. The DS despite it's unit sales being close to the PS2 got blown out of the water by the PS2's software sales- 1.6 Billion units of software sold vs. less than 900m. the two aren't close at all.

You know what else outsold the DS handily in software for the platform? The PS3, at about 970 million units of software. PS3 software also outsold the Wii (960m units) despite selling fewer systems, and easily outclassed every gameboy ever- the original Gameboy by almost double (500m) and the GBA by almost TRIPLE (377m).

Profits come from software, not console hardware, So if you're going to talk about "failures" and "mediocre sales" the PS3 isn't in the conversation. It destroys every system Nintendo ever made in terms of software sold. The only things that outsold it were the 360 and the PS2.

Finally, Handhelds are also SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper. The 2DS was selling for $80 at one point. Nearly half the price of the PS3 at it's cheapest point. The PS3 was not competing with the DS, Game Boy, or 3DS and pointing to DS sales as to why the PS3 had "mediocre" sales of 85 million or so is wildly off base. Handhelds and home consoles have wildly different business markets, price points, tie ratios, and audiences. What makes one successful would not have worked for the other, and any home console platform with the hardware sales but software tie ratio of Nintendo's most successful handheld ever (to say nothing about lesser selling systems such as the 3DS) would have been a failure.

PS3 and 360's final totals vastly benefited from the generation's home console winner dropping off a cliff due to no third party support to carry its tail as first party shifted to next gen (completely unique for any generational winner) and a Microsoft/Sony cold war at the end of the generation. Both delayed their next consoles to try and recoup some of their losses. And so had 2-3 extra years without a new generation. No other consoles in history have been on the market without a new competitor for so long, even the stillborn Wii U was 2012, 6/7 years after the PS3/360, and it was 7/8 years between PS360 and PS4Bone, unheard of lengths.
The PS3 had plenty of third party support after the PS4 launched. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Cross gen ports and sports titles continued well into 2017 for that system. And that's on disc. Digital only titles for PS3 weren't in short supply either.

The PS3 launched in 2006. The PS4 launched in 2013. That's 7 years. "longest in history" is a nice way of saying it was one year longer than the 16 bit era (the genesis/MD launched in 1988, the Saturn- the first RELEVANT 32 bit console didn't show up until 1994), and exactly as long as the generation following the 32 bit era. The Dreamcast Launched in 1998. We didn't see a "next generation" system well past it until the Xbox 360 launched in 2005. 7 years.

As such, it had seven years as the latest Playstation. PS3 sold from crap to 'okay', but over an elongated period.
The PS3 had the shortest production lifespan of all of the Playstation Consoles not named Vita. The PS1 had a 12 year production period, the PS2 had a 13 year production period. The PS3 was only produced for ten before Sony EOL'ed it.

And by official figures the 360 outsold the PS3, the closest we have to final totals is 83.8M PS3 to 84M 360. Anything else is guesses, not data.
no one has official final figures for either console. That's why most people say the systems were approximately tied. There's no way to say which one was ahead, especially when you consider the PS3 outsold the 360 globally every single year they were on the market.

PS3 lost possibly as much as ten billion dollars. Nobody plans for that.
This may be hard for you to comprehend, but the PS3 losing all of that money was the plan from the start. Had Blu-Ray succeeded to the extent DVD did, and Cell taken off as a general purpose competitor to Intel AS WAS THE PLAN FOR THAT, ten billion in losses would have been trivial compared to what Sony/Toshiba/IBM would have made on Royalties.

THAT is why Blu-Ray was in the PS3, and THAT is why the Cell was in the PS3 despite being an expensive, complicated option. Sony chose to cannibalize their console market share to push new tech. It worked for one, and did not for the other- but Blu Ray's success was meaningless when the bottom fell out of the physical distribution market.

Yes they did, it was poorly designed as a console, they rushed in a GPU because Cell wasn't enough, and it ended up it cost more 99% of games looked worse than on the cheaper 360.
That's a bizarre take. The PS3 as a console was rock solid with excellent performance, and titles made for it in mind outperformed the 360 easily. The issue was difficulty programming the cell, not the capability of the console.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Sydney
This is disingenous. The PS2 didn't launch at the equivalent of $750. The PS3 was NEVER going to hit PS2 level sales and Sony knew this when launching it. It was simply too expensive with far more competition than the PS2 had. Sony knew this, and saying that "Well, the PS2 had six better years than the PS3's" means nothing. The PS2 sold 50 million more units than the most similar system to it. Nothing has come close to selling what that thing did, with the possible exception of the PS4- but that remains to be seen.
So? We're comparing console sales, not 'taking into account all circumstances and making excuses as to why one didn't sell as much.'

Home consoles and Handhelds do not have similar business models AT ALL. Handhelds sell one per person, not one per household. This is why handheld tie ratios for software are nowhere NEAR console tie ratios- the business model is different. The DS despite it's unit sales being close to the PS2 got blown out of the water by the PS2's software sales- 1.6 Billion units of software sold vs. less than 900m. the two aren't close at all.
Again, making up new rules as you go along. We are talking hardware sales.

You know what else outsold the DS handily in software for the platform? The PS3, at about 970 million units of software. PS3 software also outsold the Wii (960m units) despite selling fewer systems, and easily outclassed every gameboy ever- the original Gameboy by almost double (500m) and the GBA by almost TRIPLE (377m).

Profits come from software, not console hardware, So if you're going to talk about "failures" and "mediocre sales" the PS3 isn't in the conversation. It destroys every system Nintendo ever made in terms of software sold. The only things that outsold it were the 360 and the PS2.
Wow. You truly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

"Profits come from software, not console hardware"

THE PS3 IS THE LEAST PROFITABLE CONSOLE OF ANY TYPE IN HISTORY AND THAT INCLUDES SOFTWARE SALES.

Are you even looking at your own arguments?

Read this post

https://www.resetera.com/threads/is-there-a-trend-of-3rd-consoles-failing.65920/page-2#post-12165139

If you want to make it about profit, fine. Then PS3 loses every single possible metric. It's the biggest money loser of all time, by far.
 
Oct 30, 2017
964
It probably will have a huge dropoff after 2020 due to the PS5. I'm expecting:

2019: 15-16 million
2020: 12-14 million
2021: 6-7 million
2022+2023: 3-4 million
Then retired.

Lower end LTD: 127, Upper end: 132
I think it will last for another year, that the drop won't be that dramatic due to price drop and being able to sell it in emerging markets and to families. Im addition to this I'd add another million to 2019 and 2020 since I think PS5 won't be released until Nov. 2020.

I think it will sell around 140 million.

If with PS5 they improve PS Now adding important countries that now aren't covered (like some European ones like Spain) and supporting PS5 games on PS4 through PS Now and make PS5 full BC that would help PS4 last longer, because non-high end games like indies could be released as PS4 games to get extra sales. If this happens it may reach around 145-155 million.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,223
Mediocre is probably a bit harsh, but certainly middling or 'just decent'. Especially in a generation where 500 million consoles were sold, its market share was very low.
Could you please elaborate on those 500m consoles? Just curious. Are handhelds counted? Regarding home-consoles the
market share wasn't thaaat bad (80m 360, 80m PS3, 100m Wii = 260m) ...not counting the roughly 50m PS2s that were sold between late 2005 and 2012. What I'm trying to say, if you put PS2 sales in the context of all consoles sold between 2000 and late 2005, the market-share will also look much lower than some might expect:
PS2 100m+ appr. 50m Gamecube + Xbox + some pennies from Dreamcast ~ 70% (out o' my ass). Now put that in context with
the 100m-150m+ (rough estimate) handhelds Nintendo sold in that timeframe and you'll end up around above 30% but below 50%
 
Aug 6, 2018
1,842
Switch is unique. The price is more home console like but the form factor / value proposition is totally new. Pretty hard to fit the Switch in one category.
I'd count the switch as a console. Yeah, you can take the thing on the go, but the price point is at "console" price points, and since it is designed to dock to a TV, it falls into the "one per household" category. It's not uncommon to have 2 or 3 kids playing games on one switch in a household. That's pretty unusual for a pure handheld like the GBA/DS/Etc.

most kids would want their own device if it was strictly a handheld, and the price points of those things is low to encourage that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,799
Sydney
Could you please elaborate on those 500m consoles? Just curious. Are handhelds counted? Regarding home-consoles the
market share wasn't thaaat bad (80m 360, 80m PS3, 100m Wii = 260m) ...not counting the roughly 50m PS2s that were sold between late 2005 and 2012. What I'm trying to say, if you put PS2 sales in the context of all consoles sold between 2000 and late 2005, the market-share will also look much lower than some might expect:
PS2 100m+ appr. 50m Gamecube + Xbox + some pennies from Dreamcast ~ 70% (out o' my ass). Now put that in context with
the 100m-150m+ (rough estimate) handhelds Nintendo sold in that timeframe and you'll end up around above 30% but below 50%
Yes including handhelds, which are consoles. Of DS/PSP/360/Wii/PS3 PS3 had ~16% marketshare. Of GBA/PS2/GCN/Xbox PS2 had ~55% marketshare (I forgot Dreamcast, but at 9m sold, 1/3 of those at post-discontinuation clearenece prices, it doesn't change too much).

But yes 'generations' are slippery when looking at it like that, as roughly 1/3 of PS2 was sold after the next gen started. Same with PS1, which was actually evenly matched with the N64 for several years in the west but sold another 30-40 million post-Dreamcast/PS2 as a budget kids system, so the end totals look more blown out than they were during the gen proper. It's never clean for comparisons.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,223
Switch is unique. The price is more home console like but the form factor / value proposition is totally new. Pretty hard to fit the Switch in one category.
The Switch is also unique because we can't put it in the context of a separate Nintendo home-console and a separate handheld anymore.
The Switch will most likely end up around 100m-120m units LTD. The 3DS did 70m and the WiiU 15m = 85m
But I'd say it's not the Switch itself doing the work here. If the WiiU wasn't that colossal fuck-up and just a WiiHD maybe doing 30m-50m in a worst-case scenario, we'd be looking at roughly the same market-share for Nintendo.
How much did Wii and DS do in the timeframe between 2005 and let's say 2012? Moren than 250m, right?
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,098
That’s insane.... So the top 3 selling consoles of all time will be PS2 PS4 PS1 with the Switch taking one of those spots later on probably.
Nah, I’m talking about consoles. Maybe the switch doesn’t count as a console but a portable.
Gotta remember to be specific or folks will always bring up handhelds....when its probably inferred that you meant home consoles. lol

And reading the past few pages....seems I made it just in time for the PS3 downplay, the industry is on a decline posts.....

I'll say this, I'm happy the Switch is a success, it seemed to calm some of the concerns some ppl had about console sales declining.
 
Aug 6, 2018
1,842
The Switch is also unique because we can't put it in the context of a separate Nintendo home-console and a separate handheld anymore.
The Switch will most likely end up around 100m-120m units LTD. The 3DS did 70m and the WiiU 15m = 85m
This is...very odd logic.

It does not appear the Switch is going to be able to easily cost reduce itself down to the level the 3DS/2DS did. At all. The switch is a fairly pricey piece of kit in comparison to that thing. "The 3DS did 70m" is a fairly meaningless statement there. As it stands, the Switch is not the kind of platform where you'll typically see 2 or 3 per household. It's simply too costly and the ability to dock the system to a television is a deterrent.

Second- only nintendo die hards bought the WiiU and virtually no one else. You'd have to imagine the crossover between 3DS owners and WiiU owners would be 100%. It's the same audience buying both systems. Stacking the total sales between the two doesn't really work.