Switch vs DS Sales Comparison - February 2026 (Final Update) - Sales
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 April 2026 / 8,198 Views
The VGChartz sales comparison series of articles are updated monthly and each one focuses on a different sales comparison using our estimated video game hardware figures. The charts include comparisons between the PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X|S, and Nintendo Switch, as well as with older platforms. There are articles based on our worldwide estimates, as well as the US, Europe, and Japan.
This monthly series compares the aligned worldwide sales of the Nintendo Switch and the Nintendo DS.
The DS launched in November 2004 in North America, December 2004 in Japan, and March 2005 in Europe, while the Nintendo Switch launched worldwide in March 2017. Therefore, the holiday periods for the two consoles do not lineup, which is why there are big increases and decreases.
Switch Vs. DS Global:
Gap change in latest month: 150,151 - Switch
Gap change over last 12 months: 2,212,008 - Switch
Total Lead: 303,611 - Switch
Switch Total Sales: 154,160,148
DS Total Sales: 153,856,537
February 2026 is the 108th month that the Nintendo Switch has been available for. During the latest month, the gap grew in favor of the Switch by 0.15 million units when compared to the DS during the same timeframe.
In the last 12 months, the Switch has outsold the DS by 2.21 million units. The Switch is ahead of the DS by 0.30 million units.
The 108th month on sale for the Nintendo Switch is February 2026, while for the DS it is October 2013. The Switch has sold 154.16 million units, while the DS sold 153.86 million units during the same timeframe.
This month the Nintendo Switch has outsold the lifetime sales of the Nintendo DS. The Switch’s 154.16 million units sold is above the 154.02 million units the DS sold lifetime.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can follow the author on Bluesky.
More Articles
So long to the best chart comparison ever :')
A moment of great archievement, Nintendo manages with Switch 1 beat the legendary Nintendo DS, both amazing consoles, now the new challengue is to make Switch 2 to also beat Nintendo DS, lets see what the future awaits.
Commenting just so that it can be known tha I was here when it happened. Unbelievable that Nintendo Switch is what would go on to dethrone the DS… again, remembering how doom-and-gloom everybody was about the system initially, this is truly the biggest underdog success story this industry has ever seen.
Congrats Nintendo!
That’s a great idea. I was also here.
Not sure what to say as the Switch has cleared this particular mountain,
but curious about what comes next.
The End of an Era. 🫡
April 2023, month 74. The DS's December 2010 boost in sales led it to have, for the first time, a lead of more than 15 million units against the Switch. Trunks even had to change the scale of the Monthly Gap chart because of that. With rumors of the Switch 2 lurking everywhere, with a possible release in 2024, A LOT of people thought the Switch would never catch up with the DS again or even pass its 154 million units. Not me. I always thought the Switch had a chance, and it's so good to see that, after all these months and years, the Switch finally beat the DS
This is it, the moment we all be waiting for, now lets see how far the Switch can go.
I honestly can't believe this actually happened. It's such an achievment. Here's hoping to more
" The Switch needs to sell around another six million units to outsell the PS2 "
Well if it could sell 4mil this past FY, I see no reason it couldn’t close a gap of 6mil LTD. But in any case, it’ll be razor thin once the dust has settled—and this is all without a major price cut and entirely built upon the back of major first-party software (and not third-party, unlike PS2).
If we go about the reasons, the pros and cons of each one, the discussion will never end .. All of the reasons are just excuses. No matter why and how .. Switch also has advantages over it's life that helped it's sales. The final result is important. But price cut already happened - Switch Lite. Is it Switch that can play every game ? Yes. Is it cheaper ? Yes. Then the effect of sales that would be done with a price cut, has been done with the Lite.
Other than that, if it has FY of 4M why it won't do another 6M ? Because it's on it's dead bed. And when you are so late in life, each following year you sell less and less. When you have shipped 4M and have such a big drop (11M the year prior) and you successor has released, you don't have 6M more in the tank .. Unless you are PS2 of course, but that is the only exception. Normally when you have had year of 4M and your next console have released, you ship like 1M or 2M at the very best, the following year. Then sell half of that and by the time you do year of around a million or less, you get discontinued. That's how the things works.
Things are so unpredictable nowadays that anything can happen. What if, for whatever reason, Nintendo raises the Switch 2's price and keep the Switch 1's untouched? Maybe Nintendo raises the Switch 2's trusting people will be willing to buy it even if it is more expensive due to a killer 2026~2027 line-up, but thinks it's important to have a cheap option just in case, with the Switch 1. This is an option rather specific but, as I said, things are a little wild these days. The opposite can happen and Nintendo may just kill the Switch 1 and focus entirely on the Switch 2
That's right. But leaving the Switch 1 to sell for a few years doesn't guarantee a thing. It can still sell low enough, to not reach 160M even until 2030.
still got better odds than PS5 lol
For 160M, yes, of course. It's a lot closer after all.
With the recent price increase, things got even more difficult for the PS5 =P
Exactly what I was saying. Can’t even imagine how challenging it’ll be for PS6. NS2 is looking to be in a fantastic position now that all other platforms require a mortgage to buy. Maybe NS2 will be the first to hit 170mil.
The Switch Lite is NOT a price cut in the same way that the Switch OLED is not a price increase. It's simply another model akin to Apple selling four different models of the iPhone 17 (and previous models) and Samsung having three different versions of the Galaxy S26. "Is it Switch that can play every game?" Not out of the box, it can't. Some games require extra accessories to work. "Then the effect of sales that would be done with a price cut, has been done with the Lite." Not really. The Switch Lite has only shipped 26.27 million units in 6 years and three months. The OLED Switch has been out for two fewer years and costs $150 ($170 extra after last year's price increase) more than the Switch Lite, yet it's already shipped 5.41 million more units, while the original model has outshipped the Switch Lite by over 31 million units--a ratio of ~2.2:1--since the Lite's release. It seems logical that if the more expensive models sold that much at full price during the Lite's existence, they would've sold even more had they received a true price cut, no?
Even if I conceded that the Switch Lite is a price cut, Nintendo still shipped 129.1 million original and OLED models combined as of December 31st, 2025. Sony didn't ship anywhere near that many PS2s at the launch price or higher.
On the price cut question, I will tell it like this so you understand. The lite is cheaper model. The sales that would come with a price cut of the Switch came with the sales of the Lite. If for some of the people that bought the Lite the price didn't matter, then they would just've bought OG or OLED. Therefore when you include the price cut factor into the comparison with PS2 you include it for sales effect, not whether is called price cut or not, the Lite had the same effect on sales. (although comparing both consoles by different factors is unfair, since there are just too many of them, both had advantages over one another and both have disadvantages over the other too, and also different times that they have been selling, and even different audiences if you want).
So call it whatever you want, the effect of the sales is the same as it would've been with a price cut of the original model, it is still a cheaper Switch. Just like you could've bought a cheaper PS2. The folks that wait to jump on the PS2 wagon or the Switch wagon for cheaper, buy it when there is cheaper model or price cut, cuz they don't want to buy the expensive one. They don't care how the console have come down in price, they just care about the lower price. Therefore to tell that Switch didn't had price cut when you talk about sales is wrong, because the effect and the result for the sales is the same. If there was official price cut instead of a Lite model, the result in sales would've been the same.
Sony didn't ship anywhere close to that, because they haven't go on the way to sell PS2 for 9 years at a launch price. We don't know how much they would've sold if they did. You can only speculate. Therefore this is also pointless.
And even if this whole comparison with all the different factors for the both consoles was relevant, (which is not I already explained why) at the end of the day the final result is what it matters, not how you reached it. So no matter how many ifs and buts there is, If Switch does not pass the PS2 by sales, it's below it when you talk about sales.
If the Switch OLED isn't a price increase, then the Switch Lite isn't a price cut, plain and simple. Otherwise, Nintendo did a price cut, maintained the launch price and increased the Switch's price simultaneously, which doesn't make sense. The three Switch models are just different options coexisting within the same family of systems. We can apply this to other products as well, like the smartphone example I gave before. What's your stance on the PS5 Digital Edition, by the way? It plays the same games as the disc drive version and it's cheaper. Is that a price cut? It meets your criteria for one. 🤔 How about the Xbox Series S?
"Therefore to tell that Switch didn't had price cut when you talk about sales is wrong, because the effect and the result for the sales is the same."
False. The sales result isn't the same because when the PS2 decreased in price, the new lower price became standard, so 100% of the sales from that point on came at a discounted rate and you weren't really sacrificing anything of note by buying it for less. That's not the case with the Switch Lite since it coexists with the more expensive Switches and lacks key features of the other models. As I've already explained to you, the original and OLED Switches together outsold the Switch Lite by a ratio of approximately 3.4:1 (roughly 89 million to 26 million) since the Switch Lite's release. The demand for the Switch Lite is fairly low even though it's less expensive. The Switch Lite userbase breaks down to an adoption rate of less than 23% for every Switch owner beginning since late September 2019--mind you the OLED model didn't exist for the first two of those years--to present. The vast majority of people are paying a premium for a reason; They want to get the features that the Switch Lite lacks. If the demand for the dockable Switches is that high, it seems extremely likely they would sell even better if they both were, say $50-$150 cheaper. "...the Lite had the same effect on sales." The sales figures of each model say otherwise, though. By the way, the PS2 had multiple price cuts throughout its lifespan. All Switch models not only stayed the same price for years, but they actually INCREASED in price after several years on the market. That's yet another difference between them.
"We don't know how much they would've sold if they did. You can only speculate. Therefore this is also pointless." I think you misunderstood my point. I'm saying that the Switch install base is still over 129 million (and counting) WITHOUT counting the Switch Lite's sales. That's enough units sold to place third all time in lifetime console sales, no price cut/cheaper model included, while including the discounted DS and PS2 systems. Let that sink in. That's not speculation, only facts.
"Sony didn't ship anywhere close to that, because they haven't go on the way to sell PS2 for 9 years at a launch price."
I think that was firebush's point. What the Switch is currently doing is unprecedented. We've never seen a console sell this well at its original launch price or higher (OLED model plus recent price increases). Anyway, feel free to bring up the Switch Lite as a rebuttal to the lack of a price cut argument, but just know, it's a flawed comparison as these "price cut" situations aren't equivalent at all.
Bring it how many times you want. That does not change the fact. Call it whatever you want, but a cheaper price is still there. The people who would've waited for price cut would also buy that cheaper model. That's it. And again, it's irrelevant to compare both systems from 20 years time difference on the market in such a way. Firstly there is too many different factors, and secondly you can't know if the PS2 was in the same situation in the Switch's how it would've went, and vice versa. Therefore everything is only speculations. Yes Switch's achieved a lot, but that doesn't mean that PS2 didn't. And there is no matter how you call it, you still got cheaper Switch console, therefore the debate itself is irrelevant, and the point "switch didn't had price cuts" is also irrelevant and it's only correct technically. Another thing that is like price cut is also the inflation. 299$ were more money in 2017 than they were in 2021 or 2025, therefore you have another effect that is representing the price cut here. Doubt it how many times you want, but the comparisons about the prices and about the price cuts, is irrelevant and wrong (as is the whole comparison thing between the two, I already explained). Not that even the final sales numbers is a factor to call the given system greater, I also don't agree on that, but for what is worth, the final thing that everyone looks and compares around is the sales. Therefore until Switch reaches and passes 160M, it's at number 2, no matter how many games, how many models, how many price cuts, how many colors, or how many years, the number to beat is still 160M, and you can't change that with ifs and buts.
Nobody here is disputing that the PS2 is currently first place with 160 million in lifetime console sales. I never claimed one console is greater than the other or that the PS2 didn't achieve a lot. Why are you attempting to refute points I never made? Once again, I'm saying that the Switch Lite isn't a price cut, no matter how many times you incorrectly call it that. We all know what a price cut is and the Switch Lite is not it. The Switch Lite is akin to a Nintendo 2DS, which is just a less expensive option within a family of systems. It's important to distinguish from these two situations as they are different and a cheaper model with less features/capabilities and a price cut (of any or all models) can exist simultaneously, e.g. the Nintendo 2DS and 3DS. By the way, you never explained how the Switch OLED is not a price hike or answered my question about whether or not you consider the PS5 Digital Edition to be a price cut. Let's see if your logic is consistent.
"Another thing that is like price cut is also the inflation." Inflation didn't begin in March 2017. It existed long before even the PS2, so it affected BOTH consoles. One could make the argument that Sony benefitted from multiple price cuts and inflation. Besides, you left out the fact that the price of all Switch models increased in 2025, too.
"The people who would've waited for price cut would also buy that cheaper model." Wrong. The major flaw in your argument is that you're not accounting for all the people who would prefer a Switch you can dock for a lower price. As I've already explained to you twice before, that would apply to the vast majority of people. As it stands now, 77 out of every 100 Switch units sold were the original or OLED models since the Switch Lite's existence (again, the OLED Switch didn't exist for the first two of these years), compared to only 23 out of every 100 units sold being the Lite model. Meanwhile, 100 out of 100 PS2s sold after Sony first cut the price came at a discount. Do you see the difference?
"Other than that, if it has FY of 4M why it won't do another 6M ? Because it's on it's dead bed. And when you are so late in life, each following year you sell less and less. When you have shipped 4M and have such a big drop (11M the year prior) and you successor has released, you don't have 6M more in the tank .. Unless you are PS2 of course, but that is the only exception."
Is this you? This sounds like speculation to me. Let me get this straight. You object to our comments about PS2's sales milestone being assisted by price cuts on grounds of speculation, but it's okay for you to speculate on the Switch's future sales. Seems fair to me (sarcasm). Even you admitted in this thread that the Switch Lite could've sold more if it had a price cut. If you believe that, then certainly the original and OLED models could've sold more at a lower price as well, right? And like I said earlier, Nintendo still shipped over 129 million (and counting) Switches at the original launch price or higher. Sony on the other hand, first cut the price of the PS2 by $100 in May 2002 when the install base was barely at 30 million. Do the math. That means Sony did the opposite of what Nintendo accomplished with the Switch. Sony shipped 130 million units at a discount ($100 - $200 off the launch price). You can argue why Sony didn't leave it on the market at full price for 9+ years, but that's irrelevant. The fact remains, Sony cut the price and a few times at that, while Nintendo didn't. No ifs and buts are changing that. You also said that Switch Lite had the same effect as a price cut. That couldn't be further from the truth as I've already detailed three times now.
"Doubt it how many times you want, but the comparisons about the prices and about the price cuts, is irrelevant and wrong" That's what I'm telling you, but you brought up the Switch Lite as a rebuttal to firebush's comment when the two situations are way different. For that reason, it's not a good counterpoint to someone mentioning the Switch's lack of a price cut. If you had replied with a different argument to that point, I most likely wouldn't have chimed in. I strongly disagree that the Switch Lite is a price cut and/or the effect is the same as one, so that's what I'm focusing on in this debate.
Answer to your first paragraph: I did those points, because it's pointless to compare both in the first place and bring the point that Switch doesn't have price cut. It's this sentence of Firebush - " and this is all without a major price cut and entirely built upon the back of major first-party software (and not third-party, unlike PS2). " Because of this sentence I bring all of those points, it's irrelevant in such discussion, because whatever the one or other did, you can't take the success out of PS2 with saying advantages or disadvantages or different situations for the one or the other. I agree that technically Switch Lite is not price cut, however firebush bring it up in a discussion about sales. And when it comes to sales, releasing a cheaper model or doing price cut, both things have the same impact on sales - they increase the sales, because you have the system on a lower price (despite being some cuts made). Switch OLED and PS5 Digital are not price increases or price cuts respectively. However I didn't say the Lite is technically a price cut too, my points was the impact on sales of a model with cheaper price which wasn't available until that point. It's impact not only for the moment at the launch but it's impact through out all of the lifetime of the console. Switch OLED can't be price increase, because you don't get sales at a higher price point that otherwise you would've not get while at the lower price you do such because there are people that don't have much money and they can't affrord console for 299$ or 350$, but can afford one at 199$ such as the lite. However everyone who could afford 350$ can choose and buy either the 299$ one or 350$. And over time, the sales can be a lot more because you cover more people with a cheaper price, than the scenario where you just launch more expensive model. You are giving percentage here and the sales of each one, however this is irrelevant to the original point I am making. I don't say that Switch is not selling at 299$ or 350$. And I am not saying, that those sales are not good, or that if there wasn't Lite at 199$ the Switch would not sell well. It would sell well of course. However the fact that they launched the Lite, gave another boost of sales to the Switch, cuz the people who are poor and can't afford 300$ or 350$ console bought the 199$ Lite, where if this wasn't a thing, they could go in other direction, and buy other machine to play on, such as older console, old PC/laptop, or other. That is why having more expensive models is irrelevant to the point I originally made. Lower price point helps sales. PS5 Digital is not price cut by it self, however it is a model at a cheaper price point, and that for sure helped the total sales of the system, because if there wasn't a model at 399$ at launch, some of the people may have gone to other machine to play or not buy one all together. So when you give the people cheaper option you got more people on board.
Answer to your second paragraph: You are right there, however you didn't understand the point correctly. PS2 did had inflation, however PS2 did had price cuts. And the main debate here is about whether Switch had price cuts or not (technically it didn't, but my point is, that there are two things that replaces the technical price cuts and the second things is the inflation). So just as the inflation was a thing with the PS2 too, it was a thing with the Switch. And that for sure is a thing that is doing an effect of price cut (for PS2 as well), since you give less money in let's say 2021 than you have given at the launch. I haven't said it didn't affected both, I explain to you why " Switch didn't had price cut" in context to the sales discussion is irrelevant. And yes, you are right, Sony benefited from multiple price cuts and inflation. And what ? About the 2025 price increase of the Switch, I left it out, because it's at the very end of it's lifecycle and it's not relevant for the point I am making, cuz the Switch has sold a very small percentage of it's total sales after it's price increase. So that is irrelevant to the main point and discussion here.
Answer to your third paragraph: I am not wrong. People who don't have many can't prefer because they don't have the money to choose more expensive options. Therefore they settle with the cheaper one. If someone wants docked console but can't afford more than 199$ they go out and buy what they can for 199$, like PS4 or XB1, or even something older. They are not going to take a loan just so that they can take the OLED or normal model. (Well there may be some but those are not the majority of people for sure). You buy what you can afford, not what you want, cuz many times when you don't have money you don't have other option. Those 77 out of 100 or whatever the percentage is, are the people that can afford and have money. Those sales of the Lite, the majority of them is those that are poor and can't afford expensive console or are just fine with the Lite and don't want to spend more or the other ones. I don't know why do you bring up the point that the Lite was released 2 and a half years later. No matter when it was released there would always be sales for all of the models, I haven't said that without the Lite, Switch wouldn't sell or it wouldn't had a good sales. No matter if it launched in 2018, 2020, 2022, the normal and the OLED would still sold a lot, and would still have good sales numbers. However majority of those Lite sales wouldn't be there, and the lifetime totals would be lower, because again you get more sales, when you have a product at lower price point, than the case where you don't have a product at 200$, and have just 300$ and 350$ models. Mentioning the 100 out of 100 sales of the PS2 after the price cuts, leads to show that again you are debating on " what is called a price cut " here than on the real debate that is " Cheaper model is having the same effect on sales such as price cut or in short when it comes to sales, the cheaper model is almost the same thing as price cut" hence why I made the point in first place. Do you see the difference now ?
Answer to your forth and fifth paragraphs: I don't object on your comments, about the PS2 and it's price cuts, I even agree, PS2 did sold what it sold and big role has come down to the price and it's price cuts, that is 100% true. However everything in life has a reason, and commenting why it sold what it sold is irrelevant, when you compare it with the Switch, because as I said, every system has it's advantages and its disadvantages, and this is pointless to compare them and downplay the one or the other cuz, at the end of the day the milestone is there, and no one can change that. All that matter is if someone will reach it or not. 160M are 160M with 100 price cuts or with no price cuts. With games or no games, with 15 years lifecycle or 2 years lifecycle, with selling only in Japan or with selling all over the world. Facts are facts no matter why. So you or anyone else do nothing by explaining " oooh the Switch reached XX number without price cuts, and the other console reached it because it had a price cut " or something of this sort. The reasons are not only 1 or 2, and even if they were, it's pointless cuz all that matter in the end is the final result, not how you got to it. About the speculation thing. Yes it's fine to speculate cuz this is sales site and everyone here speculates when talking for the future, Cuz no one can't see the future. And my speculation is based on my experience. Call it prediction if you want. Everyone is doing it. And what ? What is the problem to speculate ? I am saying why I don't think Switch will reach 160M. Of course nothing is impossible and in the end it might as well do it, however my opinion at this moment is that it won't. So what about it ? Why shouldn't be fair to do a predictions, and object something that is clearly pointless ? I don't even see a connection between the two. Yes I admitted that if the Lite got a price cut it would increase it's sales. And not only the Lite will, every model and every console will increase it's sales if it gets a price cut. That is something normal in the market. That is how things work. And yes OLED model also would sell more at a lower price point. Having Sony did price cuts doesn't mean that without them PS2 wouldn't sell well. It means simply that without so many price cut's the PS2 would sell less units. I never denied that. That is normal thing, and I already said this in on of the previous paragraphs of this post. What you want to tell here ? That PS2 wouldn't reach 160M without the price cuts ? Yes I agree on that, but that does not change anything. The final result is 160M and if Switch doesn't reach it, it is below PS2. About the Lite having the same effect I already explained above. It is the truth, not far from it.
Answer to your sixth paragraph: I said it in the original reply to him that it's all irrelevant. However I am also tired of seeing this brought up so many times in the " PS2 vs Switch " debates that I wanted to address it.
"However I didn't say the Lite is technically a price cut too" Didn't you? "But price cut already happened - Switch Lite." It seemed like you were saying that here, but I'll admit that I may have misinterpreted what you meant. Either way, now I realize that you're not saying it right now, so we can move on from that point.
"And yes, you are right, Sony benefited from multiple price cuts and inflation. And what ?" It's pointless to bring up inflation when one, both platforms are positively affected by it, and two, we weren't initially talking about something that "represents" or acts as a substitute for a price cut. We were talking about an official price cut and the resulting sales boost from it. That's what. We both agree that the Switch Lite doesn't meet the definition of a price cut. However, I disagree that it had the same effect as one. Although the Switch Lite is less expensive, I think most people understand that it's an inferior product, so that's a big reason why it makes up only 17% of the total Switch sales and under 23% of all units sold since its inception. It's not worth the $100 off considering all the drawbacks. By the way, this is the reason I talk about the percentages. I think you mistake my points for being irrelevant when you just don't understand them. They help back up my argument about the relatively low demand of the Switch Lite in comparison to the high demand of the other two models. Also, I understand why you omitted the prices increases, but I think it's worth mentioning because it's another obstacle the Switch has to overcome to reach the top spot. In addition, the effect of inflation is offset (not entirely, of course) by the price increases.
"Mentioning the 100 out of 100 sales of the PS2 after the price cuts, leads to show that again you are debating on " what is called a price cut " here than on the real debate that is" No, only the first paragraph of each of my replies was about defining a price cut. After that, I was discussing your point about the sales effect. When Sony first cut the price of the PS2, you didn't have the option to pay the launch price anymore (not that you'd want to). Every unit sold came at the new lowered price (until the next price cut) from that point on. That's when we see the true effect of a price cut. Obviously that's not what's happening with the Switch Lite, as I've already explained. Also, let's back up a bit. You said that I'm debating about the definition of a price cut, rather than the main point, which is the effect of a price cut. Why did you bring up inflation then? Remember, you said that $300 was more money in 2017 than it was in 2021 and beyond, which I agree with. But try to stay with me here. That means you ARE arguing the definition of a price cut. Unless you're claiming that inflation has the same impact on sales as a price cut or cheaper model, then I repeat, it was pointless talking about it in the first place. '
"Call it prediction if you want. Everyone is doing it. And what ? What is the problem to speculate ? I am saying why I don't think Switch will reach 160M. Of course nothing is impossible and in the end it might as well do it, however my opinion at this moment is that it won't. So what about it ? Why shouldn't be fair to do a predictions, and object something that is clearly pointless ?" You misunderstood my point again. For the record, I don't have an issue with you speculating. I'm calling out the hypocrisy. You throw out some of my points because you say I'm just speculating, but you speculated in this thread yourself. That's the connection here.
"If there was official price cut instead of a Lite model, the result in sales would've been the same." This was from earlier, but I really disagree with this statement. We can tell that your claim is inaccurate based on the sales data. For example, the Switch Lite, even with a two year head start on the Switch OLED, and costing nearly half the price, got outsold by 5.41 million units. The original and OLED models put together outsold the Switch Lite by a huge margin--approximately 89.1 million to 26.27 million units--since the Lite's debut. The Switch Lite has nowhere near the same demand as either of the other two models and an official price cut would've had a significantly higher sales ceiling. I agree with you that the Switch Lite helped boost sales. It just wasn't to the same degree as Sony cutting the PS2's price multiple times as Nintendo didn't get sustained momentum and additional sales boosts from doing price cut after price cut like Sony did. Sony cut the PS2's price a total of four times. Meanwhile, Nintendo only offered a cheaper (and inferior) model, which not only never decreased in price, but it actually got more expensive in 2025. And you think that's the same as Sony's situation with the PS2? I'm not buying that at all.
"I don't know why do you bring up the point that the Lite was released 2 and a half years later." Huh? I never said this. What are you talking about?
"no matter how many games, how many models, how many price cuts, how many colors, or how many years" + "With games or no games, with 15 years lifecycle or 2 years lifecycle, with selling only in Japan or with selling all over the world."
What's the reason for these lists? I never made any of these points except for one. Most of these arguments aren't applicable here anyway as both platforms sold worldwide, had lots of games, had longer than a two year life cycle and less than 15 years on the market. This debate was solely about a price cut, or lack thereof for Nintendo Switch. Also, I already agreed earlier that the number to beat is 160 million. There's no need to keep reiterating it.
"You buy what you can afford, not what you want, cuz many times when you don't have money you don't have other option." Not necessarily. I think you're generalizing too much. A lot of people live beyond their means and are in debt. Having said that, yes, I agree people do that when it comes to very expensive items, like a car or a house. For example, people don't typically try to buy a Bugatti when all they can afford is a Nissan Sentra. I don't really think that's the case for a $300 gaming console, though. That's usually why people save money over time when they can't afford something they want right away. I doubt ANYONE is taking out a loan for a difference of only $100-$150. That's not really worth the trouble. You might as well just save up a while longer at that point.
"Having Sony did price cuts doesn't mean that without them PS2 wouldn't sell well." You're leaping to conclusions again. I never said the PS2 wouldn't have sold well without price cuts. I believe it still would have. Most likely not as well, though, which we both agree on. If you're going to respond again, reply to what's actually being said, please. Otherwise, this debate will go on forever.
"So you or anyone else do nothing by explaining " oooh the Switch reached XX number without price cuts, and the other console reached it because it had a price cut " or something of this sort." + "because whatever the one or other did, you can't take the success out of PS2" + "downplay the one or the other" You keep arguing like we're saying that the PS2's lifetime sales deserves an asterisk with these comments. Let me be clear, what Sony did with the PS2 is extremely impressive. I'll give credit where credit is due. I believe every unit sold counts, regardless of whether or not it was sold below the original launch price. It earned the top spot. Much respect. I think the reason people are seemingly praising the Switch's accomplishment more is because it's unprecedented to sell this many units at the launch price or higher. Sony's accomplishment is unprecedented, too, to be fair, but it already received its praise for a decade or longer. Also, because the Switch is so close to matching or possibly even surpassing the PS2 without cutting the price, it makes it more noteworthy to reach such a huge milestone. We're witnessing history again. That's not hard to understand. Even if it fell a little bit short of achieving the record, I would still be more impressed with the Switch, though, but that's just my opinion.
Let's recap. firebush said this: "it’ll be razor thin once the dust has settled—and this is all without a major price cut" To which you replied with: "But price cut already happened - Switch Lite." Then I chimed in. At the end of my first reply, I said this: "Even if I conceded that the Switch Lite is a price cut, Nintendo still shipped 129.1 million original and OLED models combined as of December 31st, 2025." I also added this on my third reply: "Sony on the other hand, first cut the price of the PS2 by $100 in May 2002 when the install base was barely at 30 million. Do the math. That means Sony did the opposite of what Nintendo accomplished with the Switch. Sony shipped 130 million units at a discount ($100 - $200 off the launch price)." In other words, the PS2 install base went from 30 million to 160 million after the initial price cut, whereas the Switch install base is still over 129 million and counting WITHOUT including any Switch Lite units sold. As I said before, that's enough units sold to be third place all-time. Let that sink in. Only the DS and PS2 would be higher and I'm not excluding any consoles sold in either of their lifetime totals. This really puts things into perspective on how they are not the same. How is this even a debate? Anyway, you keep alluding to there being advantages that the Switch has over the PS2 (I believe I know what they are) in regards to how it accumulated its sales. I suggest arguing--not necessarily with me--those points instead whenever the argument that the Switch never had a price cut is brought up because saying that Nintendo releasing a cheaper, but inferior Switch had the same effect as four PS2 price cuts is a foolish take. I think it's a false equivalence. I'll conclude by saying that the facts I laid out debunk your narrative. I know you disagree with me. Fine. Neither one of us seems to be giving in and we're just going in circles. You may be tired of hearing it, but unless Nintendo officially decreases the price of the Switch, the argument about no price cuts is not going anywhere.
First paragraph: I was talking about the effect of the sales, not if that is technically called price cut or not, since as I already stated this is price cut for me. Not technically, but it's the same thing because the effect is the same on sales.
Second paragraph: It's not pointless to bring the inflation up, because we never argued about PS2 price cuts, they are there. We argued about the Switch ones, and most specifically about things that had the same effect as a price cut, since the main topic on which all comments were made is sales. So it's pointless to mention PS2 there because PS2 had many price cuts, so having 1 more in the form of inflation is irrelevant to that specific debate, cuz it's about Switch price cuts, not PS2's. Also again you bring those percent up .. No matter what they are this does not change the fact that sales of the cheaper model are there because it's cheaper. The percentages simply tells you how many people have the money and how many not. Despite some of them might go the extra mile and buy the expensive one there is still people who can't afford or don't want to afford the more expensive one, therefore they bought the cheaper one, which otherwise they might have not, cuz price is one of the biggest factor on the market, if you don't know this. The ratio you give simply means that most of the people could afford the better expensive model or had gone the extra mile to buy it. The small portion who bought the Lite are those that can't afford the more expensive option. Simple as that. Therefore Lite truly boosted the Switch sales, and without it you wouldn't have those 17% or whatever percentage is for the Lite. I also never said debated whta the demand is about any model, but that simply cheaper prices help sales that it's and you can't go around that. Switch's lifetime totals without Lite model would have been at least 20M less if not more. Without the cheaper price most of those sales wouldn't be a thing. Facts.
Third: Releasing the Lite you also see the true effect of the price cut, I already explained why. The people who have money would simply get the better model. The people who don't have money however, who are poor, or simply doesn't want to give much money on a gaming system go for the cheaper Lite option. Simple as that. I am not saying they are the biggest portion of the people (since you will again come up with those percentages) I am simply saying that people who don't have cheaper option, with which they are okay with, would otherwise go for other system such as the older PS4 or Xbox consoles, maybe PC, maybe something else. That is how market works. Again the price is one of the biggest factors. For example if Sony now releases PS5 Lite at 400$ sales will boost right away, by a lot. Guaranteed. About the inflation, Yes I am claiming the inflation has some of the effect as a price cut. Not the same, but some percentage of it for sure.
Forth : You talked about I object your PS2 points that it sold that because of the price cuts, and I didn't. I don't have problem with you speculating the sales of PS2 in relation to it's price cuts. In fact I did too in my previous post. So what is the point here ? I don't get it.
Fifth: Why there has to be bigger demand for the Lite than the other higher priced ones? The fact that the Lite led to more sales, does not mean that the Lite has to be more sold model. It simply means that the big portion of the people who bought switch had the money to buy the better models. And smaller portion of them were either poor, and couldn't afford the better one at the time, or were some casual gamers that didn't want to give more than 200$ for a game system. Simple as that. And why directly comparing it to the PS2 multiple price cuts? I never said that it could compare to couple of price cuts. My point was that the cheaper model certainly boosted sales of the Switch, therefore it's irrelevant to say " Switch didn't had price cuts" cuz with that you are implying that Switch didn't had sales boost effect like seen in a price cut, where it actually had. Of course that PS2 with couple of price cuts had more boost over time than the Switch's one. Again why even including PS2 here ? And again 2025 is irrelevant. The sales without the price increase would have been so much little better that it's irrelevant. the increase itself was laughable. And why you assume things that I have never said ? Where have I said I think it's the same situation with the PS2 ? PS2 had couple of price cuts, of course it's not the same.
Sixth and Seventh : You said it in previous post when you talked about sales of the Lite and the other ones. The reason for these lists is that people and you included compare many (or some) of the point I listed between both, and as I said earlier all of the comparisons between the two systems is irrelevant. And I just gave examples not true numbers ..
Eight: I don't agree and this is simply your take. Middle to rich people buy cars and houses, Poor people buy cheaper tech and travel by bus. Such as PS3 used, such as Switch Lite for 200$, such as gaming PC from 5 years ago on which they can play old games and they are happy with that. Such as only games on sale for 5$ or 10$. and so on and so on. You are also generalizing. I am not. I've study marketing and sales, on top of that I've worked in a video games store for a few years, and I've done my homework and enough of a research. Of course that is my take, and I don't want you to take it, but I am not generalizing. I am talking from experience and knowledge.
Nine: I am doing just that. That quote you answered on was answer to you, where you mentioned the price cut's so much that it's like it wouldn't sell without them and on that " Sony on the other hand, first cut the price of the PS2 by $100 in May 2002 when the install base was barely at 30 million. Do the math. "
Tenth: "You keep arguing like we're saying that the PS2's lifetime sales deserves an asterisk with these comments" I keep saying it because you (and many others) when the discussion arise for PS2 and Switch, does not stop repeating how many price cut's it did had. Then you can exclude all other systems prior to last gen, cuz all of them had many price cuts, that was the norm back then.
" Also, because the Switch is so close to matching or possibly even surpassing the PS2 without cutting the price, it makes it more noteworthy to reach such a huge milestone. We're witnessing history again. That's not hard to understand. "
Cutting the price one (Switch Lite) and a lot more advantages through out it's life. Again this comparison is irrelevant, I don't know why comparing it again. Price is just one of the many factors, that can be compared and all of them is irrelevant to compare, since they are different type of systems, at different times with different competitors on different markets aimed at different ages if you want.
Eleventh: "but inferior Switch had the same effect as four PS2 price cuts is a foolish take " Where did I said that ? Point it to me please.
" I'll conclude by saying that the facts I laid out debunk your narrative " My point is still valid and it's simply that the Lite cheaper model helped Switch sales, and it's effect on sales is the same or almost the same as a price cut would've had on them. So saying that Switch hadn't price cuts (when you talk about sales) is wrong. The previous point you made with the math, is correct however the comparison is irrelevant again. We can't know if PS2 was at it's original price and had released only one cheaper model ( as the Switch did) what units it would sold. Therefore it's irrelevant to even mention. If you wanted to show that the sales of Switch are achievement with that point, you really didn't need that point for that. No one is denying Switch's sales achievements. And one more thing, the next time someone again mentions the Switch didn't had price cuts, I will interfere again and I will debate again, with the same points I just did here. Because I don't agree with that, and that is my stance.
"It's not pointless to bring the inflation up, because we never argued about PS2 price cuts, they are there. We argued about the Switch ones" Nah, it's common knowledge that the Switch doesn't have ANY price cuts. Also, this is revisionist history. From the first reply of this thread, firebush said that the Switch never had a major price cut, unlike the PS2. You stretched the meaning of his comment by arguing that inflation is "representing" a price cut when that's not what he was originally talking about. If you told your inflation story to anyone waiting on a price cut for an original or OLED model prior to the Switch 2 announcement, I doubt anyone would've been convinced. Either way, your point is irrelevant as Nintendo has no control over inflation and they still never officially cut the price of the Switch. Simple as that.
"Yes I am claiming the inflation has some of the effect as a price cut. Not the same, but some percentage of it for sure." Yeah, a minuscule percentage, if that. Any sales coming as a result of inflation are so insignificant that it's irrelevant. To suggest anything more than a very small number of people are going out to buy a console because of inflation is ridiculous. Most people aren't conscious of just how much their money is depreciating. You have to look it up on an inflation calculator to realize the buying power you had several years ago. You're reaching.
"therefore they bought the cheaper one, which otherwise they might have not, cuz price is one of the biggest factor on the market, if you don't know this." Obviously. That's kind of the whole point of the debate and is also what gave Sony a huge advantage in achieving their lifetime sales. I'll reiterate, so you don't misunderstand me. Sony earned the top spot, but the amount of PS2 sales Sony accumulated from four price cuts compared to the total number of Switch Lite units sold favors Sony by a whopping 104 million units. There's no comparison. You're making my point for me.
"Switch's lifetime totals without Lite model would have been at least 20M less if not more." Yeah, I only told you that several times by now. Anyway, you don't want to play that game as what I'm about to say is very unfavorable for the PS2. The Switch Lite only accounts for 26.27 million units sold in 6 years and three months. That breaks down to an average of just 4.2 million units sold per year. Do you know how many PS2 consoles were sold after the initial price cut? A total of 130 million units were sold after Sony cut the PS2's price by $100 in May 2002. It sold 20 - 24 million units after the final price cut to $100 in April 2009. The final price cut occurred when the PS2 was almost the exact same age then as the Switch is now. Think about it. The last PS2 sales boost alone almost totaled what the Switch Lite did lifetime. What a massive difference. Before you jump to conclusions, no, I am not saying that the PS2 would've stopped selling at $300, but it would've sold significantly less units overall -- perhaps between PS3 and PS4 lifetime numbers -- which you already agreed with.
"Therefore Lite truly boosted the Switch sales" + "but that simply cheaper prices help sales that it's and you can't go around that." All of this is obvious. Also, I'm not trying to "go around" anything. Again, I already agreed that the Switch Lite boosted sales. I said it just wasn't to the same level as the PS2's multiple price cuts. The Switch still achieved the vast majority of its sales (~83.1%) without a price cut or cheaper model. The PS2 didn't. Only ~18.75% of all PS2s sold were at launch price, while ~81.25% were sold below launch price. Facts. Therefore, the point about the Switch not having a price cut is valid. You can't get around that.
"The sales without the price increase would have been so much little better that it's irrelevant. the increase itself was laughable." That's funny coming from you after all the points you made about what poor people can afford. Speaking of which, gaming is a luxury and it's an expensive hobby, for the most part. Poor people may be able to afford a Switch Lite, but what about everything else? Gaming is a big investment. For example, Nintendo's games stay full price aside from the occasional temporary sale, every console manufacturer charges for online play and accessories -- especially controllers -- are expensive. These things may price them out of the market anyway, or at least, more than paying the $100 difference for the original Switch model would. Even if they don't, you could make the argument that a Switch Lite is a bad investment for a poor family anyway as you can't share it via local multiplayer on a TV and it's not compatible with every Switch game out of the box -- contrary to your earlier comment -- like the other models. Also, sure, competition exists, like you said, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people would choose another platform to play video games on since Nintendo still has a very compelling first party lineup of games exclusively for the Switch.
"Why there has to be bigger demand for the Lite than the other higher priced ones?" If it was the other way around, then your claims would have some validity. You said, "They don't care how the console have come down in price, they just care about the lower price." If what you're saying is true, then it should be reflected in the sales charts. However, the Switch Lite's demand isn't just lower, it's way lower. This suggests that the vast majority of people don't want the Switch Lite. As I already told you, people aren't paying a premium for no reason. They want the features that the Switch Lite lacks. For example, if the Switch Lite was available on launch day, I still would've chose the original model or even the OLED model, if it existed in 2017 as well. Many other people would've done the same, too. And I'm not wealthy by any means, nor am I going the extra mile, nor do I think price doesn't matter. It's simply a much better value for the perks you're getting. By the way, price cuts aren't just enticing to poor people. There are many people who can afford the Switch at full price, but they may think it's overpriced/not worth it, especially so many years post launch. If it was cheaper, though, say half the price, they may finally decide to buy one. That part of the market isn't being captured with the Switch Lite. That's just one reason why I don't believe the effect is the same. Even people with enough money to buy more expensive consoles still want to save money when they can. Who doesn't, aside from very wealthy people? They know the Switch Lite isn't worth the $100 "savings" considering all the drawbacks, though. The Switch Lite is cheaper for all the wrong reasons; It's an inferior product. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Consider this, in order to play some of those aforementioned incompatible games, you need an $80 pair of joy-con and a charging grip/charging station for the joy-con, which can range anywhere from $15 - $30. By then, you'll have spent almost as much, if not more money as you would've for the original model, and yet, it's still incompatible with Nintendo Labo, it's still lacking a kickstand for tabletop mode, the screen is still smaller and TV play is not possible at all. It's understandable why the Switch Lite's demand is so low. If I can think of this, other people can, too. "I also never said debated whta the demand is about any model" I'm not saying you did. I'm talking about it to illustrate my point. I brought it up mostly as a response to this: "If there was official price cut instead of a Lite model, the result in sales would've been the same." How can this be when even at $100 - $150 more, the other models outsold the Switch Lite by a ratio of almost 3.5:1 since the Switch Lite's release in September 2019? Keep in mind, the OLED Switch didn't release until October 2021, otherwise the ratio might be larger. What you're saying doesn't add up.
"And why directly comparing it to the PS2 multiple price cuts?" I know it was firebush who first brought up price cuts, but you left the door open to that conversation when you used the Switch Lite to refute his comment, even though the two situations and the effect of each one aren't remotely close to equivalent. I was simply providing the necessary context. Without it, people might misunderstand the clear price advantage Sony had.
"And again 2025 is irrelevant."
Fair enough. I'm just saying that at this point of its life cycle, the PS2 was $99.99. Instead of the Switch's price decreasing after 8+ years on the market, it increased. Thus, it's even more challenging for the Switch to overtake the PS2 in sales.
"You said it in previous post when you talked about sales of the Lite and the other ones." Nope, I never said that the Switch Lite came out two and a half years later before now. Go ahead and quote me then. I'll wait.
"The reason for these lists is that people and you included compare many (or some) of the point I listed between both, and as I said earlier all of the comparisons between the two systems is irrelevant. And I just gave examples not true numbers .." No, I didn't compare any of the things you listed except for price cuts. Why are you including me and saying "many" or "some" when referencing these points? Also, as I said before, most of those arguments aren't applicable here anyway. For example, both platforms sold worldwide and not only in Japan. Who is arguing otherwise? I repeat, all of that is pointless.
"You are also generalizing. I am not." No, you're wrong again because I wasn't talking in absolutes, like you. You said, "You buy what you can afford, not what you want." I never made such a claim. I said, "not necessarily." Then I added exampIes which prove your claim false. Also, your research and experience working in a video game store are irrelevant.
"I am doing just that. That quote you answered on was answer to you, where you mentioned the price cut's so much that it's like it wouldn't sell without them" No, you misunderstood again. The quote from me which follows yours wasn't to suggest that the PS2 wouldn't have sold without price cuts. I said I believe it still would've sold well. The quoted text from me was to highlight how much smaller the Switch Lite's impact was compared to the PS2's multiple price cuts.
"Then you can exclude all other systems prior to last gen, cuz all of them had many price cuts, that was the norm back then." You're not telling me anything I don't know already. Anyway, why would you exclude them when talking about the Switch's sales? The Switch already outsold every other platform by tens of millions of units (except for the DS and PS2) with or without the Switch Lite. As I've already told you many times now, the Switch still sold over 129 million units (and counting) WITHOUT including any Switch Lite units sold. As I said before, that's still enough units sold to be third place on the all-time list of best selling video game platforms. What would be the point of excluding the Wii or PS1, for example, due to price cuts, when those platforms (among many others) sold well below 129 million units lifetime?
"Cutting the price one (Switch Lite) and a lot more advantages through out it's life." Talk about those advantages then. I say this not because I want to argue over something else, but because your counterpoint to firebush, me or anyone else doesn't really hold up when considering all the facts. Those other "advantages" are probably better counter arguments than the one you made. It's just a word of advice since there's no winning the price argument from Sony's side. "I don't know why comparing it again." It's because we're still disagreeing. "Price is just one of the many factors" Exactly, but you already said it's not just one of many factors, it's one of the biggest factors. That's the key word here.
"Where did I said that ? Point it to me please." If you didn't, then I guess you agree with me on that point.
"We can't know if PS2 was at it's original price and had released only one cheaper model ( as the Switch did) what units it would sold." Why does that matter? How exactly would this hypothetical situation help the PS2 reach 160 million units sold more than the four price cuts did? It seems highly unlikely that this situation would increase sales. Therefore, this is also irrelevant. If anything, it helps my case again. Let's look at the other side of the coin, though. What if the Switch had four price cuts, including one that slashed the price to a third of the launch price, i.e. $99.99? You kind of expressed your thoughts on this earlier. "Yes I admitted that if the Lite got a price cut it would increase it's sales. And not only the Lite will, every model and every console will increase it's sales if it gets a price cut. That is something normal in the market. That is how things work. And yes OLED model also would sell more at a lower price point." + "Of course that PS2 with couple of price cuts had more boost over time than the Switch's one." I don't think I need to add anything else to that. You already said enough.
"the next time someone again mentions the Switch didn't had price cuts, I will interfere again and I will debate again, with the same points I just did here." It's a weird hill to die on, but alright. The Switch Lite is still not a price cut, nor did it have the same effect as one. The only way to know the real effect of a price cut is with an official price cut and that never happened for the Switch. If your main point is that the Switch Lite simply boosted sales, but at the same time, you acknowledge Sony's clear advantage from additional sales boosts via multiple price cuts, then I don't understand the need for a debate. It seems like you're arguing just to argue. It makes more sense to concede the point about no price cuts instead of making an "uh, actually" reply especially when it doesn't change anything. Sony still reached their sales milestone with a lot more help via price cuts then Nintendo did with a cheaper model. I know you believe that there are many other ways to compare and contrast each of their sales. Personally, I think it can make for an interesting debate. Let me be clear, though, I'm not debating any of that for now. Once again, I'm focused solely on the price cut argument, or lack thereof for Nintendo Switch as I strongly disagree with your take/narrative.
All, chill out. This is getting insane. I shouldn't need to be scrolling for five seconds straight in order to reach the bottom of your comments.
Thank you for helping me understand who you really are, cuz with the way you behave, the points you give, the way how you just simply can't (or don't want to on purpose) understand me right, and even the fact that you twist some of my points, to fit your narrative, I realized it's pointless writing to you, since you are reminding me of a certain someone (yes I have seen all those characteristics in only 1 person here on the site) .. Anyway, you understand me and my points very clearly, but your official position is to play dumb. Your choice. I won't explain my self no more to the wall, cuz speaking to the wall is pointless.
Hah, you think you know who I really am based on this debate? Don't kid yourself. You're comparing me to another member as if you don't talk the same way as him. Nope, I didn't twist your points at all. You made a lot of claims without any supporting evidence. Don't blame me for not being convinced by your flimsy arguments. You made a terrible take. It got debunked. Accept it and move on. Your lack of self awareness brings me to the realization that you're someone who can't admit when he's wrong, though. Anyway, the feeling is mutual about talking to a wall with the amount of times I had to repeat myself and each time I had to clear up misunderstandings by you. It's possible you do understand me well, but you're acting dumb. I suppose that's your decision. I'm tired of talking to a wall as I can't get anywhere talking to one. But I'm calling it now. You'll still respond despite saying you won't.
Stop the cope. You are in denial.
You are the one who is making the claims, and thinks he understand everything, when in reality, you don't. (I also know more than you think, however I won't get into details).
Evidence for obvious things such as lower price drive more sales ? You gotta be joking. And then you don't play it dumb ? Or the fact that 80% of your writings were either pure speculations, or not on the primary topic itself ? Give me a break. Again, stop the cope. And don't get me started on the laughable comparison you made with 4 price cuts, versus 1.
My points and takes are just exactly how they should be. Debunked because I chose to drop out of the conversation with a wall? The truth can't be debunked. You have problems. Seriously, take care.
Lite is a price cut, (not technically, but the effect from it) and I won't stop repeat it, debate it when the situation is there, and hold to the truth, as it is. Cope all you want. No one can change the truth itself, especially some anonymous profile on the web, which was already banned from his other one.
I knew it. You replied within two minutes despite being done. You couldn't help yourself, huh? Seek help, man. You clearly need it.
Yup, I debunked all of your false claims easily. You're not convincing anyone. The Switch Lite having the same effect as a price cut is a lie. You can keep repeating it, but you're dying alone on this hill. Now you have to resort to personal attacks. That's typical behavior when losing an argument.
"My points and takes are just exactly how they should be." Exactly, they're foolish ones. You have problems.
"especially some anonymous profile on the web, which was already banned from his previous one." I was never banned. What are you talking about? 🤣 Keep digging yourself a bigger hole. You don't know anything.
Edit: "Such as lower price drives sales" No, I already said that was obvious. You lack reading comprehension. I was talking about comments like this: "The people who would've waited for price cut would also buy that cheaper model" and "If there was an official price cut instead of a Lite model, the result in sales would've been the same." You have no evidence of this and it's pure speculation on your part. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. "The laughable comparison of 4 price cuts, versus 1" You misunderstood that again. Give me a break and stop acting dumb. You're wrong. Keep coping, though.
You are the one who keeps replying, and most importantly cope. Each time after my reply to you, I was done, and I forgot about you. Then after 10 days or so you come back and reply back. You are the one who can't stop, not me. Also it seems you don't have any imagination. You keep repeating the stuff that I am writing to you, and trying to use it against me. Desperate as fuck. The only lie here, is you. Cope all you want, you aren't doing anything else than proving what is your IQ level.
"You are the one who keeps replying" Did I ever say I was done replying? No, YOU did. Fail, try again.
"You keep repeating the stuff that I am writing to you, and trying to use it against me." That was in response to your strawman fallacy about me asking for evidence that lower prices drive more sales. I wasn't asking for evidence of that claim. I already agreed to it and said it was obviously true. The quoted examples I gave before this reply were things you didn't/don't have evidence for and are also things that are 100% speculation on your part. Why can't you admit that? You also said that 80% of my comments are speculation when your entire counterargument (100%) about the Switch Lite is speculation. Sidenote: this is the hypocrisy point I made several replies ago. You call me out for speculating, while also basing your entire conclusion on speculation. That's what I mean. Back to my point, you don't know for a fact what a price cut of the way more popular models would have sold. Yet, you keep saying/believing things like this: "the effect of the sales is the same as it would've been with a price cut of the original model" <- This is all speculation. Are you okay? You seem to struggle with following a simple conversation. And these last few replies from me are all from the same day, so how are you getting lost so easily? I don't know how to make this more clear. It's weird behavior. With this, your lies about me getting banned (you still haven't acknowledged that you made that up, by the way), and your lack of reading comprehension, you continue to prove your IQ level, which doesn't seem high.
Edit: And to the point about taking 10 days to reply back, it's because I'm not logged on here 24/7 like you. I don't see some of your replies until a week later. That's why.
This back and forth only ends once one of you stop. So... somebody please be the bigger man. :) Not just for the sake of my notifications tab (lol) but also because you're better off not wasting each others time in this stalemate that's literally going nowhere.
This is what I am trying to tell him. But this smart high IQ level person obviously doesn't have friends to chat with, and always comes back with more and more, so he can touch his ego, and be happy. On top of that until his last 2 comments, he came in around 10 days later, which kills any relevant conversation there can be. He even failed in understanding the reason I told that to him, and began with the excuses again of why.. and then I am the one who is lacking the reading comprehension. I even asked him to stop interfere with me, as I don't want to. And here he will come answering again.
I agree, but I'm at least attempting to address his points, while he's only responding to lie and talk trash about me. You can see he's even taking shots at me in a reply to you. He also did that the first time he said he was done replying to me. He wants to get the last word in while insulting me. That's not how to be the "bigger man." If he asks questions and/or there are misunderstandings I need to clear up, then of course I'm going to respond. It's to be expected. If it takes 10 days, so be it. I'll reply whenever I'm free to/feel like it. If he has nothing to add to the conversation, then he shouldn't reply. And if he stopped, then I wouldn't have any reason to continue.
Oops, I replied to the wrong comment. I meant to reply to this one.
As expected, you replied, but you didn't address a single thing I said. Instead, you continue with ad hominems and red herrings, while complaining that you don't want to talk to me. 🤦♂️ At least I'm replying to address your points. What are you responding for, other than to trash talk and lie? Are you ever going to admit that you made up that I got banned before? You just want to sweep it under the rug and pretend that you never said that, huh? Also, you seem triggered, man. Calm down.
"he came in around 10 days later, which kills any relevant conversation there can be." Only one of my comments took that long to post. Also, one of your replies to me took a week, by the way and I didn't complain. Before that point, I was responding in a timely manner. You can verify that for yourself if you don't want to take my word for it. You don't ever mention that, though. Interesting.
"even failed in understanding the reason I told that to him" Your request to talk on Discord didn't happen until two days ago. That was after I took 10 days to respond. Once again, I'm not signed in most of the time I'm on this site, so what do you expect? I can't reply to a message I haven't seen yet. I wasn't even aware of what you said about the articles not getting read past two days. Either way, that didn't stop you from seeing my message right away on Sunday and replying back within two minutes. Also, I doubt that's the reason you asked to talk on Discord. I can see through you.
"I even asked him to stop interfere with me, as I don't want to. And here he will come answering again." Yet, you keep replying. If you don't want to, then stop responding to me. It's that simple. 🤷♂️
Fine if you want it here, let it be under this comment.
See the date of your first post, answering me, and now see what date we are now. I haven't counted the exact amount of days, but the idea was that you replied slow. So slow that the discussion got stretched to a month and a half. That is what is killing any relevant discussion for me (and also the other reasons I already explained to you, but even with them, if you at least answered in a timely manner, we would finished it). I am not interested in prolonging a debate for over a month and a half, and constantly have to return to it. That's why the discord was, and you even didn't reply, but you are very keen on replying here. What does that mean ? That you want audience. Go search on the web how those type of people are called. I am also not doubting the reasons why you get online rarely, I am just saying that this is not the way a conversation is done. If you want to debate then come to Discord where we can chat live and be done within 1 hour or so. Not prolonging it for 1 month and a half (and likely even more if we reach the finish, with your late replies).
" You seem to struggle with following a simple conversation. "
That is how. Don't start a debate at all if you are not ready to be online, and answer in a timely manner. It's that simple.
" If it takes 10 days, so be it. I'll reply whenever I'm free to/feel like it. "
This is where you are wrong. Nobody owes you anything. No one needs to wait your pleasure, your mood, or your liking. You are nobody. I don't have the patience to go a pointless debate, for over a month and a half. Don't be curious why I don't answer to your points. I did in the beginning. And as always you didn't understand my point when I said 10 days. I didn't mean exactly 10 days (it turns out they were even more, see the timestamps below). I meant that you simply answer slow. Even before your answers which took week or even more, you answered after 2 or 4 days. That is a lot. I am not interested in that kind of discussion. I don't have the time and the patience to wait anybody's answer (let alone yours specifically) each time for a few days, let alone a week or even two.
" Only one of my comments took that long to post "
Really ? Who is the liar ?? Me or you ?? I will list here my and your dates on the posts, because you are simply lying.
your first answer to me - 31.03
my first answer to you - 1.04
you - 3.04
me - 10.04 (the only time, I answered so late, you also admitted, that I reply like 2 minutes later in one of your previous comments)
you - 14.04
me - 14.04
you - 21.04
me - 21.04
you - 3.05
me - 3.05
you - 11.05
me - 11.05
And then you have two answers which were on time, which were not on the topic itself, so those shouldn't be counted, cuz my point was late answers to the topic itself from which the discussion becomes irrelevant. (if somewhere you see different date, it may be because of the region you are in and a difference in the clock (and the date), but those are the dates the site shows me). And even now, those 2 last answers from you are a full 2 days later.. You have 1 answer to me after 2 days, 1 after 4 days, 1 after a week and 2 after more than 10 days later. And you just said you only had 1 time of 10 days answer. Liar! You have 3 replies in total who were around 10 days - one after 7 days, 1 after 11 days, and 1 after 2 weeks, but you again decide to twist my point and take it literally. For example, I didn't meant exactly 10 days for each answer, I meant that you were simply answering late, later than normal, and just add the example of your latest answers (from the time of writing that comment) which were even over 10 days. This does not mean your earlier ones, who were like 7 days or 4 days weren't in the point I made - slow replies. Don't ask yourself why I may be lost in the conversation, or why I don't want to interfere with you (on to top of the other reasons, that I mentioned, like twisting my points, playing it dumb, or misunderstanding what I wanted to say and only taking everything literally)
Do you know what I think of when I think of your slow replies ? That you only log in to this specific account (JAM299) when you are in the mood. In the mood for debating, or maybe you were angry for something in your personal life. And since you are all alone, and obviously don't have any friends, you in such a moments, log into this account (cuz our debate is tied to this account of yours) and you open this article and start to express the energy from your anger or disappointment from something in your personal life, here. That is all. Otherwise I can't see a normal human being with mental health, return back to answer on something from a few days ago or at sometimes even a week or more. The normal people end debates (or at least stop to participate) within timely manner, not prolonging it for over a month going into 2. Hence why one more reason, why I don't want to interfere with you. You are exploiting other people's willingness just to entertain your self, your mood, or your emotions at specific moments. Go find yourself new person, and new website.
Okay. This has gotten way too heated, and it's been going on for over a month. Since nobody can cool their jets and it's getting personal, everybody in this sub-discussion needs to disperse and find other people to converse with. And this is me getting the last word in. And I don't want to hear "Well, he started it!" from anyone. I don't care. Everybody just chill out and move on.
I'll wait to see what Nintendo's forecast for the next fiscal year is for the Switch. But if it is high enough you might see a Switch vs PS2 sales comparison. It will be a little different as the PS2 was before VGChartz did estimates, so will be compared to lifetime PS2 sales.
When will we be getting the next fiscal report from Nintendo?
Friday, May 8 https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/index.html
The Switch still has it in it to surpass PS2. If sales targets were met this past financial year they will have shipped 156.6 million Switch 1s by 31st March. They just need to ship 4.2 million more and then its a wrap!
