Is Nintendo following Atari's footsteps?

[Flojomojo]

I'm curious where the 60bn total came from. All tangible and liquid assets? I could see 10.5bn in the bank to float around as a safety net for a company as large and spread out as they are.

 

 

I also agree if you really want to draw comparisons tie the 80s Atari to the 90s Sega. Their implosions have some interesting overlap going on right into becoming fairly irrelevant software houses that don't well capitalize much on their IPs as they should.

 

Their total assets are like $13B as of late 2016, or 1.297 trillion JPY. Before the hard times brought on by the Wii U, you'd often see headlines like "Nintendo holds over $10 billion in assets, $4.7 billion in cash" -- with their cash "war chest" being the main story.

 

They're a completely different order of magnitude from Atari, with a long, proud history, enough to make the comparison seem silly. Could they implode and become a shadow of their former selves? Sure, I guess ...but did anyone predict Atari's doom for decades like the gamers have been doing with Nintendo? I don't think so.

[Austin]

 

I see $5.73B http://amigobulls.com/stocks/NTDOY/balance-sheet/quarterly?t=ibc

 

Here's a 2012 story about their financial status

 

Thanks for posting that. I thought I remember hearing they had way more than that, but I must have been confusing it for someone else.

[BillLoguidice]

Unlike Atari, Sega, or any other company you might want to compare them to, Nintendo has an expansive and hugely profitable IP arsenal. Even if they drop out of making console/portable hardware themselves - which is an actual possibility - they'll still have countless ways to remain hugely profitable and influential. In fact, it could be argued that they could reach new profitability heights by not being beholden to their own hardware.

[toptenmaterial]

Atari's history is interesting but it's downfall is different that Nintendo's troubles in several ways. Atari at its height was owned by Warner Bros, and the failing Atari division was somewhat indicative of losses across the board. WB was an ailing company but as we all know they survived. NES was not an Atari killer, Atari/WB was. It is true that Atari Corp under Tremiel got into the black again and I think the 7800 may have turned a profit (not positive). The lack of gaming IP caused in part by Nintendo's aggressive policies with respect to third parties (my, how the tables have turned) helped strangle the 7800 and Lynx. In-house they didn't have enough compelling IP and kept rehashing arcade ports. I suppose that a comparison could be made to Nintendo continually drawing upon its vast stable of mascots, but have you ever played a bad Mario game? I read a comment that the 8-bit line and ST couldn't keep up with the PCs, good point, but also I think there were a lot of supply and promotion problems.

[zzip]

Losing some old school fans,controllers that have drove them away to other brands, constantly showing Mario and Zelda or bringing up the past, and its slow turn to irrelevancy to the modern times. I don't know about you but I see a pattern here.

 

First off, I don't hate Nintendo nor am I a fan boy of any brand because I just l like to play video games. My title is not click bait and please let me explain.

 

Nintendo used to be the king of the video game industry from the mid 80s to early 90s. Atari was the king from the late 70s to early or mid 80s before the NES. Atari 5200, 7800, and Jaguar failed to recapture it's fan base because of bad to mediocre controllers, too much emphasis on old titles, unimpressive tech, etc (these consoles have it's fans but the fact is that those that love 2600 did not like the successors as much and the sales reflect that). Nintendo 64, GameCube, Wiiu have failed to bring it's fan base. Wii may have but it was a fad. As much as I love the N64 because it is my favorite console of all time, that console began Nintendo's decline because there was competition. Also, here is another comparison. Sega, is like the Intellivision and Colecovision, an old rival that eventually were forgotten to the majority of gamers and the only fans remain are the hard core fans. Atari's downfall began with Nintendo Entertainment System. Nintendo'downfall began with the Playstation. Nintendo was was described as the new Atari and the Playstation was described as the new Nintendo.

 

When I say downfall, I don't mean that it started to become bad but rather it's dominance in the industry has declined. This post may have sounded stupid and I apologized. I just see a bit of a similarity and how Nintendo is on Atari's footsteps but the only difference is that Nintendo's systems actually sold decently after the Snes.

 

Yeah, I think you can draw parallels between Nintendo and Atari, and Nintendo and Sega. The difference is Nintendo has piles of cash, so they can afford to release dud hardware like the Wii U. The Tramiel Atari always seemed short on cash in the later years and couldn't summon the level of marketing needed to take on Nintendo and Sega.

 

Although I would disagree that Atari's downfall was caused directly by Nintendo. Atari's downfall happened because of the 1983-ish market crash, followed by Warner's desperate sale of Atari to Jack Tramiel (who was more interested in selling a new computer than consoles). Plus the general idea of the time that pure consoles were dead and home computers were the new consoles. When Nintendo surprised everyone, Atari responded by releasing consoles based on old-tech.. The 7800 had sat in warehouses for two years before getting released. They should have at least readied a console, perhaps based on ST+blitter tech that would have been ready to compete with the Genesis/MegaDrive when it arrived, but they never did. That allowed Sega + Nintendo to run away with the market, leaving Atari way behind when they actually got around to producing a state-of-the-art console again (Jag).

 

Also Nintendo gave Atari the option to sell the NES, but Atari passed. So I would say it was other factors, not Nintendo specifically, that lead to Atari's downfall

[Flojomojo]

The difference is Nintendo has piles of cash, so they can afford to release dud hardware like the Wii U.

 

Even that "dud hardware" outsold all of the Atari game hardware combined, except for the Atari 2600. Most of my numbers are from here, except for the Atari machines that didn't make the list and needed to be scrounged up individually.

 

Yeah yeah, gaming is bigger now than it was before ... if you want to argue that, make a graph of Atari's losses year over year compared to its market cap, and compare it to Nintendo. I think you'll find that getting your arms and legs chopped off is a bit more severe than the haircut taken by Nintendo.

 

Atari computers could be factored in, but I don't think they sold in anywhere near the numbers that the game machines did, right?

 

 

[JamesD]

 

I dont even think it was a non HD issue, I have never been bothered with it, but I have a 40 inch tv and a somewhat long living room

 

what killed its AAA gotta have it chances were the default special controllers and the last gen horsepower

 

edit:

 

I got my Wii in 2012, mainly at the time I wanted a streaming media box, didnt have an HDTV yet (that came in 2014) and to this day sitting on the couch it looks fine at 480p watching amazon or whatever, but for the price of the non gc compatible wii, I thought hell I could get a roku, or a wii and play some games

 

What disappointed me the most was trying to filter the shovelware, and lack of big titles, even scaled back versions ... felt like I bought a psp again =/

I first played on a Wii at an actual Nintendo tent demoing the console in Denver.

They had one running on a 50+" HDTV and it was horrible.

I wasn't bothered by the speed or games, I was totally put off by the poor picture.

But that's just me.

[toptenmaterial]

I first played on a Wii at an actual Nintendo tent demoing the console in Denver.

They had one running on a 50+" HDTV and it was horrible.

I wasn't bothered by the speed or games, I was totally put off by the poor picture.

But that's just me.

My Wii looked the best on my old 27 inch zenith. I don't think high def does wonders for older devices.

[MrMaddog]

Didn't Nolan Bushnell himself made the same comparison as a warning but gamers all laughed at him? But now the Wii U officially became a flop and there's doubts about the Switch from the same people.

 

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/09/atari_founder_nolan_bushnell_claims_nintendo_could_be_on_the_path_to_irrelevance

 

Rinse & Repeat History...

[Osgeld]

I first played on a Wii at an actual Nintendo tent demoing the console in Denver.

They had one running on a 50+" HDTV and it was horrible.

I wasn't bothered by the speed or games, I was totally put off by the poor picture.

But that's just me.

 

yea but even high def stuff looks like ass when your a foot from a hdtv

[JamesD]

 

yea but even high def stuff looks like ass when your a foot from a hdtv

The big tv was outside the tent to attract people... it looked horrible even at 100 feet

[Tanooki]

Hah nice charting job Flojo.

 

One thing that always mystified me was how the N64 managed to outsell the Gamecube. N64 lacked quite a bit of third party support and games in general while the Gamecube got a lot of third party support for over 1/2 its life, and even in the back half more than what N64 was graced with. Controller may have lacked a top button but was more 'right' too along with the standard. Yes it was using a 1.5GB disc, and some games came on 2 (3GB) which did limit things but quite a few conversions worked out quite nicely and some were the superior releases (Beyond Good and Evil, Defender, and others.) I know it was likely the bs MS was shoveling about online which GC mostly lacked, but it's not like Sony had any form of a network up either outside of that bundle with FF11. It's also nuts how obvious that chart makes things too. Wii aside as #1, still their best console sellers were NES and SNES respectively and they moved more than the others. And that handheld has and always will be their forte. I mean look at those Gameboy/Color and the non listed Nintendo DS totals (154 Million DS-DSLite-DSi units 6/30/16), big stuff...biggest of all blowing out GB/GBC by 30mil and Wii by around 50mil units. That's just crazy. Again why I feel more comfortable in thinking the Switch won't suffer as the WiiU did. Developers see it and handle it like a portable device more than a console, and that's a benefit.

[toptenmaterial]

Hah nice charting job Flojo.

 

One thing that always mystified me was how the N64 managed to outsell the Gamecube. N64 lacked quite a bit of third party support and games in general while the Gamecube got a lot of third party support for over 1/2 its life, and even in the back half more than what N64 was graced with. Controller may have lacked a top button but was more 'right' too along with the standard. Yes it was using a 1.5GB disc, and some games came on 2 (3GB) which did limit things but quite a few conversions worked out quite nicely and some were the superior releases (Beyond Good and Evil, Defender, and others.) I know it was likely the bs MS was shoveling about online which GC mostly lacked, but it's not like Sony had any form of a network up either outside of that bundle with FF11. It's also nuts how obvious that chart makes things too. Wii aside as #1, still their best console sellers were NES and SNES respectively and they moved more than the others. And that handheld has and always will be their forte. I mean look at those Gameboy/Color and the non listed Nintendo DS totals (154 Million DS-DSLite-DSi units 6/30/16), big stuff...biggest of all blowing out GB/GBC by 30mil and Wii by around 50mil units. That's just crazy. Again why I feel more comfortable in thinking the Switch won't suffer as the WiiU did. Developers see it and handle it like a portable device more than a console, and that's a benefit.

Interesting observation about the N64 coming ahead of the GameCube. Thinking back on the period, I think that the GameCube's strongsuit was that it could pull off 3D well. Granted, some of those early 3D games haven't aged well, but Mario 64 and Goldeneye still hold their own. Plus it was 64 BITS!!!!!

 

The generation after was trickier. PS2 had a pack-in DVD player, and let's remember how cool and novel that was in the days before streaming. Also Xbox was the new kid on the block. I don't recall how popular that one was, I used mine mainly for ripping CDs but it did have Xbox Live. In the previous generation, the third system was Saturn, and I didn't know anyone who had one.

[Osgeld]

Granted, some of those early 3D games haven't aged well, but Mario 64 and Goldeneye still hold their own. Plus it was 64 BITS!!!!!

 

 

as a pc snob then as well as today... citation needed

 

Mario 64 was a very good, almost flawless 3d platformer at the time but goldeneye suffers quite a bit even when it came out

 

the waxy + fog + low framereate of the system didnt impress me either, but your talking about days before the pc master race started loosing footing, shortly after the "64" was released I was running a Pentium 166 with a voodoo2 , which can easily rival early ps2 games

 

and no it doesnt hold up well at all

[gladders]

The Gamecube was an excellent machine. I had one and loved it. But I think the case design put people off. Too toy-like, compared to the DVD-player-like adult look of the PlayStation 2.

[carlsson]

Atari computers could be factored in, but I don't think they sold in anywhere near the numbers that the game machines did, right?

According to Wikipedia, the entire line of Atari 8-bit computers - from the 400/800 to the 130XE - sold about 4 million units so barely a blip compared to Nintendo. I found another site which claims the ST line sold about 2 million units (compared to nearly 4 million Amigas). Let's assume those numbers are a little low, so we add one million extra computers which would put Atari computers in total on 7 million. It still doesn't stand a chance even against Commodore of its time, much less the later generation Nintendo consoles. It is like comparing coconuts and bananas.

[BillLoguidice]

One of the big reasons why the Nintendo 64 outsold the GameCube was because the GameCube was in a much tougher competitive environment, being outsold by the best selling console of all time in the PS2, and being outpaced by the Xbox, despite the Xbox not selling much in Japan. Sure, the Nintendo 64 had the PS1, Saturn, and Dreamcast to contend with, but only the PS1 proved to be significant competition during its run.

[BillLoguidice]

Hah nice charting job Flojo.

 

One thing that always mystified me was how the N64 managed to outsell the Gamecube. N64 lacked quite a bit of third party support and games in general while the Gamecube got a lot of third party support for over 1/2 its life, and even in the back half more than what N64 was graced with. Controller may have lacked a top button but was more 'right' too along with the standard. Yes it was using a 1.5GB disc, and some games came on 2 (3GB) which did limit things but quite a few conversions worked out quite nicely and some were the superior releases (Beyond Good and Evil, Defender, and others.) I know it was likely the bs MS was shoveling about online which GC mostly lacked, but it's not like Sony had any form of a network up either outside of that bundle with FF11. It's also nuts how obvious that chart makes things too. Wii aside as #1, still their best console sellers were NES and SNES respectively and they moved more than the others. And that handheld has and always will be their forte. I mean look at those Gameboy/Color and the non listed Nintendo DS totals (154 Million DS-DSLite-DSi units 6/30/16), big stuff...biggest of all blowing out GB/GBC by 30mil and Wii by around 50mil units. That's just crazy. Again why I feel more comfortable in thinking the Switch won't suffer as the WiiU did. Developers see it and handle it like a portable device more than a console, and that's a benefit.

 

The portable angle is definitely in the Switch's favor in Japan, so right there it should do better than the Wii U. The problem right now for the Switch is one of identity. Is it a portable console, or a portable that just happens to be usable as a console? Nintendo is really pushing the former angle, so, at least for now, they better hope that they won't be getting lots of 3DS-like portable experiences on it relative to console-like experiences (with necessary tuning for portable play).

 

Again, the 3DS did well, but we're in the era of diminishing returns on gaming handhelds, so it remains to be seen what the potential market is for another portable. If Nintendo can somehow truly toe the line between console and portable, and create true console-like experiences that can be played anywhere, then they may be able to overcome the issues they had with the Wii U. At the same time, we really don't know if there's a market for a device like this. Ultimately, it could fall somewhere between Wii U and 3DS sales, which is how I personally got to the 40mm sold number if things go well for it. That's certainly good enough to keep the line going and Nintendo in the dedicated hardware space, regardless of where they rank in terms of sales from 1 to 3.

[Tanooki]

I think we're in agreement there. Truth really is they went with the Shield console/tablet design of Nvidia for a specific reason and that was that very reason. They wanted to roll up both halves of their failing and succeeding business model into one package. Writing is on the wall in both cases, handheld just a bit farther out not that they ever will go away anytime soon but it could get to a barely profitable niche. They can't do that, but Nvidia found a way to create a microconsole that blows out the quality on the original around the level of a PS3 when you get low level and code just for it, a little bit over even in some respects -- yet it also fits snuggly into a tablet format too. The Switch takes the better Tegra of the console box, wedges it into a tablet but allows it a lower clock rate for battery/cooling reasons yet lets it go nuts in the dock...sort of how nvidia android software rates up/down between the models. The truth comes not from snotty hater analysts whining about power and other guys, it will come down to the market buying it or not and perceiving it as a specialized device of both realms you can enjoy in either case without feeling backwater or behind to a point of being a turn off. If anyone can do it outside of nvidia themselves it's Nintendo especially with their IP power. I would not be shocked if they did your 40M units, perhaps more, but over 3DS that may be a pretty tall order.

[D.Daniels]

Tanooki​, good point, I don't think there get anywhere near the 3DS sales, the GameCube didn't outsell the GBA and the Wii U didn't outsell the 3DS, even the GB outsold the SNES, only the DS sold less than the Wii, (I took a brief look a units sold, if I've got any wrong, sorry)

Edited January 24, 2017 by D.Daniels

[Flojomojo]

Something just occurred to me ... I've personally bought multiple 3DS, DS, GBA, and GB units. I can't be the only one. I wonder how that figures into their units sold?

[adamchevy]

 

 

 

I see $5.73B http://amigobulls.com/stocks/NTDOY/balance-sheet/quarterly?t=ibc

 

Here's a 2012 story about their financial status

 

Apple notwithstanding, hoarding cash isn't the best use of corporate resources, not when it can be invested into research and development.

 

Two observations:

- Nintendo's cash hoard is often expressed in yen, which often mistranslates into dollars or euros

- Few if any of us are competent financial analysts, I know I'm not ... but I know enough to know I don't understand the whole picture.

 

I just want to play some Zelda on the new tablet dingus. After that, I'd like for them to be financially healthy enough to make more good games, at a pace where I can keep up with the stuff that interests me. I'm fine if they stay a bit hungry -- competition is good for their creativity.

I'm one of those old Nintendo Fan boys from the 80s who just wants to play a new and hopefully evolved Zelda ever few years. Along with Zelda, I'm always excited about the thought of a New quirky franchise. Nintendo is a much older company than any of the other companies that have been involved with Video Games. The Wii U looked more like an experiment to me. I hope what they learned pays off.

[Tanooki]

Flojo greatly. I've owned every iteration of their handhelds in the GB and DS lines and sequel lines that came to the US. I still do own many of them (DMG, GBP, GBC, GBASP, GB Micro, and a New3DS.) Nintendo with their 64 being trouble for 2 1/2 years left me bored and also having down time around college classes both drove me into being a primary handheld gamer. GBC went everywhere with me, then the GBA did (and still at times does.)

 

 

DDaniels: DS (w/DSLite and DSi) went up to 154M sold, Wii/WiiMini did just over 100M units. The Gameboy+GBP+Color did 120M units. Wii aside, Handheld has always been their biggest seller.

 

The GBA did around 82M units over their versions.

The 3DS is just slightly under where the SNES hit and it's still alive with new units even coming out for it. 3DS is at 62M and New3DS iteration at 9M units (so 71M and growing.)

 

I doubt the 3DS will hit the GBA level of systems, it will come down to how long Nintendo cares to support it, just needs to move 11M more units to do so. It does say a lot that the 3DS is looking to perhaps match the GBA sales as it shows some level of it not falling off so badly as expert felt things were and would perhaps as a successor bode well for the Switch having a decent chance to do good totals years from now.

[Schizophretard]

The portable angle is definitely in the Switch's favor in Japan, so right there it should do better than the Wii U. The problem right now for the Switch is one of identity. Is it a portable console, or a portable that just happens to be usable as a console? Nintendo is really pushing the former angle, so, at least for now, they better hope that they won't be getting lots of 3DS-like portable experiences on it relative to console-like experiences (with necessary tuning for portable play).

 

Again, the 3DS did well, but we're in the era of diminishing returns on gaming handhelds, so it remains to be seen what the potential market is for another portable. If Nintendo can somehow truly toe the line between console and portable, and create true console-like experiences that can be played anywhere, then they may be able to overcome the issues they had with the Wii U. At the same time, we really don't know if there's a market for a device like this. Ultimately, it could fall somewhere between Wii U and 3DS sales, which is how I personally got to the 40mm sold number if things go well for it. That's certainly good enough to keep the line going and Nintendo in the dedicated hardware space, regardless of where they rank in terms of sales from 1 to 3.

 

I think the identity problem is an intentional one for marketing purposes so that once people understand one aspect of its identity they can switch to another aspect of its identity until everyone understands its full hybrid identity and to make people switch from their Wii U's and 3DSes at the right times instead of prematurely.

 

Originally the NX was said to neither be a successor to the Wii U or 3DS but some kind of new experience that isn't exactly a full replacement for either. This gave it a generalized identity that put it as kind of a third pillar to the other two consoles to not slow the sales of the Wii U or 3DS or their software. More so for the Wii U so that from then until around the holidays when discontinued it could sale more to clear it out.

 

Now that the Wii U has been discontinued and Breath of the Wild is going to be the last major first party title the Switch's identity has switched from a hybrid in the middle to a Wii U successor that is more of a home console that can be taken on the go than a handheld that can be docked. The opposite handheld that can be docked is likely to be the ultimate identity but that could harm the momentum after launch because basically sending the message,"The Wii U was our last home console. We are exiting the home console market to focus on our handhelds and the Switch is our 3DS successor that will eventually be our only dedicated gaming hardware." would be a bad message to send.

 

It would be bad because it would be harder to milk the 3DS until it is discontinued and may cause them to have to discontinue it sooner. Also, it may cause confusion with how powerful it is because Nintendo handhelds have always had a bigger gap in power compared to home consoles. So, people may get the false impression that it is a weak handheld instead of a high powered one with enough power that exiting the home console market might not be as bad as it sounds like SEGA bad. Therefore, being marketed as mostly a Wii U successor may still give the impression that Nintendo yet again is releasing a low powered home console but when it becomes also a 3DS successor it would be clear that it not only is just a handheld but one more powerful than the Wii U. I think also as far as power is concerned Nintendo wants it to have an identity more along the lines of a late 8th gen console that is replacing the place of the Wii U like a redo instead of the first 9th gen console that is a direct successor to the Wii U.

 

So, when the the 3DS is finally discontinued a year to a year and a half or so from now or however long because the 3DS owners have upgraded to the Switch along with the Wii U owners and others then they could still have the home console that you can take on the go identity but more so because it has home console like power that can be taken on the go than that it is mostly intended to be docked most of the time. To put that another way, before both the Wii U and 3DS are discontinued it is intended to have a home console identity more in terms of placement(TV) but after they are both discontinued it is intended to have a home console identity more in terms of power so that there is still the perception of a home console type of gaming even when in handheld mode.

 

In other words, I believe Nintendo is slowly rolling out and adjusting its identity to market more to home console gamers first while discontinuing the Wii U, then later to market more to the handheld console gamers while discontinuing the 3DS, and exiting the home console market while still kind of keeping a foot in the door because even though they are going fully into having just one console that is handheld it is a handheld with home console like power that can be docked to have either home console style gaming at home or home console style gaming on the go.

 

Then after everything is said and done, the Switch is the only Nintendo hardware on the market, its full identity is clear, and assuming it is successful enough to justify a Switch 2 then I think it will be much easier to market the Switch 2 because the identity would already be established. For an example, I think there would be less of seeing it as a direct competitor of the PS5 and XBOX ONE TWO and therefore underpowered but more in terms of a very powerful handheld that Nintendo has a monopoly in that market that is clearly differentiated from mobile gaming because the power and game style would be closer to consoles than phones. To put that another way, it would be like phones would take the traditional space of handhelds in the sense of having a huge gap of power compared to consoles and the Switch and Switch 2 would maintain the traditional space of being a handheld console but would be closer to a home console's traditional space in power by not having as huge of a gap as traditionally was the case. So, a hybrid in between those two extremes. It would also be easier because Nintendo is likely to do the same thing they have always done by making their handheld lines backwards compatible. So, Switch owners would see it as an upgrade that they can bring their Switch games to. However, it would be harder if Microsoft, Sony, or a new contender wants a piece of Nintendo's monopoly pie by releasing their own hybrid. Like say the Switch changes Sony's mind to release a PS Vita 2 that comes with a dock.

 

Anyway, I don't exactly know what you mean by "3DS-like portable experiences on it relative to console-like experiences (with necessary tuning for portable play)." I have been playing handheld and home consoles my whole life and both are console-like experiences but with handhelds having the ability to be portable. It is like the difference between a desktop and laptop. Both have PC experiences but one is portable. It is like that with handhelds. It being console-like experiences on the go has always been their appeal. For an example, playing Link's Awakening on the Game Boy had a console-like experience similar to A Link to the Past on Super NES. the only difference was that it was portable and there was a huge gap between the power of the two consoles but the console-like experience was the same. The only thing desired since the release of the Game Boy was to close that gap of power between consoles which has been happening but slowly but now between the 3DS and the Switch it seems like the kind of big leap we have been waiting for over the last 27 and a half years.

 

Concerning,"we really don't know if there's a market for a device like this." Of course we know this. It isn't like handheld consoles went through some video game crash and we don't know that it can be revived from it with the future entirely uncertain with nothing to go on. Nintendo handhelds have always been successful consoles. The 3DS right now is currently the top selling console of this generation, through the Fall and holidays it jumped about 9 to 10 million more units sold bringing it over 70 million, it was the best-selling quarter for software in Nintendo 3DS history with 7.3 million copies of first-party Nintendo games sold, Pokemon Sun and Moon are the fastest Nintendo games in the company's history to sell more than 4 million copies, etc. Nintendo handheld fans clearly like their handhelds and Nintendo games. Give them a handheld more powerful than Wii U, PS3, and XBOX 360 with Nintendo games showing that power that can be seamlessly docked to a TV without extra accessories connected to home consoles like Super Game Boy and the Game Boy Player? Of course we want that.

[Schizophretard]

Something just occurred to me ... I've personally bought multiple 3DS, DS, GBA, and GB units. I can't be the only one.

You're not. I'm in this category too. I think there may be a lot of us like people that feel like they have to upgrade to an XL version after recently buying the standard version.

 

I wonder how that figures into their units sold?

I'm sure they count every one you buy. But I'm assuming what you are hinting at is how they figure that into user base since you are just adding one person to the user base with multiple handhelds. I think that the Switch having up to 8 user accounts may play into this. For an example, they my count two user accounts on a Switch as a user base of two or one user account across two Switches as a user base of one.