Oh didn't know that. Well let's say it didn't get popular until it was on the PS1.

Playstation is where the userbase is why wouldn't they release them there? lol

Every Tales underperformed on Nintendo consoles (at least in Japan because that's the only data we have). The franchise started on PS1 and the userbase hasn't migrated since.

GC version of Symphonia is the second best selling Tales game while Abyss on 3DS is the 6th best selling even outselling the PS2 version

I was speaking about Japan because that's the only region we have accurate numbers.

But even so your data is expired. Tales of Symphonia is behind at least three other games (Destiny, Destiny 2 and Xillia). Also I don't know where you got those Abyss numbers but they're simply not right.

VGC has always been terrible with sales of JRPGs outside of Japan. Every time NPD numbers of these lower-selling titles were leaked, there were big discrepancies.

Playstation is where the userbase is why wouldn't they release them there? lol

Every Tales underperformed on Nintendo consoles (at least in Japan because that's the only data we have). The franchise started on PS1 and the userbase hasn't migrated since.

https://www.nintendo.co.jp/software/switch/abvka/index.html

always look at the source in wikipedia

I initially thougght this went without saying but he already poosted the real sources from Wikipedia prior to my comment. I know how to check wikipedia, that is  grade school basics from more than a decade ago back when Wikipedia still thought the Pope was related to Star Wars. That isn't the issue. 

Look at the source itself. what does it tell you word for word? Unless you have a decent understanding of Japanese, who can actually read the source? What about the writer on Wikipedia who wrote the source down? U sing a malleable website, with no distinct credibilty of writer or source that can be easily cross checked is the issue. The OP could have easily went on with a thread without mentioning Wikipedia one in the title or the OP, yet went with it anyway. Wikipedia is useful for somethat is well established in history and less prone to change. Obviously contant updates are there, but it doesn't make sense to directly talk about when you have the direct source to  discuss.

I simply stopped at "...Wikipedia?" because ultimately I decided it wasn't worth adding what I am just now saying because its ultimately trivial and not worth writing as much as I currently have over this.