Depends on what you mean by winning. Selling more console units doesn't always lead to winning. As a buisness stand point its about profits. For fanboys its all about sales.
Scorpio isnt about outselling the PS4 or the X1. Its a premium device for premium customers. Consider the Scorpio like a Ferrari, you won't see many but thats the point. Not everyone will afford one. Im not caring PRO and Scorpio to X1 and PS4 sales.

Well.... there is one prime example for this generation. This generation the PS4 was not online more powerful than the Xbox One.... it was cheaper at launch as well. The value was better from every single angle. Unless you were a die-hard fan boy or your friends all got an Xbox One, you were likely going to get a PS4. Even a lot of Xbox 360 die-hards converted to the PS4.

If your console is of higher quality and tagged at a lower price. I think it would be a little odd if your console sold less than the competition's offerings. So while the "Most powerful" is indeed on track to winning, keep in mind the "low price factor" is law is enforced as strongly as it has ever been.

PS1 beat the N64 in sales globally but the N64 was hella more powerful than the PS1, even up to a factor of 3 in some areas such as the processor. Where the PS1 wins is disk size and developers did not feel like they were held back by limitations. The PS1's disk size allowed for some fantastic CGI cutscenes that looked absolutely stunning for their time.

Yeah but the Wii still won, even though it "wasn't really competing". Just like the Wii U still lost. Though I'll admit I was surprised the PS3 edged out on the 360 in the end. After Mattrick took over and fixed the whole shit show... I didn't think Sony would be able to catch up.  Despite what people want to believe about Mattrick, he was the one that made the 360 great! He was the reason Xbox had so much third party support and his era was the only era where 3rd parties were 100% committed to Xbox. Sales weren't so hot for the Xbox brand B.M. (Before Mattrick) or A.M. (After Mattrick). We should adopt that as a meme for the golden age of Xbox.

The only department in which PSX beat out the N64 was in storage. Pre-rendered backgrounds, CD-quality audio, and CG-cutscenes were the areas that hurt the N64 most. In general graphics (during gameplay), the N64 put the Playstation to shame. 

Someone who understands how it works.

In reference to the part I was quoted in, the N64 and GameCube were probably the cheapest when they launched. Dreamcast and WiiU, too (and with a year's headstart). By the time the SNES came out, the Genesis was much cheaper. Just like with power, there's a lot of factors that determine a winner. Price is a big one but far from the most important in the eyes of many.

Nah Scorpio is 4 years older than the PS4, it can't really be compared directly in this way, it's closer to a new generation than it is the previous one.

The PS4 did beat the Xone didn't it?

You are quite correct about the fact that the N64 launched at a cheaper price than the PS1. Though for many people the PS1 was a much cheaper console overall than the N64. For example PS1 games averaged at about $49.99, sometimes $39.99. N64 games were often $59.99 all the way to $89.99. The $70 title was quite common. Where the hardware was sold cheaply, the software and accessories were not. So in terms of the over all experience, I would definitely consider the PS1 a much cheaper outing. I was in elementary school back then and I can tell you that I wouldn't have had barely even a 3rd of the games I had, had I choose the N64 over the PS1.


Also if you look at the price cuts for the both the PS1 and N64. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Price_cuts#Price_cuts_for_the_5th_generation You'll notice that the PS1 was never, at any point in time in the US, priced higher than the N64. I'm guessing Nintendo was aggressive in responding to the price cuts to keep their place. Something like around 67% of the global N64 sales were in North America. The thing was a complete flop in Japan.

So at the end of the day the PS1 was still cheaper, or equal to the N64 in price at any given time  and offered far more software selection at a considerably cheaper price point. The only thing that can be said is that the N64 launched cheaper than the PS1. Keep in mind the PS1 first launched in Japan in December of 1994, and the first N64 didn't launch until September 1996.

But I do agree that price isn't everything. The Wii U's real failure was marketing and Nintendo seemingly lacking awareness of their consumers imho. I would rank price as one of the lowest determining reasons of it's low performance.

Most powerful console this gen? Steam machines. They failed miserably.
If you don't count Steam machines as consoles, then you also can't count Neo Geo as a console. Both are equally exotic. Steam machine brings PC games to your TV, Neo Geo brought arcade games to your TV. So, either we don't count Neo Geo and this rule has been obsolete since the SNES, or we do count Neo Geo and steam machines and the rule is still intact.

Pick whatever you like. It doesn't really matter anyway.

What? Lol N64 trumped that thing