I don't mean to offend you here, but this is the biggest load of nonsense I've heard on this site in a while. Your acting as if everyone literally migrated instantly from ps360 to ps4. The fact is most early adopters are going to be big Sony fans that in all likely hood already had the last of us on ps3. Just because it released on ps4 does not mean the entire potential audience moved to ps4. At this point the ps4 hadn't even sold 20 million yet. And most 3rd party games were still releasing on ps360.

I call bullshit on none of your friends rebuying the game. Either you have very few friends or your lying. If you said very few of your friends double dipped that would be more believable. 

Of course price matters the whole point of this thread is that Sony are entering Nintendo levels with there ips. Nintendo games don't go down in price Sony games do. That has a big impact on sales. If Sony games could do these sales at full price then they would be on Nintendo's level.

The paragraph about Zelda doesn't make much sense. I don't know what your trying to say here. 

I'm not trying to take away from the last of us. i m just saying the 17 million figure doesnt show the entire picture. Also the last of us is only one tiny bit of my argument. Probably the least important part of my argument.

Sorry if i was insulting, i damaged my shoulder recently and was in a lot of pain when i replied to you. I know that isn't an excuse, but I regret some of the things I said to you.

I never said you bought it again. I feel like you've just been putting words in my mouth and assuming what I mean to say rather than actually listening to what I'm saying.

What am I exaggerating. Your the one that seems to be exaggerating. I'm not saying that literally everyone that bought it on ps3 bought it on ps4, but that in all likelihood a decent portion of people double dipped. Your the one saying that no you know has ever double dipped which seems like an exaggeration. I'm not sure about where you are from, but in Europe and the US (Sony's biggest markets) double dipping is pretty common. 

Double dipping isn't some uncommon thing. Many people have bought Minecraft 2/3 times or more. Gta v is another game that a lot of people bought again on next gen consoles (this is a game that I don't know anyone that bought it on ps4/xbox1 that didn't already have it on ps360). Mario kart 8 is a big example of it on switch. There are people that will buy the same game half a dozen times on different consoles, that's an extreme example but it happens. 

Again I apologise for being rude earlier.

I agree, i feel like there biggest weakness in the early days was there lack of 1st party content. I think the 360 gaining a lot of 3rd parties helped push sony to make more of there own content. It seems to be paying off wonderfully this gen. They also have great advertising now which helps a lot.

You should avoid calling others lying.

Prices doesn't matter because only Nintendo keeps their price, and instead of being criticized by it get applauded by the fanbase, figures.

The point on the Last of Us was that it shouldn't count as 10M seller on PS4 because it released on PS3. So if at the time Sony announced 17M TLOU it had sold little more than 7M it is all but certain it crossed 10M on PS4 by now. So it count as 10M seller. Also if someone have gone and bought 2 times or more a game that just shows the game is considered great as no one would double dip on something he didn't like. Every company would make double or triple dips if they could.

Should we also just count the first year of sale because some people double dip on GOTY editions and the like?

You claimed everyone you know bought it twice, so if you say he is lying for none of his friends buying it then you should look at yourself lying as well.

He is from Brazil, and it is very uncommon for people here to even buy many games, much less double dip. Also along the very small subset of doubledippers I would say even less would keep both copies instead of reselling it.

More or less. Several of the 3rd party exclusives after becoming MP had majority of the userbase still under Sony, just look at sales. Also PD, SSM, ND and Japan Studio were already around before MS was doing anything noteworthy with 3rd parties.

The success of exclusives on PS4 have more to do with Sony reducing the output (in PS3 they claimed from 10 games 6 would lose money, 2 break even and just 2 sell really well).

You may say you aren't trying to downplay Sony success this gen on the SW, but it certainly looks just like it.

Price matters because you are comparing Sony and Nintendo game sales. If you are going to say they have entered Nintendo level sales than, they either need to start selling a lot more than they are or maintain these sales at a higher price point. Also who applauds Nintendo for not reducing prices, it's a very common complaint.

I didn't mean that 10 million didn't count I meant that 17 million didn't count. I probably should have worded that better. The goty point is just silly, that's just an incredibly tiny fraction that do that. 

I never claimed everyone I know double dipped I said most people I know that had it on ps3 got it again on ps4. I wouldn't say that because I just bought the game once on ps4. To quote you "you should avoid calling others liars".

The Brazil point makes sense. Although I did mention that it is more common in the US and Europe Sony's 2 largest markets.

Ok, i never said games that became multiplat didn't sell better on ps3. I never said those developers werent around and i never said that Sony didn't make 1st party content in the past. I said the larger focus on 1st party content since ps3 has paid off this gen.

I'm not trying to downplay Sony's 1st party sales, they just aren't at Nintendo levels yet. I've bought all of the games listed in the op. I enjoy most of Sony 1st party content and hope they continue to grow. I'll quote you again "you should avoid calling others liars"

Halo is no longer that. 10 years ago it might have been second to Mario but not anymore. 

It certainly isn't the second biggest today.  But, I think it is the second biggest in history, using the criteria I mentioned.  

If we want to talk history we would have to put either Gran Turismo or Final Fantasy on that. Both have had impact greater than Halo and sold more as well.

Sure none were the sole reason to own the system as there were plenty more good on it, but impact per see they win. FF VII single handily put PS ahead of N64 and GT created sim racing basically alone and never dropped from leading sales. 

You should pay attention to the criteria I used.  It makes all the difference.

Final Fantasy isn't a first-party game, so it doesn't meet the criteria.

As for GT, I don't think it has had anywhere near the impact of Halo.  GT heavily influenced sim racers, so one could say it is directly responsible for the existence of Forza (which is, arguably, MS' biggest IP right now). That's about where its influence stops though, at least in terms of top-tier, AAA stuff.  But, Halo established (didn't invent, but did push to the forefront) the dominance of an entire genre of games that really pushed gaming forward.  It made online competitive shooter play a thing, which in turn brought about the dominance of CoD (unarguably the most commercially important series ever).  FPS' are, in many ways, the most commercially important genre ever, and certainly they're the most important for the growth of online gaming.  All of that is owed, in large part, to Halo.  You've really had FPS' and sports games that pushed gaming into the lives of every young male with the financial means to afford the hobby.  FPS' all owe a debt to Halo, and gaming in general owes a debt to FPS'.  I just don't see GT as being in the same ballpark (not that its not significant, but that it just didn't have the widespread impact of Halo).   

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/1130663844454514688/photo/1