By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dr.Grass on 22 December 2011
Edit Thread
TWRoO said:
Dr.Grass said:

VGKing said:
The weakest console don't always sells the most. Like


PS2 > Gamecube > Xbox > Dreamcast 
Wii > Xbox 360 > PS3
DS > PSP
PS1 > Nintendo 64 > Saturn

SNES > Genesis


So 3DS > Vita wouldn't be much of a surprise.


Fixed. Well, almost,

you just happened TO FORGET that Xbox > Gamecube.

SERIOUSLY, this 'always' argument just embarrasses whoever makes it. 

It's a pretty quick fix to make the argument work again for the big 4.
Sega always loses, The weakest console of the others [in the generation] always wins.

Also held true for NES > Master System.

Of course there are many other consoles people forget or don't know about... I imagine there are dozens of cheap 'consoles' even in this generation that no-one considers... but back in NES and SNES days there were still a few "significant others" If we ignore the tiddly little consoles (Casio PV1000) then there is only 1 consoles that disproves the bolded statement. The Turbografx-16 is supposedly from the 4th generation, and it's earlier release means it was probably technically inferior to the SNES.

Oh and the battle between XB and GC is irrellevent to the original statement, the Sega point stands of course (which is why I corrected) it was "the weakest console always sells the most"... the PS2 was the weakest of the gen apart from Sega DC, and it won.

I get you, and you are not striclty wrong I guess, but...

Surely saying ''the weakest console always wins'' makes no sense whatsoever since the fact that the weaker console happned to win the console wars on a few occasions has nothing to do with it being weaker?

If there had been 20 generations then you would have a bigger sample space to make such observations, but I would have to say that many, many other factors played a more important role than the 'power' of the winning console.