By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel said:
Devil_Survivor said:
Just for some context, the systems who won each generation, won because it sold the most during that generation, not after. Meaning, after the new systems come the generation is over and cannot retroactively declare because the system pass the first finisher several years later. Do you that the Sega Genesis still sells pretty in South America? So if that ever happens to pass the SNES, are we going to say it won the fourth generation?

The Atari 2600,NES,SNES, PS1, PS2, who their generations because they sold the most in the years of those generations, not after.

Actually, using your SNES example disproves your winning theory.  SNES won because it sold better at the end of the gen, as well as into the next one.  During the gen, Genesis and SNES switched 1st and 2nd several times.  You should have picked a different example. 

In truth, all that matters is the final official numbers given.  If PS3 ends at 105M and the Wii at 104M, then the PS3 will be crowned the winner of this gen by future generations.  Most people will just check the totals on Wikipedia, and won't listen to Wii fans who might try to explain why Nintendo really won.  Same goes for 360 fans who might try to explain away the 3rd place finish.

At the point it matters, the PS3 will be in the realm of retro, where everyone looks with nostalgia and stops being flipping fanboys and what sold better.  People who used to not like the system in the day will end up buying them and enjoying content of the past.  Place doesn't matter then at all, partly because it isn't relevant to the ONE area where place and selling matters, that being third-party support.  You see the Wii U doing not gangbusters resulting it it not getting third-party exclusives, for example.

As far as the comment about making money being what matters, that is partly true in the business world, but not in console wars score tracking.