| Mummelmann said: The Game Boy Color is not the same as the Game Boy and is widely regarded as the successor; it even had a next generation chipset. The main CPU was twice as fast as the original Game Boy, it featured 15 bit colors as opposed to only 2 bits on GB, it had twice as much video RAM and four times as much system RAM; how exactly is this the same as the Game Boy other than the name? it's not like 3DS and 3DS XL or even 2DS, the 3DS and 2DS share the same RAM, same CPU and specs, the difference lies in display and storage. The same goes for DS and its revisions. The original iPhone is the same phone as the iPhone 5 or 6? It's basically the same argument. The Game Boy and Game Boy Color are not the same console. This is not stretching; it is fact. |
No, it's a fact that you are stretching. Not even Nintendo saw it as a true successor. They always combine GB and GBC numbers together. And, most importantly, they released GBA less than 2 1/2 years later. Now, either sales for the GBC were really shitty, which also refutes your claim, OR Nintendo put out a new revision of GB only as a stop gap. One that needed slightly improved HW to take advantage of all the new colors they were using.
Even if you want to use it as a seperate HW, using SW sales we can clearly see the GB sold more. You wanting to seperate them would also mean we would have to seperate the DSi from the DS, given its internal differences. And since the DS already sold over half of the total DS+DSi units before the DSi even launched, and did not stop selling once the DSi launched, the DSi clearly sold less than the DS.
Either way you break it down, your claim is 100% false.
