The strongest and more expensive console will win this generation, it never happened before.

[Samus Aran]

Torillian said:

Samus Aran said:

The tie ratio on vgchartz is based upon actual shipment data. It's not bogus at all.

PSP was much easier to pirate for than the DS. PSP used the wrong media and Sony later rectified that with the Vita (which has its own share of mistakes), what more proof do you want? The PSP only had 3 games that sold over 5 million units, the DS had 19 games that sold over 5 million units. Even the Wii U will most likely have more 5 million+ sellers lol.

Sony has handhelds as well, so it's only fair to include them into this discussion. They're dedicated gaming systems. MS total profit has little to do with gaming industry, so that comparison is bogus. 

But MS doesn't have handhelds, so is it "fair" in a discussion of who "won" a console generation to hamstring MS and include handheld profits?

You always mention this idea of what's fair or not when you bring this up (again and again and again).  It isn't about what's fair, it'ssimply about what's measurable.  You don't know what profits came from the console side of things versus handhelds so in a discussion of who won a console generation, which is what these threads are always about in case you were unaware, bring in profits makes no damn sense because you can't separate out things.  The only things we can separate out are sales either of hardware or of software.  Any other qualification for winning a console generation is just you trying to make it so Nintendo won every generation they've been a part in, which is becoming more predictable than the tide btw.

How exactly do you win a console generation if you sell your console at a $200 loss? Wii U would outsell xbone if it was sold at $100, but Nintendo wouldn't win anything by doing that. It could bankrupt the company.

We know Nintendo's profits and we also have enough reports on how much money Sony lost on the PS3. Xbox360 was second in the last generation.