Nuvendil said:
*facepalm* The PS4 being the barometer is 1) technically irrelevant and 2) an inevitably since WE DON'T HAVE NUMBERS. It's no different than people say the PS4 is killing it because it is ahead of the PS2 (can't remember if it still is but it was once). No one saying that was expecting a domination of the PS2, like 200m sales. But rather the PS2 being a huge success meant matching or beating it was also a huge success. The PS4 is a sales machine and is in it's peak year. The Switch matching or beating it is a huge deal. Therefore, "killing it". You just flat don't understand the phrase. Or are digging your heals in and being intentionally contrarian. |
If technically irrelevant you can just say "Switch have been winning several NPDs. It is doing great", no need to bring PS4 namely to it to then say it have nothing to do with it.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







