By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 said:
COKTOE said:

The Vita did bear the PS name, but it's failure is a once-off anomaly for the PS brand, with a well documented history of abandonment from Sony to accompany it. Nintendo has shit the bed way more often. Sony, and the PS brand, has a consistent level of excellence, with average console sales that no other platform holder can touch. So, with the Wii brand: If the name can't be parlayed into a successful followup, it's dead. And it IS dead. Long dead. That was the Wii-U. Wii is the Sanjaya Malakar of brands.....That's too harsh. It's the William Hung of brands. And again, speaking of dead, a higher percentage than is the norm, as it concerns  console customers, the ones that helped make the Wii software library so amazing, have faded into the ether.

You don't seem to be aware of the specific topic under discussion and how we came to it, and why the Wii U has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

This discussion began with the assertion that "PS never stopped being the king of consoles", which implies that the PS3 was king last gen when it was getting thrashed by the Wii in sales, bleeding billions of dollars, and losing half of the marketshare it inherited from PS2.

The Wii U did not even exist at this time, so it's completely irrelevant.

If Wii trashed PS3 by outselling it by like 15% what do you call Playstation against N64, GC and WiiU?



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."