By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 12 May 2025
Edit Thread
xl-klaudkil said:
Soundwave said:

If you need an extra 3 years of tacked on sales because your successor platform (the PS3) has terrible sales to me no I don't view it as any kind of huge accomplishment. 

Everyone and their grandma knows if Nintendo went on to sell the Switch 1 for 3 more years especially at a discounted price, it would rip the PS2 to shreds. The DS would have done the same.

Both of those systems hit 150 million way faster than the PS2 did, DS was simply not allowed to get to 160 million, not because it couldn't do it, but because Nintendo wanted to shift to the 3DS. 

The main differentiator then isn't that one platform is actually more popular, it's just that the PS3 had such dog shit sales out of the gate. 

Pointing that out isn't sour grapes, it's stating the factual obvious that for whatever reason a bunch of people don't want to admit. 

By your logic,.ps2 could have reached 200mill if sony just kept selling the console for a phew more years and did i pricecut.

Facts are it didnt nor will the switch.

Dont be so buthurt, being a fan of a multi billion company makes you look stupid.

Yeah you could and it would be essentially meaningless because you're so far past selling a system in its actual prime. Nintendo could have done the same with the DS. 

Fact is the DS and Switch both have a much higher sales per year than the PS2 do and destroyed the PS2 by years in reaching 150 million faster, which means in the prime years of all three systems, the DS and Switch actually were more popular than the PS2 was. 

If you're going to be sour about that, it's actually you that's "butt hurt". I'm not pointing anything that's not an actual fact. 

I've said this before, if you have two baseball players as an example and Player A hit 500 home runs in 1000 games, whereas Player B hit 550 home runs in 1500 games ... who is the better home run hitter? In sports, Player A would be considered the better hitter, not much doubt about it either. That's not a bias, that's simple common sense, even though player B hit technically more home runs, he needed a shit ton more games to do it in and that's not a trivial difference, in their primes, Player A was hitting home runs at a much higher rate per game, that makes him the actual more formidable home run hitter. 

There's nothing wrong whatsoever in pointing that out. 

In their production time lines of about 9 years, both the DS and Switch significantly outsold what the PS2 was able to do in that same time frame. Like I would understand if it was some what close but Switch for example getting to 150 million in 8 years when the PS2 needed just shy of 11 years to do that in is not even close. It needed almost three more years to get to the same 150 million mark? Like are you freaking kidding me in saying that should just be glossed over? That's ridiculous. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 12 May 2025