Soundwave said:
It's not just a vague average and like "oh yeah the Switch had a couple of peak years better than the PS2 but otherwise the PS2 was more popular". No the Switch has kicked the PS2's ass every year for basically 8 straight years now. It has a massive 20+ million unit lead over the PS2 launch aligned. The PS2 is not even close. For the important years of even the PS2's lifespan (can you even name a significant PS2 game released after 2008?) it's been dominated in sales by the Switch. So lets state that for the record and not get that twisted, this isn't really even a race, it's a *blow out* for the Switch right now, the PS2 was never, ever even close to this popular from 2000-2009 when basically all of its major games were released and the majority of its product cycle. The only reason Switch may not get to 160 is only because Nintendo is going to force that platform into premature retirement because they want to sell the successor system (same exact thing that happened with the Nintendo DS, which also could have easily surpassed 160). Everyone and their grandma knows full damn well Nintendo could drop the Switch 1 to $200-$250 and let it sell for another 3-4 years it and would easily surpass 160 million and probably even 170 million. Who here is even going to debate that? So what are we even talking about? Like I feel like this needs to be stated in blunt terms, because people act like this is some kind of neck and neck when it really is not. This is really hilariously badly characterized. The Switch has completely thrashed the PS2 for 8 full years now and the only reason it may not hit 160 is because Nintendo is calling off the dogs, not because it couldn't do so if given the chance, not even because there isn't demand. I think most anyone would agree the Switch 1 could easily sell 3-4 million units/year for a few more years past 2026 if Nintendo was willing to give the system a proper "budget price senior platform phase" where it gets to sell for say $200-$250 for a few more years. That's why I don't really consider the PS2 the king of anything, it's been beaten and beaten badly in sales year after year for almost an entire decade by other systems. Head to head the Switch has beaten the PS2 badly. If you're actually the legit no.1, the PS2 should not be that far behind and shouldn't actually be behind after 8 years at all. How are you supposedly "more popular" while you're also more than 20+ million units behind after what is a full generation cycle of time (I think we would all agree about 8 full years of a sample size is full generation's worth of time), lol. |
All this discussion derives from the common assumption that sucess = sold units and, therefore, the most sucessful console is the most sold one. I think you are claiming for people to separate sucess from sold units, which is a valid thing to speak out. But, at the end of the day, the final number of units solds is indeed what most people care about. This final number is influenced by a lot of factors, of course, but all these stuff is included in this "competition" of who's gonna be the most sold console ever. Personaly, I think that Sony dropping the PS2's year after year to the point where it costed $100 vs the Switch never getting a official price cut is something to be talked, but the extremely high demand for the PS2 in its final years is also a merit of its. "There was only demend because the price was low", we'll never know the answer for it. Anyways, as I said before, I think it's better to separete things and conversations. One thing is talking about the most sold console ever and how the Switch still can or cannot get this tittle for it or how the PS2 got it, another thing is talking about which console is the most successfull or even which one was the most popular
