Would You Consider Nintendo Switch The Most Commercially Successful Gaming Hardware Of All Time?

[HebrewGamer]

Chrkeller said:

Shadow1980 said:

To add my two cents to the PS2 DVD playback discussion, the idea that literally tens of millions of people bought a PS2 just to watch DVDs is old argument, and it's one that never made sense to me. Sure, the PS2 having DVD playback right out of the box may have swayed a lot of gamers (the Xbox required an additional accessory for DVD playback, while the Dreamcast and GameCube had no DVD playback at all), which increased its value proposition for those in the market for a Gen 6 console, but I doubt many non-gamers would have bothered. By late 2000, standalone DVD players could be purchased for far less than the $300 asking price for a PS2.

While I'm not sure about the pricing situation in other countries, when the PS2 debuted in the U.S. in Oct. 2000, it cost $300. By that point, DVD players had been around for a bit over three years (I already owned one before the PS2 released). They had already become readily affordable, and you could already buy one for half the price of the PS2. By time the PS2's price was cut to $200 (May 2002), you could buy a DVD player for well under $100. At no point during the PS2's life was it the cheapest option for watching DVDs. Further complicating things was that even though it was the only console that could play DVDs straight out of the box, it did not come with a remote control, which would further add another $20 to the cost.

The idea that the PS2 was purchased in large quantities non-gamers just to be a DVD player just never made sense to me. It was neither the cheapest nor most convenient option for watching DVDs. Regular DVD players did the job just as good if not better and could be purchased for far less money. Unless there's actual market research showing that non-gamers bought the PS2 en masse just for the DVD playback, then I don't buy that claim. The PS2 was following the momentum of the PS1, its sales curve is normal for a game console, and its software tie ratio is about what you'd expect from a PlayStation console.

But even if it was some very large percentage that bought a PS2 just to watch DVDs, why even put these asterisks next the sales of all these systems in the first place? So what if there were caveats? Lots of systems have caveats. Many households bought multiple units of handhelds so each of their kids (or kids & gaming adults) could have one of their own. The 360 had the RROD issue in its first several years. The Wii and DS were bought by a fair amount of non-gamers. The PS3 actually was the most affordable Blu-ray player by far back in 2006. The Switch got a boost from COVID (plus there's the handheld double-dipping factor to consider). So even if it is true that the PS2's sales were inflated because of DVD, so what? Either one system sells more than another or it doesn't. It should be a matter of academic curiosity, not part of a partisan pissing contest. Which is what portions of this thread have turned into. Just another front in the platform war, because apparently some grown people can't act like grown people over a toy. And I am going to have to officially insist that people do act like grown-ups in here, because I am willing to accept the OP's request to lock the thread if it gets too far out of hand.

And the data never supported millions buying it as a DVD player.  The ps2 sold the most software, had a software attach ratio inline with the norm and the top selling games were dominated by the ps2.  Even the data has it being 6% in 2000, which would have decreased as time went on to sub 1%.  Not too mention why did third party support the ps2 over the xbox/GC if so many owners where non gamers?  The answer is because it is a BS argument.

Only casuals bought the ps2 for dvd is as accurate as only kiddies buy Nintendo.  Both are myths created by people who were/are upset their favorite plastic box didnt "win."

You've gone far away from your original point in this thread which was how the PS2 is the most commercially successful console ever. I responded to that claim with several points. You only ever addressed two which was me saying they made very little money from the system(which I proved with the chart I posted where I showed PS4 and PS5 making 4 and 5 times more profit selling less as well as the PS1 making a billion more in profit selling less)  and how DVD playback was the main driver for it's success. Your original point of PS2 being #1 was refuted a long time ago but you're going to fight to the death over the one DVD point.

You keep bringing up attach rate as if it means something. It's merely a figure from taking software sales and dividing it by hardware sales. It doesn't mean everyone who bought a PS2 bought 11 games for it unless you can provide data showing the amount of games each person actually bought. PS2 only has 5 10 million sellers to Switch's 21(will most likely be 24 by the end of the year with SMPJ, Pokemon ZA, and Tomodachi life). This indicates that everyone was not going out and buying 11 games, but rather a portion of that 160m install base went out and bought 30 or even 40 games. I pointed out how I have 30 games for my Switch. Switch having so many games selling 10million plus is a good indicator of consumers purchasing multiple games for the system. It doesn't guarantee it, but you will have more confidence of higher hardware/software attachment from a system with 21 10 million sellers than a system with only 5(maybe 6 with Tekken 5?). 

further evidence is the PS2 had 167 million sellers vs. switch's 107. neither number adds up to the software figures they have which means there's a ton of lesser know games people bought. the casuals will only stick to the most well know games and won't by the obscure titles. These lesser known games will be bought by the hardcore gamers who tend to have large gaming libraries. Casuals will only buy the big name titles. Anytime any product has a huge number of sales is due to penetrating the casual market. The hardcore gamer buying 30 games is what gave the PS2 its massive hardware sales number. 

Why does this matter? if the consumer segment driving software sales are mostly hardcore gamers with huge libraries this leaves a lot of room for the casual who only bought a few games for their kids to play while they watched their collection of DVD movies. You can talk about how this or that standalone was cheaper, but it didn't provide video games for the kids to play. 

I never said in this thread the PS2 would fail without DVD playback, but it wouldn't get anywhere near the hardware sales it did as it wouldn't grab the casuals like it did.