In a video generation what do you think is more important, the market share or the sales of the console itself?

Sales

Sales

Neither. Net Income is more importaint. Market share and sales are ther same thing, just one is relative and the other is the actual number. Neither mean anything unless you make a profit.

The question is what's more important between X and Y, not in general xD

  1

Precisely. The more sales you have, the greater share you'll be able to get.

Wait? no Marketshare doesn't equate to Sales. Though they are similar. Unless i'm understanding the term marketshare wrong.

Marketshare is a fraction of the market. With Market being the number of individual customers.
Sales is just that. A single sale.

Correct me about being wrong, but it's possible that I can buy 2 Nike shoes. Does that mean Nike should count me twice as a marketshare? If I buy 5 PS2 does that increase the marketshare? Just because I bought 5 PS2, that doesn't mean I'm going to buy a game 5 times.

If this is the reason. Then There is a difference between marketshare and sales. I admit though 5 PS2 was only an extreme case of 1 of my friends. Most of my friends only owned 3.

Net Income, companies should always focus on making money. It's how big companies are born.
Marketshare, important due to the circular nature of product community.
Sales, directly related to Net Income :)

Marketshare is sales of one company divided by the total market. If I sell 2 shos, and there have been 10 shoes sold, then I have 20% market share. If you know the total and each companie's share, you can find their sales. They are dirrectly related. Because they are intertwined like this, there is no point in asking which one is better since they both show the same results.

This is kind of tangential to the actual question asked in the OP, but it seems to me that there are two ways for a company to try to make money: Market control and value creation.

There are lots of ways that a business can gain more market control. They can loss-lead to try to lock customers into supply payments. They can lobby regulators to block new entrants. They can make deals with middlemen to marginalize the distribution of competition. Once you have a powerful share of market control, it becomes really easy to earn profits because competitors don't have your mindshare, your distribution presence, or your economies of scale.

For example, I'd be perfectly happy to buy generic cola for half the price of a Coke. But when I get thirsty for cola at work, generic isn't an option. It's not an option at the 7/11 or any fast food restaurant, either. Coke and Pepsi have all the distribution, so I have to buy either a Coke or a Pepsi. There's no magic sauce in brand-name cola that makes it worth twice the price of generic, they just have distribution contracts that keep the generic competition trapped in grocery stores.

Value creation is the simple focus on creating a better product. There's all kinds of ways of doing that. It can be tougher, cheaper, more stylish, faster, easier, or just a compelling new combination of ideas. You give consumers a good reason to want your product, and charge them a premium because they want it more than the other guy's product.

Honda is a good example here. They make notoriously reliable cars. Customers buy them at a premium because they expect to either get a lot of milage without a lot of maintenance, or because they know they'll get a great price for them when they sell them on the used market later on. 

Both paths can lead to profit or ruin for a business depending on how well the strategy is executed. A company that wins with control can have that control slip from its grasp into the hands of one that creates more value, while a company that pursues value creation can find itself crushed by one that leverages better control over the market. But as a consumer, I'll tell you that I almost always take the value creator over the controller.

Sorry for the tl;dr.