Mazty said:
The PS3 was $600's....not $300. Either way, I'm not "focusing solely on NA" for any dubious reasons, I'm quoting an article. Nice oversight by you there in order for an ad hominem....
If you don't think the figures mean anything, fair enough, but don't so absurd and acuse me of cherry picking defintions when I'm just quoting a website article.
|
Mazty said:
So as we can see those who claim the Wii U's launch was [I assume you mean "not"] worse than the PS3's, or not particuarly bad, look to be very, very wrong.
|
^ This was not in the original article. The Wii U's launch was not, in fact, worse than the PS3's. This is where you are cherry-picking definitions; nowhere does the article say anything positive about the PS3's launch, nor that it was "better" than the Wii U's. Know why? Because it wasn't, and if it was, this chart wouldn't prove that any more than it proves that the PS3 and 360 both had better launches than the original Wii.
Noting the PS3's launch price doesn't help your case. That is different from sales -- it factors more into revenue and profit. And if you want to go there, even at $600 the PS3 was losing Sony money with every sale, so its higher price does nothing to make it "more successful" from Sony's perspective.
You also drag the vastly different modern market into the issue when handhelds are brought up. I suppose you don't think smartphones and tablets can damage home console sales, as well?