Wii won in sales even if the PS3 outsells it in 3-5 years or whatever. Sony doesn't get to "win" a generation by manufacturing their consoles for about 30 years and selling them for $5 to kids in Africa later in the life cycle, whereas Nintendo generally halts manufacturing when a new console hits or at least a few years later as they are doing with the Wii.

It's like saying that Emmitt Smith is better than Jim Brown because he had more total yards. Well hello, Smith played for 15 seasons and Brown played for 9. All that matters is that when Brown played, he dominated far more than Smith and his yards per carry average was much higher.

But keep on holding out hope that the PS3 will "outsell" the Wii, as if that isn't the cheapest "victory" there has ever been.

Was there a console war after all ? 

Didnt all three 7-gen consoles have a profitable market run ? Didn´t all them cather different audiences one way or another ?

If its just a matter of compariseon...the Wii still is, by far, the best seller console of that generation with 100+ million pieces sold.... just saying.

This.

Thanks a lot.

Finally some reason in Vg Chartz.

It's good to see optimistic people.

Actually there is nothing that defines "winning a generation" except maybe stock performance of the companies involved.  That what investors would use to declare a winner.  Yet even that when you are talking about companies that have multiple business lines is hard to determine.  So you simply need to look at what investors would like and with that you would have to say through early in this generation it was Nintendo, MS, Sony. Now it is MS, Sony, Nintendo.  

Would also say that Sony failed with the PS3 simply because they never intended to cut prices nearly as much as they have. No way they intended to drop $100 that each year in 2007, 2008, and 2009.  

No, I read everything, and understood it perfectly. Nowhere did you say the PS3 was a failure, but because it "went down" to a possible 100M, while Nintendo and Microsoft jumped considerably, you can't say Sony "won" because they let the competition catch up and didn't sell as much as last gen. Well, how many PS2s/GCs/XBs were sold? 190M? How many consoles have sold this gen? 260M? So is it really so much as "they let the competition catch up" or is it "the gaming market has expanded"? I'm sure the latter is a more legitimate answer since total home console sales have grown by almost 40%.

And like I said, regarding comparisons to the PS2, the PS2 was on the market for 13 years. The PS3 has been on the market for 7 years. You can't ignore the fact that the PS2 was available for almost double the time the PS3 has been, and then use that to knock the PS3 for "selling less". Otherwise the, like in the analogy, the iPhone 5s just hasn't done as well as the iPhone 4s (even though the 4s has been out for 2 years and the 5s has been out for 2 months)

In that case, why have the discussion in the first place? Obviously, Nintendo does their own thing, so that makes Sony the status quo winner anyway. Great.

You said yourself that the PS2 was a little over a 100 millions when the PS3 launched. First of all, the PS3 is (probably) not going to be close to that at PS4 launch, secondly, the PS3 launch was a gigantic failure, naturally leading to more people buying PS2 over a PS3 because of the price. It doesn't seem like that will be the case for PS4, which will hurt PS3 sales in comparison to PS2 sales. 

You stated that the market expanded. So let's look at that. PS2's gen: 190m. PS3's gen: 260m. PS2's sold at launch of PS3: 100m. PS3's sold at launch of PS4: 80m.

The gen as a whole was more successful, but Sony less. Doesn't really prove your point. Why didn't Sony expand? The PS3 CLEARLY let the others catch up. 

So much fanboyism in this article...

First they start by saying it's the story of a underdog winning. They lost all credibility from me right there from the start. The PS3 was the successor of the immensly popular PS2 and PS1. The system was announced and launched with so much hype and so much arrogance from Sony. No one at the time ever considered the PS3 to be a underdog.

Then their is the argument that it outsold the x360. Do you seriously think M$ care and wished they could switch places with Sony for this gen? Hell no. Despite being outsold, M$ made WAY more money from the X360 than Sony did with the PS3. Sony sold the PS3 at a lost for years and the X360 sold WAY more software. And let's not speak of the millions they made with xboxlive shall we? Oh, and how much did M$ make with Kinect compared to Sony with move? The number of sales is just a joke number that hides what's really important. If I sell 1million cars at 100$ it does'nt make a ''winner'' over someone who sells a thousand apples at 10$.

As for the exclusives this year, they praise Beyond and Ascension way to much imo. But that's just a opinion.

When it comes to offering, I prefer the PS3 by far, way more content to choose from on exclusives. But when it comes to real quality content, I think they are more similar than what ppl give credit to M$. Sony will give us like 10exclusives with like 2 or 3 of them being really great while M$ will give us like 5exclusives with also around 2 great ones imo.

In my eyes, PS3 did FAR from winning the gen, of all things it disapointed the most. Asking for a freakishly high price w/o offering anything to distinguish the console from others for it for years. Selling way less than it's predecessors. Crappy multiplat ports. Announcing many games to get sales that never launched on the system with no explanations (FFV13, Last Guardian, Agent...). Losing many exclusives like FF, MGS and GTA. When you compared where the xbox brand was before the 360 and where the playstation was before the PS3, M$ won in my book and Sony is dead last. Thankfully history seems to repeat itself with switched roles for next gen, but we will have to wait and see.