Because they are both catering to different audiences. So if there is a shift in one audience it will only affect one of the two and as such they don't have an equal opportunity to sell anymore. They are both dependant on different competitors.

Example 1:

Nintendo starts allowing their formerly exclusive IPs on all mobile devices. This will most likely result in a massive drop in 3DS sales. It won't affect the home consoles at all. You know what happens then? Suddenly the Nintendo fanboys like to add the smartphone sales to the 3DS. Would you say it's fair then?

Example 2:

Built-in hardware in TVs gets more powerful to have core games ported to them. Or let's say the steam box really hits it off. This will make a huge dent in home console sales but it will not at all affect the handhelds.

They each live in a different competitive field that can change at any time but won't affect the other. That's why I think it's not fair to compare them. You should only compare things that compete on the same ground and for the same resources.

This is a thread demanding why nerds can't go into threads and correct people on their terminology.

This thread is like one of Selnors Ryse threads

They target different demographics, and they have different expense.

1st of all they do have different audiences.  People are stating that because DS & PS2 sold about the same amount that they have about the same market but that's just cherry picking examples.  In fact I believe the core audience of DS is around 5~17 y/o and PS2's core audience is 18~35 y/o, i.e. the majority of the audience is different.

Those systems sold well for different reasons; the PS2 for it's amazing amount of content plus in no small part lots of piracy.  DS for the touch gaming revolution and range of more casual content.

2nd the cost/expense and attach rates are rather different.  Handhelds are more often purchased as gifts for kids, while consoles are more often purchased for personal use.

• A handheld at $150 with about 5 games sold in lifetime x $40 = $350 sales per handheld sold.
• A console at $300 with about 10 games sold in lifetime x $60 = $900 sales per console sold.

Plus a console likely has more accessories (extra controllers, charge stations, headsets, subscriptions, a big 1080p TV, whatever...)

So IMO:

• If you want to talk popularity in audience - don't mix handheld & console.
• If you want to talk business success - use actual sales dollars not unit sales.
• If you just want a bigger epeen - use unit sales

I already told you guys before, lets compare everything. When someone compares a handheld to a console, lets compare a smartphone to that handheld. Heck! Lets even compare ticket sales of the NFL once its all said and done.

I mean why put it into context when you can generalize everything. Its so much simple this way :D

You both make valid points so good enough for me. Thanks for the conversation and have a nice day!

The important thing isn't the comparison itself, but rather the very point of the comparison. IMO it makes no sense comparing sales between, for example, 3DS and Vita if your purpose is to say "3DS outsold Vita" because that always happens because, well, 3DS's been outselling pretty much everything for a long time only to be surpassed a single week by PS4. However, if the point of your comparison is "3DS once again outsold Vita, however, the average sales per week difference between both of them is shrinking" or something like that then it's a nice comparison because it's informative and not just stating the obvious like in the first case.