They could have won this gen if they didn't put all that DRM shit on XBO.

PlayStation 1's generation rival was the 64, both were 6th generation consoles, I mentioned moving goalposts because i suspected you would bolster the numbers by adding handhelds to home consoles, the problem is, handhelds are on their own generational timeline, so adding them and calling it "nintendos 5th generation" is disingenuous.

The more amusing part is, even if you go ahead and combine and split the handheld sales based on matching years for the generations of home consoles, the PlayStation 1 and 2 still sold more, and heres the thing too, N64 and gameboy/gbc/gba games cost more to manufacture than PlayStation 1 and 2 disks, because PCB silicon and the associated memory chips, logic and for many games, attached battery, costs more per unit than disk based games did, so the profit margin for PlayStation 1 and 2 games was notably higher, increasing further as each generation progressed.

Then theres the pricing, well lets just look at it shall we?

$89.99 for the hardware, $19.99 for the games, even though later games would release at slightly higher prices, compare that to the following year:


Some games stil $20, some up to $35, but a range of systems for $49.99 a pop or 59.99 for the pocket.

Yet that same year?


PS1 was still $199.99 and games averaging $45, a console that eventually went on to sell over 120m units.

Closely followed by the PS2 that went on to sell over 155m units.

I'm sorry but with higher profit margins and much higher unit sales for both hardware AND software, all logic and verifiable data points to the PS1 and PS2 winning the 5th and 6th gen in every concievable manner, whether you fudge your numbers by including handhelds of different generations or not.

Meh, even after the whole PS3 debackle the PS3 still managed to outsell the 360 in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 The playstation brand is just stronger world wide, which is what's needed to win a generation. 

Or extreme casual appeal but yeah I highly doubt XB1 and PS4 would be neck and neck maybe about only 5m difference but I just think there's no evidence to support it would win.

do you truthfully, honestly, 100% actually believe xbox had any chance in the slighest to come anywhere close to ps4's sales even before the drm thing?

I don't see it, MS had a chance this gen but blew it with stupid policies. MS is probably doomed to always be second

The information is all published online. Nintendo posted higher operating income for most years than the gaming sector of Sony. They also sell much more first party games.

http://gamerinvestments.com/video-game-stocks/index.php/2008/05/30/playstation-2-may-have-won-last-generations-sales-battle-but-it-lost-the-console-war/

I think Microsoft has a chance in the next generation. They have proven over the course of this current gen that they are willing to take feedback from their fans and try to improve their console. I really think if they continue down this road, they can win back a lot of customers the PS4 has taken from them. For them to achieve this, they will undoubtedly have to build a more competitive console in terms of power.

The odds are definitely against them, but I think they have a chance.

People refuse to grow up. Their attitudes haven't changed. You have guys in your face about stuff like they are getting paid by the company. Grown men being kids with this fake war shit. It's disgusting. 

From the very site you posted.

**** The operating income listed above is only for the division of each company that handles their video game console business. For Sony this is the Networked Products & Services Division (formally the Game Division), Microsoft’s results are from their Entertainment and Devices Division and Nintendo’s numbers exclude their earnings from “other investments”. Because of this the amounts reported contain operating income from sources other than the home video game consoles.  Sony’s results include sales of  the PSP, VAIO PCs, Walkman, etc.  Microsoft’s EDD includes the Zune, PC games, various hardware products, etc. Nintendo’s earnings include GameBoy, DS and software income.

I.E. Included substantial losses caused by the failings of the walkman and vaio pc/laptop sectors, sectors that did so terribly the company would later essentially sell it off to an outside party.
Just how far will you push these goalposts exactly?you've already gone from "its not about sales its about income", to "but lets include handhelds too" and now "lets compare net losses for entire divisions between a company that does virtually nothing outside of its games to one experiencing extreme losses in entirely different but still associated in financial reports sectors".

If you have to push it that far for a victory, it's a pretty hollow victory indeed.

Why not? Each gen is almost a self-contained dispute. Someone will screw up, someone will get things right and that's it. Of course, having the sales advantage in a previous gen helps, so you have to really be excellent to steal the market.

From my perspective, the winner is always the one who happens to be less error prone. That's the biggest factor against MS winning, they usually screw up in a lot of aspects. I believe that X360 had everything to actually win the gen, since it wasn't much more expensive than the Wii, but the RROD was a big, big PR issue. However, they can learn with the mistakes and get things right. They learned with the RROD and actually made the X1 more robust, even increasing the unit's size to put better cooling.