Handhelds and home consoles are two very different markets. They're dedicated gaming devices but they also target different consumer markets.

I don't get how anyone could possibly think they're the same market and try to analyse them as such. To be honest, it sounds like you're including handhelds because it fits your narrative.

The question of this very thread is about consoles, and we both know that that is in reference to home consoles and does not include handhelds.  I'd be curious to check the last time you tossed out this argument and see what the thread was about.  I'd be surprised if the question was not clearly worded as "what console won ____" not "what company won ____", but you always get it back to this shit every time.  I could set my watch by it.

The tie ratio on vgchartz is based upon actual shipment data. It's not bogus at all.

PSP was much easier to pirate for than the DS. PSP used the wrong media and Sony later rectified that with the Vita (which has its own share of mistakes), what more proof do you want? The PSP only had 3 games that sold over 5 million units, the DS had 19 games that sold over 5 million units. Even the Wii U will most likely have more 5 million+ sellers lol.

Sony has handhelds as well, so it's only fair to include them into this discussion. They're dedicated gaming systems. MS total profit has little to do with gaming industry, so that comparison is bogus. 

Tie ratio based on shipment, yes, like all companies give shipment of all games... nope it's based on their algorithm... and even like that you can't prove which is easier to pirate, it's just you trying to bash PSP and make things better for DS and WiiU... I could botleg my PSP, DS, Wii and X360 all in the same afternoon without expending much, and what does  that have to do with the SW sold? Nothing. The easiness to pirate won't do a thing, the willingness of the customer to pirate or not would mean.

You win by having the highest marketshare in the console market for that generation.  That's what everyone else understands winning a console generation to mean.  if the company goes broke winning that generation you can make the debate that it wasn't worth it, but they still would have won that console generation based on the only metric that we have to measure these things by.  

What reason is there to base something on conjecture instead of facts?

"Total worldwide sales (in millions of units) per platform. For all platforms that are no longer manufactured, all figures are total shipments from manufacturers. For current platforms, all figures are current sales as measured by VGChartz"

Yeah, you're wrong. I'm not bashing PSP at all, it's a widely known fact that Sony should have used cartridges for the PSP. Proven by the fact that Sony switched to cartridges with the Vita.

He also ignored that GC was 150, a lot cheaper than both PS2 and Xbox and were destroyed in the market... but maybe they had 200 profit per console sold... the logic is very faulty.

The question of this very thread is about consoles, and we both know that that is in reference to home consoles and does not include handhelds.  I'd be curious to check the last time you tossed out this argument and see what the thread was about.  I'd be surprised if the question was not clearly worded as "what console won ____" not "what company won ____", but you always get it back to this shit every time.  I could set my watch by it.

You like to read things that aren't there. PS2 made a lot more profit than the GC, I never said otherwise.