If you need an extra 3 years of tacked on sales because your successor platform (the PS3) has terrible sales to me no I don't view it as any kind of huge accomplishment. 

Everyone and their grandma knows if Nintendo went on to sell the Switch 1 for 3 more years especially at a discounted price, it would rip the PS2 to shreds. The DS would have done the same.

Both of those systems hit 150 million way faster than the PS2 did, DS was simply not allowed to get to 160 million, not because it couldn't do it, but because Nintendo wanted to shift to the 3DS. 

The main differentiator then isn't that one platform is actually more popular, it's just that the PS3 had such dog shit sales out of the gate. 

Pointing that out isn't sour grapes, it's stating the factual obvious that for whatever reason a bunch of people don't want to admit. 

That's not even opening the can of worms of Sony's stated 160+ million number isn't even a sales number, it's a production number which includes everything from kiosk units to demo units to refurbed systems most likely etc. etc. You're not even counting strictly sold to consumer systems. 

By your logic,.ps2 could have reached 200mill if sony just kept selling the console for a phew more years and did a pricecut.

By your logic the switch needed a cheaper handheld only version to reach even 150(without the handheld onlt version switch wouldnt even come close to the ps2)

Nobody is saying the switch isnt a massive succes, if it outsells a 25 year old system or not.

What does it matter, does all of a sudden people  say" wow switch outsold the ps2 it now sucks!" Noo they wont, ps2 will still be remembered as (one of) the greatest console of all time.

 And so will the switch( highly doubt most switches will still work in  25years but still)⁹

They are both kings of consoles.

Yeah you could and it would be essentially meaningless because you're so far past selling a system in its actual prime. Nintendo could have done the same with the DS. 

Fact is the DS and Switch both have a much higher sales per year than the PS2 do and destroyed the PS2 by years in reaching 150 million faster, which means in the prime years of all three systems, the DS and Switch actually were more popular than the PS2 was. 

If you're going to be sour about that, it's actually you that's "butt hurt". I'm not pointing anything that's not an actual fact. 

I've said this before, if you have two baseball players as an example and Player A hit 500 home runs in 1000 games, whereas Player B hit 550 home runs in 1500 games ... who is the better home run hitter? In sports, Player A would be considered the better hitter, not much doubt about it either. That's not a bias, that's simple common sense, even though player B hit technically more home runs, he needed a shit ton more games to do it in and that's not a trivial difference, in their primes, Player A was hitting home runs at a much higher rate per game, that makes him the actual more formidable home run hitter. 

There's nothing wrong whatsoever in pointing that out. 

In their production time lines of about 9 years, both the DS and Switch significantly outsold what the PS2 was able to do in that same time frame. Like I would understand if it was some what close but Switch for example getting to 150 million in 8 years when the PS2 needed just shy of 11 years to do that in is not even close. It needed almost three more years to get to the same 150 million mark? Like are you freaking kidding me in saying that should just be glossed over? That's ridiculous. 

Wait, the PS2 didn't reach 150M until 2011? And then it somehow sold 10M in the next what, 2 years? When the whole next generation was already wrapping up for the next next generation to start? I somehow don't fully trust that 160M number claimed by Sony...

The possibility that the Switch won't sell 160 million is driving some people crazy, this is funny. About the PS2, at least here in Colombia it was much more popular than the DS and the Switch is today, I have the impression that it's the same in all of South America. In developed countries I believe it was normal to have a PS2 for the home and a portable for each member, in this context it seems normal for a portable console to sell more.

"It doesn't deserve it", says who, you? It's one of the most beloved consoles ever made with one of the best gaming libraries of all time. It absolutely deserves the title it has.

You can argue all day about made up scenarios of what Nintendo didn't do with the DS or what they're going to do with the Switch, but none of that is relevant. The DS felt short of the 160m milestone. The Switch is not there yet. Like it or not, the PS2 is still the best selling console ever made, and deservedly so. 

To be honest, if the Switch were given the same circumstances the PS2 had, the Switch in my opinion could have easily sold 180 Million. In a scenario where let's say the Switch 2 is 1000$ (adjusting PS3 price to 2025 inflation), Nintendo drops the price of all Switch models to 100$ and keeps producing it til 2030.

The PS2 is still a great console and deserves it's success, but I also feel like it definitely needed more lucky circumstances than the Switch to sell that much. The Switch selling this much while being more expensive than the PS2 in its later stages along with doing it at a much quicker pace than PS2 with a successor that didn't cost 1000$ to force people to get it is pretty amazing. The Switch was never impulse by cheap like the PS2 and still sold just as much.

If you want to be technical we don't have any proof that the PS2 ever sold 160 million either. 

Production number isn't a sales number, that includes who knows how many PS2s that were used for promotional purposes, store kiosks, demo units, refurbed units, etc. etc. Why doesn't Sony just give an actual legitimate sell through number? Take a guess why they won't. 

Like it or not, the Switch and DS have a much higher sales per year average than the PS2 did, which indicates they were actually significantly more popular (by sales) too during their product cycle head to head ... you can't have that shit both ways and say "well you can't make that argument". It's a factual argument. PS2 sold significantly less per year averaged over its life span than the Switch and DS did. If PS2 was really "more popular" how exactly is that the case? 

Switch didn't just beat the PS2 to 150 mill either, this isn't like it was a close, tight race where the Switch edged it out. The Switch took the PS2 and wiped its ass with it. It beat the PS2 to 150 million by almost 3 years faster. LOL, that's not a race, that's a rout. A blow out. Like what's the argument here? That this is even close? It's not even close. It's totally like watching a boxing match where one guy is getting completely caved in and gets saved by the bell and judges. 

If people want to get mad and say "well you shouldn't point that out!", sorry but it's pretty blatantly obvious when you look at the actual data. If PS2 was remotely close to the Switch in sales popularity it should have hit 150 million around year 8 like the Switch did, not year freaking 11 (lol). The truth is at about the same age the Switch is now the PS2 had just passed 120 million sold (7 years 6 months old at that point give or take). The Switch passed 151 million at 7 years 11 months. 

Like how is it no one points out this isn't even remotely close? The Switch is beating the snot out of the PS2, 30+ million ahead after just under 8 years on market for both (so certainly not a small sample size), the only reason this isn't going to finish in a bloodbath rout is because Nintendo will prematurely put an ending to the ass whupping.  

When Sony updated their website to this information it really pissed off a lot of Nintendo fans online but that doesn't make it untrue. Whether people want to move goal posts, give excuses and get triggered doesn't matter and doesn't change the facts. Sell 160M consoles or don't, it's not that big of a deal. The mainstream media and online narrative is that PS2 sold 160M consoles. That's the number to beat and that's all that matters. No one gives a shit about how fast one sold over the other at any point in time with a history lesson or what if scenario thrown in, people only care about the final number. Put the pitchforks down and let the race finish with some dignity.

2000 PlayStation 2 - PSP PlayStation Portable | PlayStation History timeline (US)

"The Switch and DS sold more on average than the PS2!"

Sure. But both didn't reach the 160m milestone. I'm not sure why that's relevant or how it makes the PS2 record less impressive honestly. The Wii had bigger peak years than the PS4 and PS5 and both will end up selling more than the Wii. Why should it matter?

"But the 160m is fake!"

No it isn't... the idea that Sony, a public traded company is lying should just die already. It's console warriors nonsense.

If you want to be technical about it take a million from the production number (for refurbs, kiosks and all of that). Even then, the Switch didn't sell 159.63m yet and the DS never came close.