Primarily vs only. 

You are making some wild baseless claims. 

pleaseprovide some sources and data.  Where did it say th ordering of reasons were based on importantance. Please provide evidence, like I did  showing 6% of ps2 customers only used it as a dvd player.  I don’t need to address whatever points you feel are imoortant as it doesn’t negate there is proof Brooke bought ps2 as only a dvd player which was my claim  feel free to chat about and provide evidence for your 2 points though  

seems like your argument is based on nothing. Happy to see some evidence if you have it though. 

cheers!  Don’t expect anymore replies from me. Case closed little boy. 

No need, argument is over.  Your data has 94% using as gaming+, while only 6% bought it as a DVD player...  just like I said.  You still ignore the xbox played DVDs and the GC had a lower attach ratio.  And we both know in 2000 that 6% would drop like a rock over the ps2's life, meaning very few of the total 160 million bought as a DVD player.  The overwhelming majority bought the ps2 for the games.  

At the end of the day you can have the last word.  I mean, **** me, your own data proved me right.  How you respond to being wrong is your choice and only reflects on you, not me. 

Cheers mate.   

Japan had DVD-players long before west had them. Since 1996? Especially in Europe PS2 was among the first DVD-players, so it's very likely that more people had PS2 as a DVD player in the west than they had in Japan. Secondly, it's not just how many bought it overall as DVD-players, but also when did they buy it as such. Especially at the time of the launch it was cheap and also had the Sony brand. 

PS2 had it's first price cut a year after it's release and every two years after that, if I recall.

The point about timing is because DVD players started 2000 very expensive, and ended the year available sub $100 for budget brands. So, the PS2 launching in March in Japan vs. October in the USA, and November for Europe is extremely important to the understanding of how much value the DVD playback feature offered. The value of the DVD player basically got worse with time, price cuts of the PS2 never overtook the rate that DVD players fell. DVD players also got better over time while the PS2 never did, and didn’t even include a remote out of the box. The value proposition of the PS2 as a primary DVD player was terrible by the time it launched in the west, and abysmal within a year or two.

Gotta love ChatGPT  lol  

Here’s a clean, fair and unbiased point-by-point correction of his final summary.  

Response: Factual / logical issues in your summary

I’m going to go point by point through your claims and flag what is incorrect or unsupported based on the data you cited.

1) “94% used it for gaming+, only 6% bought it as a DVD player → this proves my point”

Inaccuracy / misrepresentation:

This is a category error in interpreting the survey data.

• The “94% gaming+DVD” figure means respondents included games as part of usage or motivation.
• It does NOT mean DVD was irrelevant to their purchase decision.
• It also does NOT measure marginal influence of DVD on purchase decisions.

Most importantly:

“Only 6% bought it as a DVD player only” does not imply “only 6% were influenced by DVD.”

Those are completely different metrics:

• Exclusive motivation (DVD-only buyers) ≠ incremental influence (DVD affecting purchase choice)

So your conclusion (“this proves my point”) does not logically follow from the data.

2) “This proves PS2 was overwhelmingly bought for games”

Partially correct, but overstated conclusion

Yes:

• The PS2 was overwhelmingly a gaming console first

But the leap you are making is:

“Therefore DVD had no meaningful effect”

That does not follow.

A feature can:

• not be the primary reason for most buyers
• AND still meaningfully increase total sales at the margin

Both can be true at the same time.

So the data supports:

• “games were the main driver”
  NOT:
• “DVD had no material impact”

3) “You ignore Xbox also played DVDs”

Incorrect framing of relevance

This does not address the claim being discussed.

The question is not:

“Was DVD unique to PS2?”

It is:

“Did DVD increase PS2 sales relative to what they would have been otherwise?”

Even if Xbox also had DVD:

• that does not prove DVD had no effect on PS2 demand
• it only shows DVD was not a sole differentiator

So this point is non-dispositive (it doesn’t prove your conclusion).

4) “GameCube had lower attach ratio, so DVD didn’t matter”

Incorrect use of metric

Attach rate measures:

software purchases per console

It does NOT measure:

• purchase motivation
• reason for choosing hardware
• substitution effects between consoles

So this cannot be used to infer:

“DVD did or did not affect hardware sales”

This is a misapplied metric for the claim being debated.

5) “In 2000, that 6% would drop like a rock over the lifecycle”

Unsupported speculation

This is not supported by the data you provided.

Problems:

• No longitudinal data is cited showing DVD importance declining to near zero
• In reality, DVD adoption increased massively in the early 2000s (the exact period PS2 grew)

So the assumption that DVD influence “collapsed over time” is:

• asserted without evidence
• and actually counter to broader market trends of the era

6) “Very few of the 160 million bought it as a DVD player”

Strawman framing

No one claimed:

“Most PS2s were bought purely as DVD players”

The actual claim under discussion was:

DVD contributed partially to PS2 sales

So this point is irrelevant to the actual argument and does not address marginal impact.

7) “Your data proved me right”

Incorrect conclusion from cited data

The data you referenced actually shows:

• DVD-only buyers were a minority (true)
• most buyers included gaming in motivation (true)

But it does NOT show:

• DVD had no effect on purchase decisions
• DVD did not increase total sales

So the data supports:

“DVD was not the primary reason for most buyers”

It does NOT support:

“DVD had no meaningful impact on PS2 sales”

Bottom line

Your argument repeatedly substitutes:

• “not the main reason”
  for
• “no measurable impact”

Those are not the same claim, and the data you cited does not bridge that gap.

⚠️ - User was warned for this and other posts.

Well, to an extent, I agree on the value proposition part, but many people didn't. Now, you could find a budget brand at a discount fairly cheap, but this wasn't how they sold majority of players - especially when there's only limited quantity avalable at a time. And also that PS2 was also sold at a discount when they needed a throw-in product. To be fair, PS2 was better DVD player than most of the cheap ones.

Sony even released a PS2 DVD-remote a year after PS2's launch.

Yeah, this thread has devolved in a predictable way… if you guys don’t chill out, I’m gonna request it be closed. Chill out with the personal attacks and insults. No need for that.

The Switch is King and it's been that way going back to 2023.

They don't need the sales record. Sony can have it. They sold hardware and software at a higher price with no price cut in a much more economically hostile market with infinitely more competition in the market. They had to go up against PS4, PS5, mobile gaming, a weakened dollar, and they followed up a system in the WiiU that had people thinking Nintendo was going to give up the ghost and go 3rd party like SEGA.

Trying to spin Switch's access to a much larger market as some sort of disadvantage is peak comedy. And COVID economics objectively benefited Nintendo and hindered Sony which had 3 years of severe production challenges and more price hikes.