100% disagree.  Development costs on the ps2 were a fraction of what they were on the Switch.  Revenue isn't as meaningful as net profit.

And there are plenty of Indie games on current consoles.  

I'd say current PS software sales are more impressive, given that people play way more live service games on PS, with downloadable content revenue now greater than all software(digital + physical) combined. On top of that there is PS Plus with a library of hundreds of games and over 50m subscribers. Despite this they sold over 300m units of software last year, which is the second highest of all-time, behind only the PS pandemic year. 

I have to respectfully disagree with all points here. PS2 isn't even in the conversation.

It barely made any money for Sony in terms of profit with the PS4 making more money in one fiscal year than PS2 did for it's entire run.

It had no real competition like the Wii had with the PS3 and 360. The GC died in it's crib, SEGA was hemorrhaging money long before they released the Dreamcast, and Microsoft was a brand new player in the console space. Sony had the market all to themselves.

Take away getting a free DVD player with every purchase and it barely cracks 100m units. PS2 was a system bought by casuals who wanted a cheap DVD player which at the time was highly sought after new tech. For a system to sell some 160m units(allegedly) it doesn't have one game which sold 20 million. The Switch has 9, which is more than any game console ever.

The system was being sold for half price halfway through it's run and as low as $99 near end of life. The switch has gone up in price by $50 and has never had a price cut.

Inflation hurts the PS2's case even more as the dollar in 2000 had way more purchasing power than it does today or even in 2017. Gas was $1 in 2000. 

There's no case for the PS2...sorry.  

Due to MTX, Sony generates much more revenue and profit than Nintendo. When you have a few games which can generate billions in revenue per year off a few million whales, you're gonna make a lot more money than relying on 10s of millions of one time purchases.

Link/proof?

Google and Copilot have the ps2 at 2.1 billion in profit. 

Link/proof that 50 million bought it as a DVD player?  I mean it sold billions of software titles.  Software attach ratio for the ps2 is higher than the Wii... same as the Gamecube.  

*really annoying seeing such strong claims with no evidence

Yes.  I want evidence, data.  Not some random person who ssys so.  Have any data?

The ps2 attach ratio was right where consoles are, including those without players.

Feels like a bunch of made up nonsense on your end.

I mean you said the ps2 didnt make money, but then show data where it made billions.  You daffy ducked yourself.  

"I was there" isnt data nor proof.

Not too mention your graph isn't adjusted for inflation.  A dollar was worth way more in 2003 then in 2026.

Adjusted for inflation the ps2 is around 80 billion sales.  And your original claim the ps4 made more in a fiscal year then the entire ps2 generation is clearly BS.  Inflation is a thing.

And note, 80 billion before PSN subscriptions, which means they sold a ton of software...  which means 40% of people didnt buy it as a DVD player.

Your entire argument is a mess and is nonsense, as suspected.

The ps2 had thousands of games.  And sold billions of software.  The DVD argument is stupid.  

I think GAAS is the best thing that has ever happened to PS, from a profit perspective. They never really made good profits from gaming using the traditional console model, its live service and subscription money that finally made Sony able to generate meaningful profit from gaming, the old model of selling consoles at a loss and selling lots of third party games at retail never made much profits for them. It sounds crazy but its true that Nintendo made more profits from gaming at times when their consoles basically sold nothing compared to Sony's consoles, that is how bad Sony's previous console model was at generating profit until GAAS and online subscription plus digital storefront software sales made them able to take a huge leap forward when it comes to profits.

In general, only one company mastered the ability to generate profit with an old school console model, which is Nintendo. By that i mean they were super profitable even during the old days of 100 % retail sales and 0 % digital revenue and subscription money, that was mostly because they had a model based on selling consoles at a profit as well as the huge first party software sales they always had. Everyone else needed digital, subscription and live service cash to finally generate strong profits from console gaming.

Your original point was the PS2 is the most successful console and it's not even close. I refuted that claim with the points I've made which you haven't responded to other than to hardp on DVDs not being the reason for its success which is a completely different discussion(and wouldn't confirm your original claim even if you were right). 

Someone else posted two links attempting to prove standalone DVDs were as cheap if not cheaper than what the PS2 was offering. Those links actually refute their argument, especially the blog post link. The blog post asked if they should buy a PS2 or a standalone DVD player to play DVDs. Do you think this was the only person who contemplated such a decision? Do you think most people were posting on internet blogs in 2000? PS2 was the hot item coming off the success of PS1 and now they're offering a highly sought after cheap DVD player? the casuals were going to jump on that and that blogpost link proves this is the consumer decision people had in their heads. being able to play video games was a bonus.

Consumers didn't know there were cheaper options available, just as those who bought the NES didn't know about the Sega Master System and the Turbo Graphix 16 that had better graphics. They bought what had more notoriety, what all their friends had, and what was offering them something(free DVD player) their competitors did not. 

Yes.  You are not adjusting for inflation.  Not taking into account online subscriptions.  And you dvd argument has zero evidence.

The atrach ratio for the ps2 was the same as the GC, which doesn't play DVDs. 

Aka, your argument(s) are nonsense.