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.  

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. 

No I said it made very little money considering it's install base. PS1 made more money selling less units and less games.

You're now repeating what I already said in the dollar being stronger in 2000 than in 2026 and even 2017. I said that already. People had more money to spend  in 2000 than they do now. If you went to an inflation calculator and came up with that 80 billion you are the one who daffy ducked yourself as the inflation calculator merely tells you how much the dollars value has changed over time, not how much something would sell for. Hopefully you have a better argument  than "adjustments for inflation".

Well from another perspective, Switch took virtually 95% of the handheld market and established a whole new market of console gaming (hybrid).

Also how are you measuring market share? Consoles sold in its associated generation? If so… then I have to ask which generation Switch is being considered apart of? I’d argue a better metric would be to look at annual marketshare.

I’ve got a 20hr flight so maybe I could look into this sometime today lol.

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.

No I said it made very little money considering it's install base. PS1 made more money selling less units and less games.

You're now repeating what I already said in the dollar being stronger in 2000 than in 2026 and even 2017. I said that already. People had more money to spend  in 2000 than they do now. If you went to an inflation calculator and came up with that 80 billion you are the one who daffy ducked yourself as the inflation calculator merely tells you how much the dollars value has changed over time, not how much something would sell for. Hopefully you have a better argument  than "adjustments for inflation".

Software revenue on Playstation is a LOT higher. But their profit margins are a lot smaller because most of that revenue comes from 3rd party content (of which Sony makes 15%-30%). Sony's own software also used to average in the low $20's in the PS4 gen vs today's high $50's/low $60s.

Switch and PS2 are from very different eras and couldn't be more different. So the comparisons strike me as pointless.

No one questions that Nintendo's own software is much bigger than Sony's. But combined software spending (now that you mention "full price") on Nintendo's plafform isn't even comparable with current Playstation.

 Switch is imprrssive, but it combined the markets of handheld and home consoles (Wii and DS sold 1.8 billion software combined). It basically has no direct competition in the handheld space, which gave it an edge against Playstation. It fundamentally covered a larger market.