@BladeOfGod: But, you know, Mario wouldn't sell any games if it would've turned into cheap shovelware. The same goes for Halo games. Just look at Sonic.

As i said, history is important since that's where you made your brand, but to keep it that way, you have to consistently keep up with it. It's usually much easier to drive your brand into mud and oblivion than to get it to shine as a widely recognised brand.

The current brand king is Nintendo.

This not a matter of debate but a matter of market perception.

Every time Viper1 comes into a debate where things can be measured I want to cover my head and run like Hell.

But yes, BladeofGod, as I said above: the Playstation's past strength has nothing to do with it. Brand strength is a measure of current strength, as close to "now" as possible, like a snapshot. Right now, Nintendo's brands are much bigger than the Playstation.

Let me end the thread in 1 sentence:

The best selling console( home console ) in the world right now is PLAYSTATION 2 and its still on market so its not ''the past''.

That's what makes the PlayStation brand the strongest

^its a dying machine--- where as the ds is approaching its numbers with a full head of steam....... and will pass by it with flying colors

and thats a nintendo brand item

@BladeOfGod: Yes, Playstation 2 plays a big part in what the brand currently is. Also, it has caused some negative connotations due to high failure rate.

There are a number of things that you can measure relating to brand, such as:
How much certain branded products are sold (value in money and/or number of products).
How many people know your brand.

You can't say that because a brand Z sold "X much in Y period of time" it would be bigger than brand C which is currently bigger.
You can make a comparision that brand X was bigger that brand Y in time period B. Just like comparision that brand Y was bigger than brand X in time period A and C.

The problem is, that you are using the time period B as an example to show that brand X is bigger in period C. Nobody is arguing about the period B. If you want to argue the history of the brands as the brands total size, then you need to include the whole brand from the start.

Its not a dying machine, its selling very good for an 9 year old console. And its still seling some good software, And DS doesent count its a handheld.

see there you go trying to move the goal post

it still a device designed for the purpose of selling and playing games-they were just going for it to be a mobile product

@BladeOfGod: It wasn't that bad english IMO. Atleast i didn't have problems understanding it while rereading.

And yes, if something is "selling very good for a 9 years old console" that something is dying. If it wouldn't be dying, you wouldn't need to include the term "for a 9 years old console".

And DS does count if it's sold under a brand we are talking about.
Look, you obviously are talking about something else than brand.