Switch Best-Selling Console in the US in December, PS5 Outsells Xbox Series X|S

The Nintendo Switch was the best-selling console in the US in December 2022 in terms of units sold, according to figures from The NPD Group. NPD includes the dates for the five week period of November 27, 2022 to December 31, 2022.

The PlayStation 5 was the second best-selling console in December in terms of units sold, while the Xbox Series X|S came in third place. In terms of revenue. the PlayStation 5 was number one, followed by the Nintendo Switch in second and the Xbox Series X|S in third.

Read Full Story >>

The story is too old to be commented.
SullysCigar68d ago

Definitely not a surprise in terms of revenue - Microsoft were practically giving away the series S this past couple of months.

crazyCoconuts68d ago

Must not have paid off that well since Sony also won on number of units sold.

Bathyj68d ago

Xbox should be free since the only reason to own it is to enter a subscription.

Glad it's not but. Don't think you should give more power to the weakest link.

S2Killinit68d ago

Some were saying xbox is catching up. Not sure what that was all about.

rlow169d ago (Edited 69d ago )

It is what it is

Hofstaderman69d ago

Shortage officially over, let the domination resume.

babadivad68d ago

My favorite plastic box is winning so that must mean I'M a winner right?!?!😀

Nyxus68d ago

Yes it does. It means it will be supported by publishers.

Hofstaderman68d ago

More sales, more games. Know you guys are not used to this concept. Oh and more games, more sales.

randomvoice68d ago

Yes it means developers will use it as their primary development console and I wouldn't have to be subjected to unoptimized ports.

babadivad68d ago (Edited 68d ago )

@Nyxus @Hof @Random

I know I give fanboys the business a bit on this site but surely you at least understand that it's a bad thing if Microsoft decides to leave the market.

What's best for you guys is Microsoft being competitive. I know it's a strange concept but it's true. In every industry ever, when companies compete the consumer wins.

When AMD launched the Bulldozer architecture, Intel didn't even have to try anymore. They were able to skate by giving the consumer the barebone minimum. 10+ years of single digit performance upgrades with 4c8t cpus.

Towards the end, reviewers weren't even bothering to really do indepth reviews anymore. What's was the point? AMD has a shit architecture, chose Intel. They're really the only choice.

Every industry stagnates without competition.

Once AMD launched Zen, it breathed life back into the space. The consumer has been getting double digit performance increases every generation.

Same for Madden and 2k. When these games had competition, there was great improvement year after year.

I remember when NFL 2k was a thing and they were competing with Madden, the improvements were so great year over year, it was hard to go back to previous titles.

Same could be said for NBA 2k. No longer.

I can play Madden from three years ago and the only difference between the newest title and the old one is the roster and cover athlete.

Competition is GOOD for the consumer. That means you.

BehindTheRows68d ago (Edited 68d ago )

"What's best for you guys is Microsoft being competitive"

They need to start doing that.

"I know I give fanboys the business"

If you have a strong enough argument, let it speak for itself.

Yes, competition is good. Nintendo and Sony understand this. Microsoft remains in 3rd place playing catch up on all fronts. So, it is them who needs to learn to compete, not opposing fans.

Knushwood Butt68d ago

In order to compete MS need to release good games.

Neonridr68d ago

@randomvoice - you realize that both consoles use x86 architecture and thus would have extremely similar development processes, right?

SenorFartCushion68d ago (Edited 68d ago )

Haha I know right? Children with their plastic box competitions.

Crows9068d ago (Edited 68d ago )

No. It makes the other box a loser

The thing is Microsoft has never been competitive. It really wouldn't be missed. Just look at what they're doing to compete...they're just buying up popular IP....that's not good for gaming. That is the worst thing in gaming right now.

babadivad68d ago (Edited 68d ago )


Microsoft won the largest gaming market in the 360 era. Gave Sony the kick they needed for the PS4 generation.

Sony was faster and cheaper than the X1. They were responding to market pressure. They couldn't afford to lose the largest gaming market again.

When Microsoft launched at 500, Sony launched at 400. Same thing they did to Sega.

Sega launched the Saturn at 400, Sony launched Playstation ONE at 300.

When there was no competition in the PS2 era, Sony was so cocky and confident to launch a $600 system(PS3) with basically no games.

Look what they just did in recent history. They raised the price of the PS5 in every market across the world except the United States (the largest gaming market). Do you know why? Because Microsoft is competitive this year in the United States.

Back to the Intel example. When AMD launched the flawed Bulldozer architecture(that was initially weaker than the architecture it was supposed to replace) they basically gave the CPU market to Intel.

Without competition in the market, Intel gave the consumer the bare minimum.

We (the consumer) were stuck on 4 cores for 10 years. Marginal IPC gains year over year(most improvements coming from frequency increases). You had to pay top dollar for Intel to not artificially lock their chips multi-threading feature. They also had the most advanced fabrication on the planet by far. Not so anymore. They've lost that edge to TSMC. They lost their edge there as well. Still haven't gotten their feet back under them in that department.

With a competitive AMD in the Market. Intel went from offering 4 cores at the top end to 24 cores. They are scrambling to hold off competition. I can't remember the last time Intel had to work this hard for profits.

If Microsoft leaves the market, we're fucked. Can't be any simpler than that.

Sony isn't "for the players" no matter what their marketing says. They are "For their shareholders." Just like every other multi-billion dollar mega corporation.

It would be best if we not find that out the hard way.

BehindTheRows68d ago (Edited 68d ago )

There can be competition without Xbox. Regardless of their luck with the 360 (yes, luck - Sony had to screw up for them to even have a chance and they still lost the WW numbers), they’ve had their butts handed to them every other time. To compete, you need to be in the race.

Instead, they cough up the dust they have to consume from being far being PlayStation time-and-time again. No matter how much you try to spin this, it will never change the truth.

Nyxus68d ago

"If Microsoft leaves the market, we're fucked. Can't be any simpler than that."

Nah, we'd be fine.

Crows9067d ago (Edited 67d ago )

If Microsoft had not joined the market...we wouldn't have to pay for online console gaming. We'd also have ps plus as a free membership like in the PS3 era.

And no. Xbox only gained in US. The rest of the world was enjoying PS3 lots more...especially as it went to outsell the 360 by quite a bit even with the inflated red rings numbers.

As it is right now...gamers are fucked because Microsoft is on a buying IP spree. That's a big middle finger to the majority of gamers. And if the record proves anything it is that Microsoft doesn't make blockbuster titles...that's also sucky for gaming.

There's no world where we want Microsoft to win anything.

babadivad67d ago

It's impossible for you guys to be this obtuse about market dynamics.

Nothing I said was spin. I just laid out the facts as they are.

You don't have to want Microsoft to "win" you want them to be competitive.

There's so many examples I can and HAVE given that empirically proves that when companies have to compete for your dollars the consumers (THAT MEANS YOU) wins.

It doesn't matter if you are buying and Xbox or Playstation. If there's true competition, you are going to come out on top.

I can't make it any clearer than that. You do not want Microsoft gone from the gaming space.

The mindset here is so childish...

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 67d ago
autobotdan68d ago

Shortage officially over, let the price increases resume

autobotdan68d ago

No I mean like the price increases of Playstation consoles

CBaoth68d ago

well you figured MS would have to raise the price of series G at some point. They practically been giving them away to every trailer park in America n MS is still behind by 10 mil. I wonder if next gen they'll actually try to sell games to sell systems?

BehindTheRows68d ago

I know what you meant, but it’s not only irrelevant, it changes nothing. Price increases happen and all companies have done them. It didn’t hurt Sony’s bottom line either, so you are literally screaming at a brick wall.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 68d ago
roadkillers68d ago

It’s funny that we use revenue as a terms to calculate these items. It’s just like movies. If revenue were not used, records would not be as widely broken.

If we calculated movies in terms of views like they did back in the day, Gone With The Wind would still be the most viewed movie. I have a feeling Tetris would still be the most played game (or PAC-man)

crazyCoconuts68d ago

They estimate units sold as well. But your point is interesting re: movies

NotoriousWhiz68d ago

Units sold really isn't the best metric for anyone other than investors. And even there, revenue is a better metric since that will affect profit much more than units sold. For developers looking to support a console, the number of users matters far more than units sold. If someone bought 3 switches (which I know some that have, gotta buy them all), they're not going to buy a particular game on the Switch 3 times. They'll buy it once or not at all, so in this case, units sold isn't that significant of a metric either.

darkrider68d ago

Selling more is always better then selling less. Console sold means more games sold, more acessories sold, more everything sold.

What isn't any kind of metric is talking about laps taken or number of gamers playing a new game on services...

NotoriousWhiz68d ago

Selling to more people means selling more games, accessories, etc. Selling more to the same person does not translate to more games, accessories, etc. And yes number of laps / bullets fired is irrelevant lol.

DeusFever68d ago

Units sold means marketshare. Selling a few very expensive units will not garner as much profit from games sales as selling more inexpensive units. It’s why console makers want to hit that $250 price point for the mid cycle refresh. It’s why Microsoft is selling the underpowered Xbox Series S.

Stanjara68d ago

If you take YouTube channel... Channel that has 2mill subs but only 30k daily views is less successful than a channel that has 500k but 300k daily views.

500k channel makes more revenue.

It's a better channel.

NotoriousWhiz68d ago

Number of active users is more important than number of subscriptions. Spot on.

Neonridr68d ago

better is subjective, makes more revenue is correct though.

MrNinosan68d ago

I see what you did there, but no.
The amount of downloads on GamePass shall never be ranked higher than the units sold or revenue.

Some always try to move the goal post.

DeusFever68d ago

Gone with the Wind is not the most viewed movie by any measure. Not even by number of showings. It made so much money because of the distribution strategy that sold it theater by theatre, building up hype as showings moved across the country. Many movies that are only released in China have more views. Take the US population, add a billion, and that’s the movie viewing audience in China.

Minecraft may have already beaten Tetris in units sold. Probably also in time okayed.

Anyway, agree that for consoles, marketshare matters more than revenue.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 68d ago
Elda68d ago

Not surprising at the PS5.

Show all comments (50)
The story is too old to be commented.