Who are we?
Console Race is not a studio or a newsroom. It is a one-person project run by Sam Corbett, who loves video games and likes having precise numbers ready when the discussion gets heated.
I got tired of seeing console sales claims repeated with no source, half-remembered milestones, or numbers that changed from one conversation to the next. I wanted one place where I could check the figure fast and see where it came from.
Mostly people like me: players, friends, readers, and anyone who wants a clean answer when a gaming debate starts at dinner, in a group chat, or late at night.
Every page here is written and maintained by Sam Corbett, the editor of Console Race. This is an independent, self-funded project — no newsroom, no publisher, no sponsor deciding which numbers look good. I have followed console hardware sales for years, mostly by reading platform holders' quarterly investor reports and cross-checking them against the trade press, and I started Console Race to keep those figures in one place with their source and confidence level attached. When a number is uncertain, I say so on the page instead of rounding it into a clean-looking total.
The goal is simple: fewer fuzzy claims, more precise numbers, visible sources, and enough context to say whether a figure is official, reported, or estimated.
The routine is unglamorous on purpose. When Nintendo or Sony publish a new quarterly data set, I open the investor-relations hardware tables, compare them line by line against the ranking, and note the as-of date next to anything that moved. If a figure comes from a press article instead, I check whether the article actually cites a company statement or just repeats another chart. Numbers that cannot be traced to a named source do not enter the table, no matter how often they are repeated on social media.
The same pass also checks the labels. A row can move from estimate to official when a platform holder publishes a real milestone, and the opposite can happen when a company stops reporting and the last official figure starts aging. Keeping those labels honest takes more time than updating the numbers themselves, and it is the part of the site I care most about.
A one-person project will make mistakes; the only honest promise is how they get handled. When a reader flags a figure through the contact page, I re-check the original source within a few days. If the correction stands, the row, the label, and any related profile copy are updated together so the site never says two different things about the same console.
That correction loop is also why the site stays deliberately small. A short, traceable table that one person can actually verify beats a sprawling database nobody re-reads. Transparency about where every number comes from is the one advantage a small site has over big aggregators, and I would rather protect it than chase page count.
Open Sales for the main ranking, Method for the rules behind the table, and Sources if you want the links behind the numbers.
Continue reading
These pages keep the same goal: quick reading, visible sources, and less hand-wavy console history.
Method
Definitions, scope, generation labels, and how official versus estimated figures are separated.
Read methodSources
The links behind the table and how corrections are handled.
Review sourcesVerification
Where the big sources disagree, which figure we trust, and the dated log of every correction we have made.
See the methodLibrary
Jump into the published profile library for hardware-by-hardware sales context.
Open library