The issue is you are completely ignoring the context of the month in which these sales occured. It is literally the slowest month of the year.
No, the fact the month is slow is accounted for by comparing the overall sales in 2016 to a baseline from 2015.
So yes 50k units a very significant margin during a month where very few consoles are able to break 200k units sold.
You are just repeating your conclusion, not offering any sort of argument for why boosts should only be measured as *multiplicative* effects instead of *additive* effects. Make an argument for the former.
Let's compare this boost to others with significant game launches on the competing brand's platforms. Halo Reach boosted sales of 360 by around 130k YoY. Halo 3 pushed 360 to 528k in its launch month (dunno how big that boost was since I can't seem to find September 2006 NPD data), but I would wager it was a huge delta YoY as well (MoM boost was about a 250k delta, for reference). Halo 5 boosted X1 sales YoY by 136k. Those are all very significant boosts imo. 50k with lackluster competition from X1, a cheaper console YoY, extremely generous trade in offers and a major release yielding a 50k boost is not a particularly large delta.
So yes percentages give a much more accurate depiction of scale in sales differentials than units because percentage differences account for the context of historical performance of said month YoY and MoM whereas units do not.
Percentages are given as PR spin. They are the language of marketing firms precisely because they do the opposite of what you are claiming here. They aren't useless, but they aren't more relevant for measuring a delta than...well, actually directly measuring the delta. The historical context has nothing to do with the magnitude of the boost.
You are just ignoring every other factor in your comparison, fixating on a single isolated value and assigning meaning to it that it doesn't actually have as has been explained to you multiple times at this point.
What is 'every other factor'? I haven't ignored the 150k baseline reference from May 2015...it is included in the delta as a direct measure of the boost relative to last year's figures. Are you honestly telling me that the question 'how many more units did PS4 sell as a result of conditions XYZ?' is somehow not sufficiently answered by looking at the delta? The phrase 'how many more units...' is a direct, unequivocal statement about the
difference between two sales figures, not the percentage differences. It's a mathematical statement.
You guys can post and repeat the echo chamber murmurs until your fingers fall off...until you actually offer compelling counter arguments you won't be changing my mind. If you do manage to do so, I will gladly change my mind. But as of now, other major releases historically have typically offered much larger deltas and I still contend that the best way to measure a boost is to look at the difference it made to absolute sales, not fast 'n loose conflations with percentages. Note the example I gave in my reply to CosmicQueso...if you only look at percentages you ignore the fact that (in that example) the 'massive 38% boost' accounts for a few hundred units. I dunno how you could honestly tell me a few hundred units is a large boost.You could obviously scale things down even further too.
By your logic, going from zero units sold to 1 unit sold (an infinite percentage 'boost') is a sales boost the likes humanity has never imagined. We would tell stories to our grandchildren our where we were the day some console launched as enjoyed an unimaginable sales 'boost' that would stay with us the rest of our lives. Obviously that is silly and takes your logic to its extremes, but if your logic is inconsistent at its extremes it is, well, inconsistent and should be re-evaluated.
Your only argument on offer thus far is *literally* just robotically re-asserting the conclusion itself. You assert the only measure of a boost is as a multiplicative phenomena...but WHY?<---That is what I want you to address.
