By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CosmicSex said:
Naufraguito said:

No, Microsoft assumed the vast majority of replacements, and the cost of succesive revisions of hardware . It was their duty, they didn't because they are an ONG, but they did it, and they payed for it. You are saying that the 360 real userbase is less than half of the sold units. This is plain false, and software sales figures proves you wrong. shit, they even sold 24 millions of kinects, are you saying that the 70% of 360's user base bought kinect? There's no way in hell that 360's userbase were less than half ps4's but managed to sell more games during the generation.

please...

I was refering to the PS3 not the PS4.  I would peg the userbase at around 40-50 million.  The software sales in the US definitly indicate the base was defintly higher than the PS3.  There is no way the PS3 was gonna beat the Xbox 360 in the US because the PS3 was just plain overpriced for ages.   And about the 360 Kinect attach rate, it would be skyhigh no matter what figure you use.  Even at 80 million a 24 million attachment is still sky high.  Its really amazing when you think about it.  Is it really a gimmick if it sold that much?  Thats a topic for another day and I think I could successfully argue that it was not a gimmick.  

I mistake PS3 with PS4 on this paragraph, on this site we have global sales figures, not only USA. Even if PS3 was overpriced for years, if the userbase was 40 millions, it would be impossible that 360 could have sold more games than a 80 millions ps3's userbase.

You can try to distract with if it was MS work  pay or not the replacements, or if Kinect was or not gimmicky (that of course it was). Is imposible that 360 sold less than a half it seems, and managed to be profitable and sell more games than ps3.



Tim and The Princes...