MikeB, please just give it up. Your arguments all have just as easily reputable arguments and facts. I mentioned that there were people buying new consoles for the new motherboards and hdmi, but it is still a very small percentage.

Mostly what you are doing is trying to account for the uncertainties rather than the facts. The what if's, or the when this/that, trying to take into account future expectations and trying to read in between the lines of the sales data. Something I find more and more Sony supporters doing. Taking equal time frames for the 360 would put it at 6.5, but would rule out the entire 2008 game sales which have been huge. You have to go by lifetime attachment rates or the attachment rates of the similar time period, and the 360 has a huge lead either way.

The only point you have successfully made is that the 360 disc does only use 7GB of the 8.5GB total. But it is by no means a limiting factor. I'd much rather use 3 discs and spend 15 seconds swapping them than waiting an hour to install my new game I just bought. Even with the smaller disc size, all multi-platform games run just as well and often BETTER on the 360 version of the game. Gears of War 2, no matter how you look at it, is universally accepted as the greatest console graphics to date especially given the scale they used in the campaign. There will be many who argue that MGS4 or Uncharted have better graphics, but those are simply the opinions of the few and misguided or biased.  The real issue of space and Blu-Ray is that they get lazy and use hardly any compression, thus resulting in a required installation because of the miniscule 2x-4x read speed.

@ MikeB if your assumptions on the read speed holds true, then why are there so many games with compulsary installs on the PS3 which run just as well on the 360 sans an install?

@ nightsurge

We all know the 360 has had a 12 month or more headstart worldwide. Taking equal timeframes is much more informative with regard to at what rate the average PS3 owner buys games vs 360 owners.

All facts need to be taken into consideration. Easy to understand example, a copy and paste from a recent comment:

One example of how Microsoft and partner websites abuse data:

Platform 1 and Platform 2, let's assume for both consoles the average person buys only 2 games per year. And for illustrative convenience let's assume they all buy these games and consoles in January of the year.

---

Platform 1 (healthy console sales for 10 years)

Year 1 - 10 million users - 20 million software units sold for the year
Year 2 - 10 million new users - 40 million units software sold for the year
Year 3 - 10 million new users - 60 million units software sold for the year
Year 4 - 10 million new users - 80 million units of software sold sold for the year
Year 5 - "" - 100 million software units
Year 6 - "" - 120 million software units
Year 7 - "" - 140 million software units
Year 8 - "" - 160 million software units
Year 9 - "" - 180 million software units
Year 10 - "" - 200 million software units

Total console sales: 100 million units
Total software sales: 1100 million software sales

Attach ratio (using Microsoft's definition): 11 software sales per user.

Now a less successful platform (Platform 2) sell a lot less hardware in upcoming year:

Year 1 - 10 million users - 20 million software units sold for the year
Year 2 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units software sold for the year
Year 3 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units software sold for the year
Year 4 - 0.001 million new users - 20 million units of software sold sold for the year
Year 5 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 6 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 7 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 8 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 9 - "" - 20 million software units
Year 10 - "" - 20 million software units

Total install base 10 million hardware sales.
Total software sales, 200 million software units.
Attach ratio 20 games per sold console.

Looking at the (PR) attach ratio it may look software sells much better for platform 2, but if you look closer per person people buy just as much software. I think everyone would agree platform 1 performed much better and is financially far more attractive.

Just wanted to demonstrate, how the figures are abused by PR is rather meaningless if you want to determine the amount of games people actually buy.



You are talking about a highly linear game, but what if it's a type of game like Oblivion and GTA where you can (and are required to) revisit previously visited areas? That's a lot of disc swapping.

Also 6.8 GB on a 360 DVD does not per se equal 6.8 GB on a 50 GB Blu-Ray disc neither, this due to data duplication often being required to minimize disc swapping due to re-use of previously used data like graphics and audio.



Is that really remarkable? These games were designed primarily with the 360 in mind due to its headstart on the market. Just like early Atari ST to Amiga ports ran better on the Atari ST. For later games as the Amiga install base increased this was no longer the case, not by a long shot.

If the 360 had Blu-Ray, both PS3 ports and 360 originals would be using more storage space and have lead to fewer sacrifices.



I don't think so. And I think Killzone 2 shows a big gap.

Squilliam said: @ MikeB if your assumptions on the read speed holds true, then why are there so many games with compulsary installs on the PS3 which run just as well on the 360 sans an install?

There were some reports that 360 games in general when installed on the 360 harddrive provide near to no in-game load time advantages. This is easily understood if such games are DVD read speed optimised.

Blu-Ray disc is far more advanced than DVD tech. One of the main technical benefits are constant predictable read speeds. Multi-platform games so far haven't taken advantage of this benefit (a new thing vs DVD tech which has been in use for a decade to store and optimise loading routines for). Uncharted: Drake's Fortune however does with no in-game loading delays at all and no install, Heavy Rain is believed to take a similar approach.

If you understand the differences between DVD and Blu-Ray loading schemes, you will understand that for optimal loading results very different optimisations are required. Dumping the loading routines and data structures optimised for DVD on Blu-Ray will not yield good results. The easy route for devs is to dump the section where 360 DVDs load slightly faster than Blu-Ray disc on the harddrive, but that's overkill considering the used loading routines.

 

kowenicki said: congrats MikeB you turned a thread that wasnt supposed to be a fanboy thread into a rabid fanboy load of nonsense. that attach rate part.... er yeah.. and? genius. get over yourself

 

I always try to be helpful when people bring up questions and other issues. I am not discussing with myself here you know (you seem to pretend this to be the case). Your comment is on topic, how?

axumblade said: Squilliam said: Spankey said: Squilliam said: thekitchensink said: Squilliam said: thejuicingamer said: PS3>360, nothing gonna stop PS3 now with better games, blu ray, and brand recognition. Snake became old, obsolete, shot himself PS3 is going to become old, obsolete and shoot itself? If it can stop the snake it can stop the PS3.     God damn it!  Why did I give into temptation and read that spoiler?  Sorry! I hope it wasn't my fault for leading you into it.       misleading spoilers are misleading. Don't take Sqilliam seriously in those spoilers! Hes scared of spoilers now, I doubt he will click them. Wanna make a bet?   I just want to fit in...:[

 

I read Spankey's 'spoiler' before reading Squill's bet XD

You take a simple comment, and try to make it as complicated as possible, just to prove that I might be slightly off in my argument? Seriously, have you NOTHING better to do? Oh and Blue Dragon was an RPG, had 3 discs, and only swapped twice (once for each new disc).

"If the 360 had Blu-Ray, both PS3 ports and 360 originals would be using more storage space and have lead to fewer sacrifices."

What sacrifices? Sure doesn't seem like any game on the 360 was hindered in any way. You are not trying to be helpful, you are trying to twist and turn the data in a way that pleases yours and other Sony fanboys' arguments. All you are doing is dragging out this conversation which inevitably comes down to the fact that the 360 started this generation with a 5.5 million lead, and has since increased that lead to 5.8 million. All your other facts trying to play up blu-ray as the ultimate format and everything else is just your opinion combined with a few select articles from a google search.

If I really had the time or the desire, I could search and find 50 articles explaining why blu-ray is a failed concept, most likely the last disc related storage medium going to be used, and how in the end it only added to the many things that hurt Sony. Integrating wi-fi was another bad move. Almost everyone I know that has broadband with a TV provider (cable, FiOS, satelite) have the router right by their main TV, which is right where there console is. Wireless was not a necessity and they should have left it out entirely to lower prices. Having an add-on for those that use their consoles away from the main router and don't have ethernet would have been much smarter.

"If you understand the differences between DVD and Blu-Ray loading schemes, you will understand that for optimal loading results very different optimisations are required. Dumping the loading routines and data structures optimised for DVD on Blu-Ray will not yield good results. The easy route for devs is to dump the section where 360 DVDs load slightly faster than Blu-Ray disc on the harddrive, but that's overkill considering the used loading routines."

Am I to understand that you are some Sony technology expert and know absolutely everything about this PS3, disc loading schemes, the porting of games, and data structure optimization?

@ kowenicki

That's funny as you are the one who started it by outing off topic personal insults. I just used an IMO clear blind fanboy example at the top of my mind to show that what you state more regards yourself.

Trying to hit below the waist is IMO never useful for in depth discussion. You can expect similarly off topic counters. I suggest to try to keep this in mind when you run out of arguments.

So far PS3>360

After holiday season PS3 and 360 sales for the year will be about equal. Either way, the PS3 should be selling more regardless simply because it is the newer console. The fact that the 360 is maintaining it's lead so well after 2 years is very good.