Two problems in your argument:

1)  PS3 sales YOY are down, while 360 are up.  So while in the first 2.5 the PS3 may have sold more, they are trending down, while the 360 is trending up.  Carried out over time the 360 would win.  Add this to the fact that regardless of theory, the 360 DID have 5.5 million lead already, and the picture gets bleaker.  I'm not forecasting death for the PS3, please, I'm not stupid, but I don't think they are magically going to start selling 2-3x what they are now, either.  Now this admittedly does not take into account any future price cuts, but as the timing for a price cut seems unlikely too happen for the PS3 anytime soon, I'm not sure that it is even a valid discussion point, at this time.

2)  One system is currently selling better than it's HD rival and has a huge fanbase lead in a large market that has proven to purchase the software offered (US); the other while  not selling horribly, is selling less than it's direct HD rival, and only has a huge fanbase lead in the smaller (comparatively speaking) Japanesse market.  HOW do those facts support your assumption that the PS3 will be supported longer than the 360?  I'd argue that current market conditions suggest that the 360 is in a better position to be a cash cow for MS longer than the PS3 is likely to be for Sony.

Totally agree with TRios_Zen^

Good point, but 1) they are not down substantially,  2) Do you seriously believe the PS3 will do worse YOY again at this time next year? This is clearly not a continuing trend for PS3 sales. 3) Even with the 1 year drop in sales, the PS3 is still outselling the 360 in the same time frame!

No its not and it never will be. The math does not work out right.

Then why is the PS3 still dead last?

 It was that time about 20 pages ago.

The PS3 is selling fine--but let's face it, being first to market brings an advantage, and being last to market brings a disadvantage. This isn't some fantasy land bullshit where the last to market can be considered the victor by some insane dipshit voodoo logic--this is business. I've read multiple "race" analogies throughout this thread, and they're entirely irrelevant. What matters is the bottom line, and what the install base offers in the way of potential sales to developers.

Sony's Playstation 3 is in last place--period. It's not a knock on the system by any means; it's an excellent piece of hardware, and any serious gamer should eventually own all three consoles, really. But there's no reason to play these stupid games to somehow delude oneself into believing that one's personal favorite console is doing better than it really is.

People with a PS3 are playing in the 4th dimension. In their dimension, the PS3 has sold more than the 360.

Nobody is wrong here. We are just in different dimensions and VGChartz has the power to allow us to communicate with each other. This of course causes a problem because we have no common ground, everything is different in our receptive dimensions. Such as physics and game console sales.

Being first to market brings an advantage? Tell that to the following consoles:

Fairchild Channel F (came out before Atari 2600)

Turbo-Grafx  16 (came out before SNES)

3DO (came out before Playstation)

Dreamcast (came out before PS2)

Its the Xbots who are "deluding themselves" into thinking just because it had a head start in install base that it will sell the most consoles when all is said and done.

I think all the faithful people in this thread should know that the PS3's sales are down below the Xbox 360s sales for EVERY POINT IN 2008!!! With sales threatening to drop below 100k per week.