libellule said:
steven787 said:
1. I never make a hard prediction -notice I say probably
Now let's take 5,460,000 million that the 360 has as a lead over the PS3 for LTD and divide it by 41289.
5,460,000/41289 = 132 weeks. 30 months. 2.5 years. If the PS3 keeps this average.
I don't think the PS3 will keep this average through January, because of the 360 price cut and how attractive it becomes as a gift for the kids. So I will extend that to 2.75 years.
Read that carefully, I never say 2.5 or 2.75 is my prediction. I say "If the PS3 keeps this average." Then, I go into a likely scenario for this holiday. 360 price cut, PS3 shortages (not mentioned). I don't see why this is offensive.
For Sony to "catch up" in:
- 18 months it would take 75k per week.
- 24 months it would take 57k per week.
- 12 months it would take 113k per week.
Above this, I broked down time by sales. In this part I provide it from the other direction, sales by time.
So IF it happens it probably won't until 2-3 years away.
This is where I make my soft prediction. I think it is reasonable to believe that the PS3 won't be outselling the 360 by 60k per week. But, that doesn't necessarily make it unreasonable to believe otherwise, it is not an attack.
Will it matter?
2. It okay to say: "I don't agree, because of this, this, or this". It is not okay to call my numbers garbage or get outraged and accuse me of insulting a console. Consoles don't have feelings. (Except for my Dreamcast, her name is Cassie and she is Dreamy. She is also very sensitive.)
3. Past numbers aren't being used to predict in my assumption. I used them to show trends. I think that the PS3 will continue to outsell the 360 at about the same because both consoles will have "weapons" in their "arsenal". I don't think $199 trumps Bluray or that LBP will crush Gears 2. They are all valid marketing tools under their own merits, and I think they just about level the field, when talking rate of change.
4. I am not saying that the rate will remain the same on a weekly basis for any of the analysis
- 18 months it would take 75k per week.
- 24 months it would take 57k per week.
- 12 months it would take 113k per week.
This means, for the PS3 to catch the 360 it would take an average of that many per week. Those numbers aren't predictions they are math.
5,460,000/(months*4)= amount.
Are people really this bad at understanding math? It's just averages, not my opinions.
5. I don't see how my opinion can be taken as leaning against the PS3, I am predicting that the PS3 will out sell the 360 by forty thousand units per week.
|
==> you see, your main point is on ur last sentence :
you are claiming, again, that PS3 will outsell xbox360 by 40k unit per week and egual Xbox360 in 2- years.
This is called a prediction
It was realized using past numbers.
I consider that your prediction, because it is based on past numbers, is flawed.
Also, since YOU created the thread and YOU dare to post your prediction, I assume you must be prepared to critics.
As opposed to you, since I dont dare to predict the future (as many because it is just too difficult),
I preferred NOT create my own thread to post my own predictions ...
|
No, the past numbers are used as a guide for what can be considered normal behavior in the past. To show what the gap does and did look like.
The first 3/4 of my OP are just numbers. What it's done and how long it would take at what sales rate.
My prediction is hardly a prediction.
So IF it happens it probably won't until 2-3 years away.
1. IF - as in maybe it will happen, maybe it won't,....
2. PROBABLY- as in 24-36 months is probable.
Not really a full prediction (though I do admit that it can be taken as one prediction) because of the qualifiers.
3. 2-3 years isn't exactly a risky estimate. It provides for a ~20% change in the gap in each direction. Way outside of statistical margin of error (2-3% in each direction if you do go by last 12 month, but we don't which is why I used 20%)
It's more of a reasonable range than a prediction.
All I get are people calling my work garbage and misconstuing what I wrote.
The title of the thread is:
Let's look at that.
Is that a lie? Did I not break down HD console sales.
I provide past actual sales.
I provide future sales needed for the PS3 to pass the 360 on a various number of different timetables. Not opinions, just the Diference/weeks= weekly average needed for PS3 to pass 360.
My range is not guilty of being dependent on past data, it is actually too far from past indicators. I use a ~20% margin of error.
I provide analysis of how the numbers can be applied with in a very genorous range outside anything either console has done good or bad. For the PS3 to beat it in less than 100 weeks would mean the PS3 would have to sell better, and the 360 worse than at any average of any 26 week period.
