A couple of comments on the thread accused me of "stacking the deck" against the PS3 with the rules in the OP. I addressed the specific issues raised above and explained the rationale for the rules. I hope it help some of you realize that there is a good objective reason for each one.
I know that regardless of the reasoning, some of you will still believe that the rules still favor the 360. This is the way of these forums, for many posters everything is casted through the lens of the fanboys. I accept that as the sad reality.
Every rule can be argued and contested. There is no axiomatic rule out there. No matter what the rules will be, there will be someone to complain about them. Especially if the end results are not coming out the way they want to.
Some of the rules strongly disadvantaged the 360. For example, the exclusion of XBLA takes away a huge advantage from the 360 - with many million+ sellers in the marketplace. If the results were different with the PS3 having the big list I am sure I would have here hoards of screaming xbots companioning about not including the XBLA and that the deck is stacked against them.
No one can make everybody happy. I tried to be as objective as anyone can be. When I started the lists I had no idea what shape they will take. If you follow the thread history you will see that it started our as a short list and a fairly balanced one. It is only at the latest stages, when the deep harvest of titles was completed and the lists became very unbalanced that we started hearing about “the deck is stacked”.
I think I answered with reason and details the underlying logic behind each rule. I will be happy to continue to discuss it further. I love a good discussion. But I would appreciate the poster stopping to hint to a hidden agenda by the OP.
Prediction made on 11/1/2008:
Q4 2008: 27M xbox LTD, 20M PS3 LTD . 2009 sales: 11M xbox, 9M PS3
