PS3 exclusive sales... whats the deal?

[Pristine20]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Pristine20 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Pristine20 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

Soul_tech10 said:
simple, the ps3 userbase is too small. if 100 million ps2 owners have still not bought a ps3 its obvious why software sales are like that. The only question is: Why does the 360 have better software sales with the HW of both the ps3 and 360 itself amost the same?

 

 Because a higher percentage of the Xbox 360's users actually buy games and purchase premium from Xbox Live. The majority of PS3 users don't play videogames judging from PSN sales and game sales. the sales could be spread out amongst various genres, but that still doesn't explain why they don't have over 6 M sold at all for an exclusive. Xbox had over 8 M copies of Halo 3 by the time they were at 20 M.

Halo is just one of thse series that breaks through the mold because it probably has sold over 30% of the whole xbox line.. I don't think even the ps2 had something like this. You have to understand that ps3 is really ps2 with a much lower userbase. If you judge it that way, you'd realize that it performing decently software-wise

 

 

 Actually dude...the 360 resembles the PS2 more than the PS3. Thats the essence of why I purchased it. Just think about it for a moment and get back to me. The PS3 resembles the Xbox last gen. Trust me on this.

No it doesn't. 360 has higher attach ratios than ps2. It doesn't resemble the ps2 in any way. It may have acquired some ps2 IP's but remember that the ps2 never had a decent FPS save for killzone which many thought was mediocre. It had JRPGs popping out left and right not one every now and then. I know it's the library you're thinking about when making this comparison thats why I'm going on that tangent. Ps2 had  a huge casual "fillerbase". 360 has next to no casuals. They're not the same at all.

However, my comparison was based on attach ratios which is really the underlying subject of this thread. If you look carefully, ps3 has even performed better than ps2 with some IPs. Ps3s casuals are the blu-ray only section.

 

If you're speaking about attach ratios the PS2 still wins over the PS3. Third party games carried the torch with Kingdom Hearts, MGS and GTA. First party included GT and Crash bandicoot with the highest 1st party sales which nearly hit 10 million for GT3: A-Spec.

PS2: Affordable system, standard DVD, larger library, lesser graphics capabilities, ok online

Xbox 360: Affordable system, standard DVD, larger library, lesser graphics capabilities, great online

Xbox: More powerful multimedia experience, less games, more expensive, better graphics, great online

PS3: More powerful multimedia experience, less games, more expensive, better graphics, good online.

I could go on and on about this. This is really a brick wall topic friend.

 

 

What? mgs3 sold 4 mil at an 80 + mil userbase vs MGs4 selling 3mil at a 15 mil userbase. How on earth is it possible that ps2 had higher attach ratios? if you really believe that, I guess it's realy a brick wall. Your idea of "lesser graphical capabilities" is really subjective. Xbox was more tchnologically advanced than ps2 last gen. This gen, it's not obvious. Sony devs spending blood, sweat and tears to make something look good proves nothing only that sony's first party work really hard. Didn't the guy who actually made the chips for both consoles say that they were equal?

360 also has a multimedia offering. 360 and ps3 are similar to themselves save for blu-ray costs and neither is like the ps2. If the 360 was really like the ps2, it's sales won't look like they do now and the wii won't have come shooting by. Some would even argue that the wii is the new ps2 which is wrong as well.  You cherry-picked the few similarities and ignored the vast differences like the ones that I mentioned previously like they are non-existent. It's obvious that we'll never agree so I'll give it a rest.