The Xbox 360 is such a software beast, but why??

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Here's why phisheep is incorrect:

A. Most importantly. Its reasons are justifications for facts. The justifications, no matter how sensible, don't make the facts not exist. The Xbox 360 has sold more games per console than the PS3. It's just a damn fact. Justifications and damage control are synonyms.

B. Incorrect assumptions. You assume that the PS3 is destined to keep a similar pace to the Xbox 360. You are extrapolating numbers, and assuming that the 360 software advantage doesn't exist.

C. Ignoring inconvenient truths. It's very true that there are many other evidences that point to the 360's superior software selling ability, than simply the attach rate. Compare high profile games, or even ports.

D. The 360 IS a year ahead of the PS3. In a year, that will still be the case. The PS3 can't catch up, therefore, snapshots are what determine true software sales rates, not bullshit guessing.

E. Even if you extrapolated and allowed bullshit guesses, I'd assume the 360 would still have a higher attach rate.

F. What he's saying is a theory. Numbers aren't even available to back it up. There has been one feeble attempt in this thread to do so. It's cherrypicking from a time when the PS3 was very strong in NPD.

GGGGG!!!!! The assumption here is that every year is equal in a consoles lifecycle, and that year 1 for the Xbox 360 gave it the same attach advantage as this year will for the PS3. BULLSHIT! Year 1 is mediocre for most consoles, and the 360 is no exception. That one year advantage the 360 had, with its few million sold will have nothing on this year for the PS3, and in turn the very small amount of PS3's sold in year 1 aren't gonna start paying out with attach rate bumps of any significance. The bumps/ebbs are coming from the last 1.3 years when the consoles sold their lions-share. Again, it's impossible to extrapolate this due to cycle life and unknowns, and thus, your THEORY is again unprovable and contradicts generally accepted facts.

HHH! As time has progressed, that year headstart means significantly less, until a point where it means nothing. According to your theory, in 3-5 years, when the advantage is completely diminished, the attach rates will be equal. Highly unlikely, contrary to popularly held opinions.

What the assumption is here, is that since all the PS3's sold have had so little time on the market(compared to Xbox), they haven't had time to bump the attach rate enough to match the 360. It doesn't hold water. The 360 has been consistently outselling the PS3 for quite a while now, and despite that, the 360 hasn't been taking a hit in its tie ratio, or at least we should reasonably assume that.

Saying that the 360 hasn't sold more software per box than the PS3 is nonsensical BS. It's denying a provable fact. It goes against every number we've looked at over the past several years, and it's based on a theory with nothing more than one man's illogical assertion and NO evidence at all to back it up. It's a conspiracy theory, based on a logic that sounds intelligent, but can't be grounded in any fact, and in fact, has many facts that fly directly in the face of it, and many inconsistencies that can never be ironed out or explained.

...it's working backwards. First one assumes that there is no way the 360 is a superior software mover to their epic console of choice, and then they decide how they can manipulate reason in order to assert such a thing in public, where scrutiny will be given.

Then again, he's not telling us that the 360 hasn't sold more per box. He's just giving us a reason why. The xbox 360, apparently, cheated, and its owners are nothing special. We don't buy a shit-ton of games, and it's all an illusion created by Microsoft PR.

The 360 sells more games per box. Calling it an "illusion" is damage control, no matter how pretty you dress up your logic, and I scoff at it. Slander.