| scottie said: 1) That is not what 'per capita' means. Sales per capita would be comparing the average number of 360's owned by each 360 owner to the average number of PS3's owned by PS3 owners. Ima guess both are approximately 1.
2) Responding to the actual question, I think you'll find it's not as simple as that. Aligning sales for the purpose of comparison is only useful for a very short period of time, a matter of months. Lets imagine that the PS3 had launched one year earlier. It would have been priced even higher than it was, and there would have been fewer and worse games ready for it. Or consider if MS had delayed the 360 by 1 year, certainly RROD would have been avoided, and there would have been more time to cut costs on hardware and develop games.
If we do an aligned launch comparison, then the PS3 gets to keep its advantage, but we are eliminating the 360's advantage. No, I'm afraid that in the twilight of the generation, using aligned launches is simply a way of biasing the figures to make it look like one's favourite console is winning. |
Well thats not entirely true, you're right about the per capita, but your estimate is a little off. 360 probably has 1.6 per capita and PS3 1.3, you have to factor in the console failures and "extra blu-ray players".
I agree that an alligned comparison is pointless. Taking away a consoles lauch year is probably the biggest gimp you could give. With that said I will say this, PS3 has sold at a faster rate, but that doesn't mean its in 2nd.
