| EdStation3 said: Can't we already consider the 360 to be in last place. Not in raw numbers, but per capita. The PS3 has been out for 4.4 years and the 360 for 5.4 years. Saleswise they stand at 48.2 and 52.1 respective. PS3 has ’.5 of sales the 360 has but has only been out for Â.4 of the 360 life time. That's difference. If you add on to PS3 or subtract from 360 the extra extra life time the PS3 would have 56.8million right now. The fact that they released early but don't have the sales to back it up would theoretically put them in last. If two runners were running and the first got a 1/5 of the head start over the 2nd runner and he caught up and it only 3 steps behind, wouldn't you consider the 2nd runner to be the faster of the two? |
I see what you did there (rolls eyes and refused to plug cute graphic here with that): this "unaligned start" business. Why doesn't anyone want to do with with the Wii? WHY? Well, because the Wii actually has outsold every home console, and doesn't need to do a realigned start. Consider that the gap was smaller before between the PS3 and 360, you can't even count trends here either. The lead has gotten larger and it became smaller.
It is Sony's decision to jump in when they did, a year later, and price themselves at $599 coming out of the box. At this point, positioning is irrelevant, because both companies get third-party support sufficiently.
In other news, did all those rooting for the PS3 to get second place, get the cake GLaDOS promised for the momentus occassion of Sony being in second?
