pezus said:
yo_john117 said:
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:
Sure but so is your argument. Realistically though the only reasonable thing to do is look at attach rates because everything else is just "what if's".
You can what if all you want but it doesn't change reality.
|
Did I say it did? No...I've explained my reason for saying this. I explained why your and Seece's argument was flawed. Now give me a reason why mine is because I think it's a very reasonable explanation. Maybe not the best analogy as it was written in a hurry and I'm not a natural English speaker, but hopefully you get the point
|
Actually my main argument for tie ratios is the most realistic, reasonable way of looking at. Like I said you can "what if" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the 360 sells more software per console.
Sure your agrument probably has some truth in it but why bother with excuses this late in the gen because I could easily come up with a bogus counter-argument to your's such as using a favorite like how the 360 has a lower install base due to RROD which makes the tie ratio even more impressive, but it's just completely pointless and in the end is just pure speculation.
|
My argument has some truth in it yet it's bogus? This isn't some unknown factor like RROD, it's just basic maths. 360 has been selling software at a faster rate because it has always been ahead in hardware sales. Bigger base = more people buying games each year. It's not until PS3 catches 360 (if it does) that it can start catching up on the software side. This is no speculation factor, if you think it is then you didn't get what I was saying. I'll try to think of a better analogy or try to word it better later tonight if so, but I must go now so I can't do it quite yet
|
Ugh you so did not get my point so I will be simple and direct.
This is my point: The best way to look at this is simply by the tie ratios...nothing more nothing less.
