By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 25 October 2012
Edit Thread
sales2099 said:
Mazty said:

So you think ford compare their sales of the Taurus to the Ferrari California? Different markets. 

So net income doesn't consider timescale from launch date? The 360 has sold more, but it had a years lead, and when you adjust sales, the PS3 has almost considently sold better. Fact. Stop trying to act that comparing the two whilst ignoring launch date is a fair or relevant comparison. 

Bottom line is gamers always counted total sales. Nevermind business trends....this is how gamers always see it. I repeat, Wii launched later and succeeded.

The only instance gamers have really ever brought up alligned launches is between PS3 and 360. That tells me your a sore loser and don't like being associated with last place. 360 sold more lifetime then PS3 and you only have Sony to blame for launching late with a bad business strategy.

EDIT: Who said the industry was fair? You launch later you risk losing. Your the one who thinks we live in an alternate unvierse where 360s 1st year never existed. Looks like selective anmesia to me.

Bottom line is gamers are not economists and therefore their approach is not authoritative. Who cares how gamers compare a buisness statistic? The way gamers compare how consoles have performed in the market is as relevant as how a Himalayan whistle-kid would compare the same figures. 

It's nothing to do with being "last place" (fyi i'm a pc gamer), it's to do with comparing the figures correctly. The fact that you think launching later equates to losing because you haven't sold more then the competition shows that your grasp of economics is still in the paint-by-numbers stage.