What's wrong with Microsoft?

[Frequency]

Chrizum said:

Frequency said:

Chrizum said:

Frequency said:

Chris Hu said:

Currently the PS3 sells less then 100K more units of software on a weekly basis at this rate it will take over 14 years for PS3 to outsell the 360 in software so its pretty much guranteed to never happen.  As a matter of fact the PS3 software sales will dry up much faster since the PS4 is off to a much better start then the X1.

in the time frame from launch to current, the PS3 has sold consistently more than the 360, even if not by much at times, the difference being that a full year or more on sale in various regions is much harder to catch up with for software than it is for hardware.

If the xbox 360 stopped selling software tomorrow, but the PS3 continued for another 11 and a half months in two regions, and up to 3 more years in other regions, do you genuinely think the lifetime software sales would not be extremely similar, or (most likely) higher for PS3?

Again, making statements about software sold between consoles launched so far apart is stupid, as i said in an earlier post, at this point the virtual boy has sold more software than the PS4 and Xbox One combined, does that mean anything? no.

When the Xbox 1 is a week old, would you find it fair to compare its software sales to the WiiU? No, you whouldnt.

Lifetime sales between consoles launched so far apart is not important.
Monthly sales differences between consoles launched so far apart is not important.
Total console sales between consoles launched so far apart is not important, though telling.

People just like to state the obvious while conveniently ignoring the logical reasoning FOR the obvious, to talk up their favored console.

It was Sony's choice to launch the PS3 when it did, no? The PS3 and 360 were competitors from the start. The constant need to allign launches is ridiculous. The videogames business isn't about fairness. It just was a good move for Microsoft to launch the 360 a year earlier and they have clearly hurt Sony with it.

Whos choice it was does not matter, its pure logic.

Otherwise you are simply pandering to bias by spouting obviously one sided numbers that have no real meaning.

Of you genuinely want to say "A has sold more than B", at the very least, expand upon that and say something closer to "A has sold more than B due to market advantage of a longer retail presence to date", youre getting across your point, then, without being biased.

It has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with business and it has to do with money. Do you think publishers are thinking "Console X has a much lower market penetration, but hey, it was released later than console Y! So we should release our games on both, otherwise it would be unfair!"? It´s no wonder the 360 saw much better third party support during most of this generation. It was a more viable platform to sell software on. PS3 releasing late doesn´t change anything about that.

Circumstances are never equal in the real world. So it is absolutely irrelevant to try to allign them.

Only the problem with your argument there is that software totals overall for the PS3 have been higher year on year, the only reason lifetime totals are higher for the 360 is because of additional time in retail presence - so when publishers are thinking about money the lifetime software totals dont mean a thing, as i said.

But as you think aligning doesnt make any sense, we can make the following flippant statements.

PS3 decimated the 360 and is a million units ahead , and will reach 80 million units one year faster than the 360, dont bother saying the 360 did well compared to the original xbox, that's irrelevant.
PS3 software sales are 100k higher week on week, dont bother saying its because the 360 is a year older, thats irrelevant
PS3 hardware reliability is and always was higher - dont bother bringing up remodeled 360s, thats irrelevant

In short, things become "important" and "irrelevant" to suit arguments, for the first several years of its life, it was all about how much the 360 had sold compared to ps3, as it became obvious the ps3 was gaining, it was less about total sales and more about market share, once they broke even and then the ps3 pulled past the 360, those figures became irrelevant all together because it no longer suited their arguments, and it became about software totals, no doubt if something drastic happens, or if in several years time the PS3 pulls ahead regardless, at that point in time said fans will just claim "its irrelevant anyway its last gen".

Hell we even had people chirping in, on the brink of the PS3 overtaking the 360 saying "its meaningless this generations over anyway, 360 won".

Unfortunately, I like all consoles, so when I post, i like to remain as logical, fair and grounded as possible, so you'll have to excuse me in my inability to ignore very basic thought processes to make biased and poorly backed up claims.

But personally, i loved this bit.

" It´s no wonder the 360 saw much better third party support during most of this generation. It was a more viable platform to sell software on. PS3 releasing late doesn´t change anything about that."

Yeah, the direct reason for the 360 being a more viable platform (install base) has nothing to do with it, right?