By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
superchunk said:
BMaker11 said:

even though in the grand scheme of things, a statistician would say the values are the "same" and ignore the difference, since samplings are statistically insignificant at +/- 0.5%; 3.01 is higher than 2.9, and if you don't unequivocally accept the higher number over the statistically insignificant lower number, you're just flaming the poor old XBone because you're a biased Sony fan. Obviously.

Of course 3>2.9, but my point is that it doesn't matter.

VGCs rounded down 2.9 is just as accurate as MSs 'more than 3m'.

The only point anyone should get out of any of this is that Xbone sold about 3m.

I'm not saying its good or bad (its actually just fine). The couple months just after launch are not as big of an indicator of anything anyways. Kinda why my comparison thread goes to the end of the 2nd xmas.

.... or obviously I'm just a flaming sony fan.

oh, no dude I was agreeing with you. I was just making fun of how you got jumped for, I dunno what to say....."preference"(??) to the 2.9x figure instead of absolutely accepting the "over 3.xx" figure. Statitistically, within margin of error, the figures are the same. But you got responded to multiple times making it seem like the XBone sold substantially less than what MS said. Unless you post about how great 3.xx million sold is, you're assumed to undersell the accomplishment.

Look to the post kowen made directly under your comment that I'm replying to. You said selling 3M was just fine. "Just fine? What do you mean? 3M is MASSIVE! Just because your number is bigger doesn't mean mine is shitty" is essentially the vibe I got from that one. Nobody even said 3M was bad, but you didn't say it's the greatest thing ever either, you jerk =/