PS2 2001 sales numbers vs PS3 2008 sales numbers =)

[CrazzyMan]

Slimebeast said:

CrazzyMan said:

@Slimebeast,
1,5 month or 6 weeks of 2006 is negligible to be considered as full year, don`t you think so? :)
NO, why not?

True. But as you have heard a million times, 2000 was not a full year for PS2 either. If 6 weeks in Japan and 6 weeks in USA is negligible you can argue that March-Dec 2000 in a small market like Japan is also negligible, don't you think?

22,5 mln. of PS2 total in Japan and 3,5 mln. PS2 in Japan till the end of 2000 negligible? Really? :)

More over, i`m looking at time/periods of console life (SINCE it`s FIRST launch), that`s why it doesn`t matter How much months it was selling in other regions and was it supply constrained or not.

You are not using the timeframe parallel! You have to use the SAME STARTING WEEK AND END WEEK.

Because it`s ALREADY done HERE:
http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=PS2&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=------&weeks=85&weekly=1
AND i USE different weeks, JUST to see, How PS2 and PS3 were doing at same month like january, februarty, march and etc.
That`s why i just ignore those 16 extra weeks. To be able see how both consoles were doing in SAME months. Otherwise it will be like in a link above, Same weeks but in different MONTHS.

This means that the chart you posted is actualy comparing 52 months of PS3 sales to just 39 months of PS2 sales for the same 78 week time period.  Now do you see how that is an unfair comparison and why epople tell you that you need to compare by territory?

Easy, WHAT effect those MONTHS count have on 60-78th weekly sales.
Do you know? LOL. then what the point?

i`m comparing since 45th week of PS2 launch with 61st week since PS3 launch, BECAUSE these weeks are at SAME MONTHS.
+ 16 weeks is not that big difference, that`s why i practically call that period 2nd year for both consoles.