Apologies for my sarcasm.

The yellow is another excellent example, thank you.

If the N64 was a year earlier or the PS1 was a year later the PS1 would not have done nearly as well. Luck alone? Maybe not but they also had steep price drops and they bought every good game that moved which is why I said luck and money. They would not have done so well against two strong competitors and it was the best moment before and after to enter the industry, another generation and the consoles they would have had to face would have been a lot tougher.

This generation they had none of their old tricks to use and they didn't invent any new ones either. The Wii was always going to beat them no matter what they did. Even if they went motion from the start only Nintendo has the brilliant games to really take advantage and the only question was whether they would retain a strong second place or fall back further. They fell back further and the result is what we see on the charts today.

Lol i have a feeling this is going to be one of those threads where you come back a year later and theres TONS of crow to start serving to people. Again. When will people learn that they Sony and MS keep switching places? 2010 is MS's year Natal is going to move alot more systems than people think. However I think this is the last year MS outsells the PS3 until the next gen starts sometime in either 2011 or 2012

Carland goes to 360 with GT5 releasing this year?

Pish tosh sir, surely ye jest.

your personal bias is making you out to be a word that would be banned XD

lolz, and the ps1 and ps2 never existed, the 2 best selling home consoles are both sony my friend.

looka at the ps3 as a risk, nothing more nothing less, Sony more than knows how to destroy a market the ps1 and ps2 prove that. and they are way more successful than M$, because back in the ps1 days nintendo and sega ruled supreme, the ps1 was unknown and sold at the same price as it's competitors...... and completely dominated them, xbox HAD to release a year and a half earlier and they NEEDED to be hundreds of dollars cheaper. And even still they are losing a lead nowhere near as big as what the previous playstations had. I love how people conviently leave that FACT out of ps3 vs. xbox.

I love how people talk about Sony and how arrogant and cocky they were blah, blah, blah. these idiots had no idea waht the ps3 was doing for sony, Selling a console that cost 850 dollars to make for 600 is not arrogant at all, selling a ps2 hd upgrade that would insure market domination for 600....... that's freaking arrogant. But people know everything these days don't they?

Sony wanted to provide and extemely powerful console no matter the cost (imo), they also wanted to insure the future of playstation, look at it this way, the transition from ps3 to ps4 will be extremely easy, less expensive, and super powerful, cannot say the same for M$.

2 console sales.

Surprised I did not see this answer anywhere...

ok for the U.S, for the rest of the world (except Japan), it is very difficult to say .... Europe is a very different market compared to usa ... trends change quickly, depending on prices, countries, mentalities ... a simple price drop can switch the situation (I remember the end of 2008 when  360 destroyed the PS3 even in Europe ... with  20 euros pric cut and pubs). but that will very difficult for MS this year... once again, depending of natal....

Agreed. +10

For Microsoft is simple to say "we will outsell the PS3 in the US". The difficult arrives if X360 has to outsell the PS3 worldwide.
The run is very close and both the systems are equipped well, but at the end the name Playstation will make the difference.
In my opinion, in the US the X360 will sell more, but worldwide the PS3 will win.

I believe the world is going to end in December 2012, that doesnt mean it will happen :D!