"See what I mean about being desperate to prove your argument? Your arguments are weak and unfounded."

My argument has always been the same from the start. There are more households to sell the 360 to than the Wii. The Wii will sell less units simply because it exists in more homes, and with a failure rate as low as the Wii, (Less than 3% of wii's fail) it's not surprising the 360 outsold the Wii in recent numbers.

For math sake, let's say the world has 1M people. The Wii has sold 720,000 units. The 360 has sold 350,000 units. This leaves 280,000 homes that don't own a Wii, and 650,000 homes that don't own a 360. If we were to assert only 100,000 people from all people will never own a system, and there are only two years left in this cycle before no one will ever again purchase a system from this generation, obviously the 360 will outsell the Wii over the next 2 years. Hopefully this simplified example will help you to understand.

I'm no where near desperate to prove my argument. My argument is sound, and my facts are there.

Fact A) There are more homes that already own a Wii than there are homes that own a 360. The conclusion drawn is there are obviously more people who can still buy a 360 since more people already own the Wii

Fact B) The high failure rate of the 360 adds to the number of 360's sold, couple this with the amazingly low failure rate of the Wii at less than 3% and there's the obvious conclusion that a percentage of 360's sold were sold because the original failed, and more 360's will be sold because of this problem.

So Montana Hatchet. I'll offer you the same. Can you dispute my "weak arguments" which I present as facts to argue my overall picture, which is stated as the first (non quoted) paragraph of this post? (You won't)

First of all attach rate isn't expressed in percentages but in average number of games bought per a console.

Second of all how is it not relevant? 360 has the highest attach ratio of any console in history already. According to you the attach rate should be much higher which anyone with any sales background can tell you is highly unfeasible.

The next flaw with your argument is that you have no idea how many people used in-store warranty or MS warranty. Also I would like a source for your claim that in-store warranty replaced consoles count as extra sales. 

Ignoring all this your saying that current 360 sales are due to replacements from consoles with rrod despite the fact that it has been seen, even in the report that you cited that cases of rrod are falling with the newer consoles. Not to mention that was back in 2008 when consoles were even less reliable than they are now. According to your logic the highest sales for the 360 should have been at the height of the rrod crisis.

Basically what all this amount to is that you have no idea how sales work, you make up a bunch of "facts" and can't see relevant data if it hit you in the face. Did replaced 360's boost console sales slightly, sure. Is a fourth of the 360's sales from replaced consoles and are all those consoles magically being replaced now in order to give 360 the sales advantage? I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious to any person with at least an average IQ.

edit:

Just to make you understand how stupid your statement that there are only 34,000,000 active 360's is 

The current attach rate of the 360 is 8.9 and that is the highest attach rate for a console in history, according to your calculations the attach rate should be 12.12

Now can you honestly say that you believe that attach rate has nothing to do with consoles sold and that the 360 actually has a 12.12 attach rate. If so this conversation is over because I'm clearly arguing with a person who doesn't have even a fools clue as to how the sales market works.

Improvements? Not really

wii motion plus released before do the same thing as ps move do and best of all it doesnt need a cam to accurate better the movements, and has sound response much better than color response, i want to watch to the tv not to the controller. and How can Play Station could be an improvement?! in terms of sound Nintendo 64 from the 5th gen has 64 sound channels, PS2 from the next generation has only 48 sound channels and that's only an example.

Lol, you're fun to bait. So easy.

Still toying with that argument? Well let's look at your math example. You set the limit of consumers pretty low and the sales of the consoles relatively high. The sales of a console are not set by some pre-determined pool of potential users, but by its ability to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. The Wii got a lot of its sales from people who aren't traditionally gamers, and there are many, more people that fit this demographic. Even if the gamer market was sucked up at this point, the Wii would still be able to maintain sales by appealing to new demographics.

And let's examine your argument about the number of households. The DS has sold to a lot more households than the Wii, so why isn't it selling worse? Why wasn't the Wii selling worse than the PS3 and/or 360 this whole time even though it's been in more households for most of the generation? Doesn't your rule apply to say...2008 or 2009 also? When did it become that the Wii has sold enough that it's acceptable for it completely lose momentum? Did the PS2 suddenly lose momentum in 2004 or 2005 because it had already reached a huge number of households? The PS2 had sales far higher (relatively) versus its competitors than the Wii, and yet its sales continued to be consistent year over year.

Now I know you don't like to listen to facts, but just accept when you've lost. A poor, unfounded argument just won't work.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to respond to your really stupid "failure rate" argument. The same argument some people will use to "excuse" the PS2's high sales. Actually, if you think about it, the 360's failure rate was highest early in its cycle. In fact, as new models are introduced and the failure rates declined, sales actually seem to increase year over year (contradicting your entire argument). If the 360 was only selling so well because of its failure rate, then why didn't it sell best near the beginning of its cycle?

Oh forget it.

When the 360 was released, it was "doomed" to fail, and everyone called the PS3 the obvious choice for best system of the generation. And of course the Wii was looked at as a joke.

The 360 has improved dramatically the user interface, software, and network. I personally feel the 360 is an amazing piece of hardware, but it took me a while to get there. Not because I didn't give it a fair shot, I did. The improvements were what did it for me. I'm not impressed with Sony, and I'm not impressed with the games on the Wii. To me, the PS3 shouldn't have made it in the same league with the 360, and the Wii got where it is by being the cheapest, entry level system, while appealing to the largest market.

The Kinect, I believe, will sell a TON of systems for Microsoft, and this time next year everyone will talk about how amazing the "comeback" of the 360 is/was.

So why didn't the 360 sell more when the failure rate was higher? Well that's simple. The system wasn't as good then as it is now. Period.

As for bringing up the PS2, I only remember the first generation of PS2 having a problem, which Sony quickly addressed, replaced and fixed the issue. If you have more info about PS2 failure rates, I'm not sure where you got it. And regardless, that doesn't matter at all. You're bringing up another useless piece of info to try to detract from what I'm saying.

Finally, I don't plan on linking for you how warranty companies work. If you want to know, go look it up yourself. You pay them money to get a replacement if something goes wrong. If I walk into Best-Buy, and buy the Black Tie, and my system dies, I get a new one off the shelf. If you want "links" and "proof", go find it yourself. If you feel you can disprove this, feel free to try. I personally used this replacement when I bought my Game Boy Color from Electronics Boutique. My Game Boy "fell" out of a 3 year olds hands off of the 4th floor balcony while some family was visiting. They replaced it with one from their shelf. Anecdotal? Perhaps. But that's just how it works.

It's amazing how desperate fanboys are to defend their beloved system. But the funny thing is, I'm not even attacking them, or the system. I think the system is the best system out now, and perhaps that has ever hit the shelves, even ignoring the RROD problems. (And as I've said multiple times, I own 6 systems, 3 of which have died to RROD, 2 which can not, and 1 I expect will RR soon) What they've done is absolutely amazing, and I hope every system moving forward is smart enough to do what they did. The Wii needs/needed true net play, and I can't go back (other than to play classic games and such) to playing a game without a setup like X-Box Live.

So attack me all you want. I notice you still refuse to refute my facts. FANBOYS UNITE!

My apologies for placing the percentages on my numbers btw. The attach rate is how many pieces of software each 360 owner purchases. Meaning if the number is 9, and there are 90,000 systems sold, 810,000 pieces of software have sold. I understand how it works, I accidently added the percent signs when I was typing the post up. So ya got me on that one!

Oh and btw, to answer the question "Do you believe the attach rate is that much higher?"

Actually I believe it's much much higher than that even. I believe the used game market has significantly lowered where the attach rate should truly be. And if someone buys a used system, and buys a new release, that's 1 system, 2 owners, two libraries of games.

So yes, I believe the attach rate is MUCH higher than numbers can attribute.

Er, actually PS2's 4th year it did decline, and percentage wise the drop was basically identical to Wii overall.  In fact, even with said GIGANTIC drop in sales, Wii is still selling better than PS2 launch aligned.  That's part of the problem, Wii's natural cycle gets miscast as something it's not, though that's largely because it's competition is peaking later (PS2's didn't, which is the only real difference between them at this point)

If Wii had launched a year and half before PS3/360, like PS2 did GC/Xbox, it could've potentially managed similar marketshare too honestly.  Actually, what would Wii's marketshare be today if we aligned it's launch to PS2 and 360/Xbox and PS3/GC?