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

Forums - Gaming - X360 more or less in third

disolitude on 25 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:

I wish I didn't have a life so I could argue meaningless and spinning arguments like this properly...


What is with you serbian people being so harsh on everyone?

Was that harsh? I didn't mean it to be... Just saying, arguing that PS3 outsold 360 when you only count the days that it rained and was 20 degrees outside takes time and effort to prove wrong. :)

Yeah, yeah, typicall serbian response...

Just for the record, I'm Hungarian. :)



Around the Network
rocketpig on 25 April 2011
pizzahut451 said:
rocketpig said:

Why does it matter? Microsoft has made more money than Sony this generation. Why don't we go by THAT number? It makes more sense than arbitrarily looking at product sales, which don't account for the clusterfucks that have set back both companies quite a bit (MS less than Sony but they both had major mistakes this generation).

it matters because this is a thread about sales, not profits. But if spinning and twisting topic is gonna make you happy, than go on :)

In that case, Microsoft has ALSO sold more consoles than Sony this generation.

I'm not the one spinning anything here. I'm just applying some common-fucking-sense to the conversation.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

hatmoza on 25 April 2011

Don't worry. PS3 will get second place sooner or later.



I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

psrock on 25 April 2011

It doesn't really matter as the PS3 has been selling more consoles than 360 for years now. The only thing that used to really seperate them was 360 used to kill PS3 in software sales, but not anymore. 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
LivingMetal on 25 April 2011
disolitude said:
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:

I wish I didn't have a life so I could argue meaningless and spinning arguments like this properly...


What is with you serbian people being so harsh on everyone?

Was that harsh? I didn't mean it to be... Just saying, arguing that PS3 outsold 360 when you only count the days that it rained and was 20 degrees outside takes time and effort to prove wrong. :)

Yeah, yeah, typicall serbian response...

Just for the record, I'm Hungarian. :)

 

I'm hungry, too.  It's almost lunch time for me.



Around the Network
Kynes on 25 April 2011
RolStoppable said:
Kynes said:

I really think that Pizzahut is doing it in purpose.

I know him quite well. Trust me, he isn't doing this on purpose.


Then he scares me. A lot.



TheNoobHolocaust on 25 April 2011
scottie said:

1) That is not what 'per capita' means. Sales per capita would be comparing the average number of 360's owned by each 360 owner to the  average number of PS3's owned by PS3 owners. Ima guess both are approximately 1.

 

2) Responding to the actual question, I think you'll find it's not as simple as that. Aligning sales for the purpose of comparison is only useful for a very short period of time, a matter of months. Lets imagine that the PS3 had launched one year earlier. It would have been priced even higher than it was, and there would have been fewer and worse games ready for it. Or consider if MS had delayed the 360 by 1 year, certainly RROD would have been avoided, and there would have been more time to cut costs on hardware and develop games.

 

If we do an aligned launch comparison, then the PS3  gets to keep its advantage, but we are eliminating the 360's advantage. No, I'm afraid that in the twilight of the generation, using aligned launches is simply a way of biasing the figures to make it look like one's favourite console is winning.


Well thats not entirely true, you're right about the per capita, but your estimate is a little off. 360 probably has 1.6 per capita and PS3 1.3, you have to factor in the console failures and "extra blu-ray players".

I agree that an alligned comparison is pointless. Taking away a consoles lauch year is probably the biggest gimp you could give. With that said I will say this, PS3 has sold at a faster rate, but that doesn't mean its in 2nd.




Get your Portable ID!

Superman4 on 25 April 2011
rocketpig said:

Why does it matter? Microsoft has made more money than Sony this generation. Why don't we go by THAT number? It makes more sense than arbitrarily looking at product sales, which don't account for the clusterfucks that have set back both companies quite a bit (MS less than Sony but they both had major mistakes this generation).


I dont recall Sony having a billion defect issue, not to mention the 360 was selling for a loss as well.



Kynes on 25 April 2011
Superman4 said:
rocketpig said:

Why does it matter? Microsoft has made more money than Sony this generation. Why don't we go by THAT number? It makes more sense than arbitrarily looking at product sales, which don't account for the clusterfucks that have set back both companies quite a bit (MS less than Sony but they both had major mistakes this generation).


I dont recall Sony having a billion defect issue, not to mention the 360 was selling for a loss as well.


Even then, Sony has buried much more than MS. MUCH more.



pizzahut451 on 25 April 2011
disolitude said:
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:
pizzahut451 said:
disolitude said:

I wish I didn't have a life so I could argue meaningless and spinning arguments like this properly...


What is with you serbian people being so harsh on everyone?

Was that harsh? I didn't mean it to be... Just saying, arguing that PS3 outsold 360 when you only count the days that it rained and was 20 degrees outside takes time and effort to prove wrong. :)

Yeah, yeah, typicall serbian response...

Just for the record, I'm Hungarian. :)

Hungarian from Novi Sad? Didnt you told me you were Serbian living in Canada before?