No. It's funny because I just correted the wrong assumption made by @nightsurge... and there are just two other thread with the same subject and same graphic.

That's a dup thread and should be closed .

My wrong assumption? I was going by VGC figures. NPD still isn't out yet for May to have a full comparison with VGC figures. By VGC figures, I was correct, which is what led to this confusion.

Yes, your wrong assumption. You post a thread about NPD numbers and then look up VGC numbers to verify whether or not the PS3 has shown yoy growth in the first four months of 2011.

You said "In the US the PS3 has already had it's max selling year and is flat/declining."

In America PS3 could be down (VGC) but in US not... so it not flat/declining... wrong assuption... PS3 is up near 10% (100k or more) in US.

Okay, let's see.

Here you make the wrong assumption that I am not aware of what I am looking at, followed by assuming that the PS3 already had its best year in the USA. An assumption that nobody in this thread shares, because an incoming price cut is very likely.

Here you assume that VGC numbers are a way to verify stats that were derived from NPD numbers. VGC doesn't adjust its number to perfectly mimic NPD.

Here you assume that you need May NPD numbers to verify yoy growth concerning the first four months of the year (May is the fifth month) and once again that VGC numbers have relevance.

Here you assume that you never made a flawed assumption in this thread which is a flawed assumption in and of itself. You go on to assume that you can save your butt by saying that you never specified "just the first four months", but that doesn't matter. Microsoft specified it and in the post of mine you initially quoted, you specifically replied to exactly that part. Microsoft said that the PS3 has seen yoy growth. They didn't say flat nor did they talk about a decline. They said growth. Nobody came in here to attack the 360 and defend the PS3 which is yet another flawed assumption.

Finally, here you take issue that Microsoft considers an increase in PS3 sales of 9 % yoy growth. That's possibly not a wrong assumption per se, but given your previous post the tone in this current one suggests that you are a little bit upset based on the flawed assumption that some people in here attacked the 360 and tried to defend the PS3.

I only need to be 1 out of 8 (or 9?) to have proven you wrong. I am pretty sure I accomplished that.

It's not about Kinect or XBox Live as much as it's about the content and the price. Many consoles in history, like NES, Game Boy, PS1 and PS2 have defied what we otherwise consider a "normal generation lifeline," and they have all done so by being inexpensive and having a lot of new games available into their 6th, 7th and 8th years.

Really, it's happened frequently enough that we ought to expect it instead of treating it like an exception. And Microsoft certainly shouldn't treat it like they are the first to ever do it and they did so with some magic equation of Kinect and Xbox Live. It has a lot more do to with a rich "second tier" of software titles after Call of Duty and Halo, like Portal, Red Dead, Kinect Sports, Batman, or whatever.