man i have a reading overload. your just hurting my head.

i have to say i agree. i can't say for sure about 360 being the bigger seller in the US becuase its an American product but i can say price has more to do with it.

Americans are the words biggest consumers so they really arin't picky when it comes to there products. i'll buy anything thats the better product.

heres just afew examples:

Wal-Marts food is cheaper then Krogers. result: i buy food from Wal-Mart. Krogers personal products are cheaper then Wal-Mart. result: i buy personals from Kroger.

360 has 2 main exclusives v PS3s stable of franchises: result i own a PS3 cause theres more verity.

360 had(slim model changed that)a higher failure rate: result i got a PS3.

i wanted a quality small labtop. dell sucks the MS, IBM, Sony vaios and toshiba netbooks cost more then the HP netbooks: result i got an HP netbook.

thinking of getting a bigger laptop. Aleinware is to expensive, building a PC is cheaper, i really want an IBM laptop because it has think pad technology. result: its like pokemon. i've got to have them all.

so 360 selling better then PS3 in the U.S. because its an american product holds no weight friend. its not even an argument. 

360 just happens to have 2 exclusives the world favors and the system is more appealing to Americans for some reason.

its like my friend Samuel Lair a current 360 owner said "PS3 is the better product, but i like American made products. you know i'm getting both right"

every PS3 and 360 owner i know or meet in gamestop says i have to get a PS3 to. there reason is either it has more games or i intended to buy one anyway. 360 was just heaper at the time.

Its simple really, while PS3 definitely have more good franchises, none of the franchises (except Gran Tursimo) is as big as say Halo or Gears. Also because there are more games people have to probably scrap 1 or 2, personally i am not getting Resistance 3 not because i don't like it, but because there are better games to get like Deus Ex and Uncharted 3. There is also the fact that 360 has sold more than PS3.

Two awesome posts in a thread filled with politicized name calling. 

That's 100% true, but if I say that 10 people will come and try to debate with me, and then tell me I can't comprehend the market.... :-/

Uncharted and MGS4 are 3rd Parson shooters, and even then they aren't know for their multiplayer. Gears and Halo are laregly multiplayer focused, and just like CoD that's probably why they sell well (amazing replay). After all you can always rent Uncharted and MGS4 and beat it in 10 hours, but Halo and Gears offer much more after the campaign. Sony is trying to fix that with Uncharted 3, but judging from the demo I feel UC3 multiplayer will only have an active player base as Lost Planet 1 (360) or at the Battlefield: Bad Company 1.

I don't understand the Forza/Gears 3 marketing point. Forza 3 sold very well for a racing simulator, which has only recently been recognized at a top quality SIM. I guess you are trying to point out that the genre is less popular, which I agree with, but that raises the question, why doesn't Killzone 3 sell well then? It's Sony's compeditor to Halo, and offers basically everything Halo offers. Is it just that that 5-10% lower rating kills sales that badly? Is it poor marketing on Sony's part? Or many just that the FPS genre is popular in Americas, where MS dominates almost 2 to 1. I blaime all 3.

At the same time, the reason Killzone 3 doesn't sell well is the reason Forza will always fall short to GT. The 360 demograph isn't as racer oriented as the PS3 demograph. Same goes with JRPG's.

I don't feel marketing is the primary reason why 360 games sell better then PS3 games, but it's definatly an important factor.

Either way, overall FPS's are the biggest genre this gen, and 360 dominates the region where FPS sell well. That's why they sell noticably better (ontop of good marketing, and just plain old quality). However WRPG's, Action Adventure titles, Casual games, and well almost every genre sells better on the 360 then PS3 (except sports). Why is that? Do American (all of NA/SA) gamers just buy that many more console games then EMEAA and Japan?

Probably, so again since 360 dominates Americas sales, software sales for 360 are higher then PS3, but there are other factors too.

The argument that PS3 has so many more exclusives is what is not true .. Just because 360 has two exclusives that sell better overall then Sony's two best doesnt mean the 360 has less exclusives.. Here's a list of PS3 AND 360 exclusives..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_exclusives_(seventh_generation)

i know about the list, and don't need the link the 2 ip comment was just part of the argument.

me nore the op are talking about exclusives they have. we're talking about the ones you continue to see every yr leading the charge in comparison to the comp in the 7th gen. i think you missed that.

the op is also talking about franchises and there sales. not staples of games.

when you hear about a PS3 exclusive ip in the 7th gen its usually new or well establish.

when you hear about a 360 ip its either Fable, GEARS, FORZA, or HALO. no-one talks about perfectdark or bulletwitch.

and remeber i said the world favors the 2 ip not they only have 2 ip.

Then maybe they need to change the name of the title post to "Why arent Sony's top Exclusives selling as well as MS's top exclusives" but really thats what this is about and then it just bring up unrelated chatter about who has more exclusives... or why XB 360's games in general sell better then PS3's...  The only reason any game (Exclusive or Not ) exist is to make cash. I never read an article in which a company that sold 2 million copies said "Oh well, we didnt sell 10 million as we wanted, but we still feel our game is better even though demand doesnt reflect our opinion that is is better"... The few in which ive seen or read spoke of a feeling if disappointment not delight that we added another exclusive that no one wants to play. And Im taking about both consoles.

I think the business model is changing and while exclusives are good, they simply dont matter as much as they did last generation. Last generation when you had an exclusive you had a company loyal to you. Now there are more multiplatform titles because there is no loyalty and because all three consoles sell well so companies are going to milk each console. COD couldve been an exclusive last gen... but this gen its the best selling multi-plat on the two most powerful consoles of this generation. I still think Sony needs the next console to be more program friendly. IF game makers saw any real advantages to CPU's like CELL in the PS3 then Intel and AMD wouldve put these in gaming PC's long ago because they've been doing it much longer.. which  I dont understand why Sony went with a less powerful GPU when most games are GPU dependant and always have been..Instead they made a sytem that requires programmers to spend more time and money using optimizations that take some of the load from the GPU for Cell... so they made a system with great potential that doesnt consider the game programmers...If anything ( in the PS3 ) Sony should've spent more money and development on a better GPU.. When they did the PS2 it didnt matter because they had a 1.5 yr headstart on Xbox 1 (which was more powerful, had less support, and was too late - except to get established - which  they did accomplish as we're seeing this generation 360 is not getting destroyed )  and since the PS2 was much better then Gamecube - so their real only competition was no threat at all.    With PS3 they didnt consider the programmer would rather make a game of similar quality on a system easier to program for.    Sony couldve made a more powerful PS3 using a more contemporary , cheaper and still more CPU intel- like ....and combining it with a more poweful GPU and still having BLuray.. the result wouldve been a cheaper PS3 out of the race which more people wouldve loved.. Instead so much money was spent on developing CELL ( which when slowed by the other components of the PS3 ) has very little real world advantage that makes peoples jaws drop to the ground as I expected..Sony developed CELL without asking programmers and developers what they wanted in a console.  Instead they did what they do.. whatever they want.  In the past it worked, but it wont work well in a market that has not 2, but 3 console makers..

Reading John Carmacks comments that BOTH systems would be much more powerful is truely welcomed. Some think you cant make better games with more power, but I beg to differ... More powerful CPU's next gen will alow artificial intelligence to be so much better. We're talking to difference of a mob attacking you to the future of a mob attacking you but everyone in the mob having a completely different personality and way they will react to you. In games this means more depth, more realism, not just better graphics.. better A.I. will always make games better.. Im hoping next generation  to own both a (Next)Xbox and a PS4.. this time with a reason to have both..  Next gen Sony cant make the PS4 a whole new thing like they did going from PS2 to PS3.. they need to improve power but build of current CELL architecture that programmers dont have to once again RELEARN to tap power.. or use contemporary style architecture you see in todays much more powerful multi-core processors as MS is going to do.. that way its powerful as hell but still easier to make games for ..

Thats America's preorder chart. Anyway, ignoring that part and answering your question: More variety imo.

This is only because those people have not played very many 360 exclusives. Splinter Cell Conviction, Mass Effect, Too Human, Alan Wake, Lost Odyssey, Dance Central, Blue Dragon, Crackdown, all great exclusives, all new IP's.

The difference is that since this site is largely PS3 favoring, so when non-360 owners talk about 360 games they limit their conversations to the big blockbuster titles. This makes 360 seem to have a very limited library, but it doesn't.

You read people talk about Heavy Rain as much as Alan Wake, but why is Alan Wake never brought up when people talk about 360's exclusive library. People talk about Killzone, but never Splinter Cell Conviction (which I think is a better game). They talk about InFamous, but never Crackdown (which isn't as good, but still fun). I hear so much more about Valkyria Chronicles then I do about Lost Odyssey, which was a more critical game to the market (as in who developed it, what the game represents).

However, people are not reading the OP. The OP is talking about Pre-orders and not sales, and when you have a list of the top 20 pre-ordered games in a region which favors the 360 almost 2:1, then obviously all those high profile games will make the list (sometimes not even...Forza), and all the 360 MP games will be significantly higher then PS3 MP games.

one of the main reasons is the diversity and size of the playstation lineup. theres just too many games and options to choose from, we cant get them all. the install base is split between different franchises and thats a good thing really.