Wow, most bias post ive read by far lmao. Face it, people buy more games on X360 than on PS3. Your horrible reason that people arent satisfied? Umm, no because exclusives as well as multiplatform games sell better on X360. There is multiple reasons but the reasons you just stated was complete shit

I buy more games for the same reason someone wants to eat more than they can handle. It's to indulge in the joys of videogaming. I get a new game before I finish the one I was just playing. I can easily say that I enjoy all the games I have bought within the past 16 months. (before that I almost never bought my own games)

I would go a step further and say a good porportion of PS3 where bought as BluRay players as they where half the cost of an actual BluRay Player.

Well is it really that hard to believe? if a console sells 1,000 units vs 1million units. Chances are the 1000 units are hardcore gamers.

The difference is easy to account for. Halo and somewhat Gears. Sony doesn't really have anything like that (Sure there is Resitance and KillZone, but not as popular) to compete so PS3 owners only really have COD in the FPS genre and guess what so does the 360.

Finally factor in all the Sony exclusives that went multiplatform this gen. They also impacted on PS3 tie ratio.

The controller is better that's why, also thread is a fail no facts yet you call people out for not using facts lol

dammit I knew I shouldn't have added the Wonder Book part!

Interesting that someone brought up the food analogy. Picture this:

Imagine two stores. Imagine store A serves sandwiches that are big enough to satisfy your hunger if you eat just one sandwich. Now, imagine store B serves sandwiches that only satisfy your hunger if you eat five sandwiches. Customers at Store A would of course buy less sandwiches than customers from Story B. Does this mean that Store B's sandwiches do a better job a satisfying consumers? Of course not, it's quite the opposite. Store A's sandwiches are more satisfying which means less sales for Store A.

The same applies to the video game industry.

One of the more realistic reasons the Xbox 360 has a better tie ratio compared to the PS3 is the fact that on average, every Xbox 360 includes at least two - three games. Where as prior to the PS3 SuperSlim, typically the most number of games bundled with a console was one or two, but the majority included none.

If you look at the holiday bundles both companies are coming out with, the Xbox 360 bundle will include 3 games. One retail box, one downloadable, and one included on the HDD. The PS3 SS will include 2.

So, to match that tie ratio Sony has to sell three consoles for every two Xbox 360s that Microsoft has sold. In the long run that doesn't work in Sony's favor. If someone buys a Kinect as well, that ups the tie ratio from 3 to 5 with the new Kinect bundle Let's assume that someone buys Move, which includes one game, now for every 3 consoles Microsoft sells, Sony needs to sell 5.

The free games with the PSN+ subscription, as another commenter aptly pointed out, actually works against Sony when it comes to the tie ratio. Because gamers can get games for free, even if on a temporary basis, they're less likely to buy a game and opt to play what is available for free first.

Nevertheless, your opinion is a logical fallacy. I know several gamers that quickly go through games because they have only a given amount of time to play a specific game before one they're waiting for is available. My nephew, for example blows through games faster than I can. Where as I may spend 1000 hours on a game, getting every achievement possible and buying all the DLC, he flies through the main game getting all or as many achievements as possible. Games he really likes he plays longer, and some games like Call of Duty he plays continuously until the next version comes out, but I spend more time on each game than he does. My completion rate*, last time I checked, was still better than him, but he plays more games from start to finish than I do.

But his mentality is he has a limited amount of time (in many situations) before the next game he's interested in getting, so depending on what's been released and what's coming out, he bases the amount of time he spends playing a game. He plays RPGs longer than most games, but specific FPS he plays frequently for a year or more.

Again, me, I tend to squeeze the most out of each game attempting to get every achievement.

* The completion rate is the number of games you've achieved 100% of the achievements, including DLC.

Finally, the reason the Xbox 360 has such a strong tie ratio is because for millions of gamers, the Xbox 360 is their primary console and they consistently buy games for that console first and foremost. That may not be every Xbox 360 owner, but for a significant majority that is true. I mean when a game like Call of Duty sells 4:1 over the PS3 on the Xbox 360, you're gonna have a stronger tie ratio with the console. There are a host of games where the Xbox 360 sells consistently more on that platform than on the PS3. There are less than a handful of games where the PS3 has sold better, and the only one to have a significantly greater tie ratio is FIFA, but it hardly comes close to the sell ratio of Call of Duty. Even Battlefield 3 sold better on the Xbox 360 than it did on the PS3, and the PS3 was the primary platform with exclusive deals.

And where your rambling opinion is an uneducated, logical fallacy, the fact that games sell well, and that they get played actively on the Xbox 360 is pretty evident when you look at the Xbox LIVE Online statistics that are published every week. That's pretty evident that Xbox 360 gamers don't get bored with their games, but rather play a wide variety of games.

I didn't read all the comments, just the OPs. Here is opinion based on what I've seen my co-workers, and friends do.

Xbox is a system that has been heavily modded. Many of the people I talk to like this, and they like that they have a very big community that can mod single player games; I can't prove it, but I feel that this is why the sales of single player games is lower on the Xbox 360.

Microsoft was smart in understanding that this generation wanted to play with their friends and have the best possible online experience while at it; hence, they charge correctly at demand that they see is there and don't care about if they box is completely modded and cracked because they know that people will they have two Xbox 360s. One that is modded, and one that they pay for service and buy multilayer shooters.

Microsoft goes out of their way for these few multiplayer titles that have a large fan-base, and buys exclusivity on third party titles multilayer titles that are relevant to it's target market.

Sony is trying to please many different smaller niche fan-bases, and looking at what other competitors are doing and trying to do the same. In other words, they don't have a clear vision on their identity. They want to appeal to everyone, but they do a horrible job doing it.

I bought my PS3 because I wanted my Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Valkyrie Profile series. Basically, I wanted my dose of JRPGs or Japanese games that I never had since I never owned a PS2, just a PSX. IF they would have focused on making sure their exclusive Japanese titles were top notch, then they wouldn't have a problem selling more of them, but games like White Knight Chronicles 1/2 where a let down for me. All I could think while I was playing it was how I could improve on the story, and game mechanics. It was a game with great potential, but a true let down.

I have to go to work, but hopefully people understand what I'm trying to say.

Or it could be like this:

Store A sells the same quality of sandwiches as Store B. But Store B adds a few extra "Fresh Pita Sandwiches" or "FPS" to their menu because Store B knows that in their area it's the most popular sandwich. As a result fans of "FPS" go out of their way to shop at Store B because they know they'll get what they want. Unfortunetly Store A doesn't stock enough "Fresh Pita Sandwiches" so less customers shop at their store.

See how easy it is to make crap up and act like it's real.

i was talking about how long people have their consoles and not how much software was sold until the us-release of the ps3 because the ps3 release doesn't mean that 360s didn't sell better in the first years and if a 360 owner has his console 15% longer as an ps3 owner (that's only a number to make an example)  the chance is high that a 360 owner also had 15% more time to play games and with 15% more game hours the chance is also high that someone has more games then.

and btw, if you think that makes no sense, why don't you check the ratio of sold software of the last years compared to userbase?

and one more question, since we can clearly see the ratio for ps3 is higher in "rest of the world", does this mean those people have the same problems as european 360 owners? so what you really wanted to say is that in reality, ps3 and 360 owners have no games to satisfy them right? ps3 owners in rest of the world, 360 owners in europe and the biggest problems have console owners in usa because the ratio there is above all other markets for both consoles which mean us-american ps3/360 owners have to have a really really bad gaming life compared to all console owners in the rest of the world!

too bad you are one of them! btw that means for me as european with a 2.5 games lower ratio for 360 as your ps3 ratio in usa, i have much lower emptiness as you have hell yeah! (too bad i also have a ps3 so i only have two console because i feel very empty!)