How about you break a tradition which is based in complete ignorance? Name me one other market where all that is considered is sales, and not week on week performance. Go on, have fun with that. You say the 360 gained popularity but obviously you are deciding to ignore popularity when week-on-week sales are considered. Why the arbitrary seperation?

Sony lost market share, but still has a significant amount. It's a loss compared to the PS2, but different market, different times. 

Last gen is irrelevant - what matters is profitability (somewhere the PS3 struggles but hard to guage the entire picture), market share, future gains & advantages. I didn't mention Nintendo...what the fuck dude?

The PS3 has been selling better for a long time, and it's finishing the generation with better momentum than the 360 in all territories, that's for sure. That matters a lot. I don't think the Wii was the winner this generation, not when they had to put it down and rush the release of a new console because their sales dropped to the floor (in free fall since 2009).

One source of evidence does trump another when one source is a valid source from a leading warranty provider and another is a reader poll in a magazine. I mean.. if you had a debate going and in one hand you had actual data from Sony about something and in the other hand you had an IGN poll.. which would you think is more valid? It's clearly the first one, but something tells me if the IGN poll backed up your agenda you'd say it's just as valid.

"could be as high as 35%" is still a far cry from the 54% or whatever was in the GI reader survey. And remember, your original point was that who knows "how much MS spent fixing RROD". Even out of that "could be 35%", 12% were not RROD and thus aren't covered by MS's extended RROD warranty. Furthermore as the article says, with the new chipsets, the issues are gone.

They set aside like 1.5 billion for the RROD stuff. They also made 1.2 billion off of Xbox Live in 2010. Something tells me they're doing ok. I hope this has helped, I'm not really going to waste any more time arguing with someone who takes a magazine reader survey as fact.

How about no? Video game industry seems to be unique and changing the rules because your clan had a ruff launch is a bit.......interesting to say the least. Week on week from Nov 2005-Nov 2006......lol nuff said.

Last gen at the very least determines a companys position when starting the next gen. That is relevant no matter how you slice it.

360 profited 2 years before PS3 did, 360 currently has more lifetime marketshare, future is all up in the air as neither next gen console has launched yet. Ya....so there. Just mentioned Nintendo just in case you decided to bring them up. You didnt, so tis all good in that regard.

Here are some point of views you guys should consider:

Analyst Point of View: Tie. 2million/1-2% market share difference is a rounding error. They more or less sold the same amount of consoles. You don't see Microsoft touting about their console selling more.. in fact, they know comparing the numbers with PS3 would hurt their marketing instead of helping it.

Business Point of View: Sony wins. Not because they sold more PS3s or game software, but its the PS3 paving the way to winning the blu-ray/HD-DVD format war (PS3 was the first affordable blu-ray player on the market). This allowed Sony's Music and Video departments to flourished and they receive royalties from other blu-ray manufacturers.

Consumer Point of View: Sony wins. PS3 was more bang for the buck. The chance of failure (YLOD) was far less than Xbox's RROD. In fact, I don't believe there is a single first generation xbox that made past the 5 year mark yet, a lot of people still have their working BC-compatible PS3s. Not to mention, easily upgradeable HDD on the PS3 made purchasing a new SKU redundant.

Gamers Point of View: Tie. There are probably equal number of fanboys advocating for their console. Most games are multi-plat these days.

The Wii isnt the winner? Its currently ~25 Million infront of both 360 and PS3. Its made a lot more money, too. The Wii has won.

It sold 21 Million in 2009 and 18 Million in 2010. The big drop came in 2011. At the end of 2010, it was sitting at 82 Million units. At the end of 2010, it was infront of where the PS3 and 360 are right now by 8-9 Million. Basically, by the end of 2013 the PS3 and 360 could possibly have matched the Wii's 2010 total, yet they will still be behind the Wii's lifetime total by over 18 Million units.

It looks like PS3 will catch up sooner or later. It's going at a rate of 50k+ consoles per week than Xbox. It seems like XBOX now is so inexpensive everyone already has one. The market has saturated. So XBOX owners like me are just waiting for PS3 promo price drops or good bundles to get a PS3 as well.

It's a good time to be a PS3 owner; Last of us coming soon, Uncharted, Infamous, LBP.

I do not like any Xbox exclusive except Halo 4.

I'm surprised this is even being discussed still. Through any metric of success, the 360 has done better off. It beat the PS3 in terms of profits, units sold, and market expansion. I'm not sure how people are even denying this. In what way has the PS3 been more successful?

Apparently 78% of people who voted think losing tons of marketshare, selling the least amount of consoles, and losing tons of money = winner.

It does if you take your definition of winning from Charlie Sheen.