Depends on how you define win, and on that PS and Xbox fans will never agree.

Is it profit?

Is it LT sales?

Is it number and quality of exclusive games?

Is it change in market share compared to last generation?

On the basis of all the factors that could make up a definition of win, I call it an honourable draw (for 2nd place). But it's truly only cricket fans who can understand the concept of a draw of this nature. So if you don't know cricket then you lack the cognitive capacity to fully appreciate the this sort of draw. Football (Soccer) fans can gain an incling of this concept, but not a deep appreciation of the nuance and subtelty of the draw.

I don't know how you can say Wii's win wasn't as relevant, therefore 360 is the true winner. Nintendo was DEAD as far as home consoles were concerned, their home console obituary was almost written in stone. But they are on the verge of becoming the only console maker other than Sony to sell over 100 million home console units in a single generation. Not relevant you say?

Just talking facts bro.

Can't deny that :P

I personally think that the Wii success wasn't hugely relevant, as it mainly sold as a fad item rather than a home console. Wii -> PS360 felt like Mobile ->3DS+PSV, and was definitely my least favourite Nintendo console. I like the Wii U more, but they didn't keep any of the Wii owners, which is why it is selling worse than the Gamecube. It doesn't look like it will have any lasting impact.

The Microsoft success is much more relevant, as they have a shot at retaining the huge gains made this generation, but they are only two consoles in so it is harder to judge.

As for Sony, they have the best track record for retaining their customers. Their previous console sells until the announcement of the successor of the current console as people in developing countries are slower to shift up the generations. So any work they put into supporting the console has a big effect over time. If the PS3 only has half the legs of the PS2, it will beat out the Wii, and given the gains and continued support it probably has.

Do you not see the irony in your post?   The flip side can also be said. That X360 only became relevant and only had a lead in the first place because of the US. What difference does it make where the sale was made?  It all relates to ww sales...anyways, carry on with your flawed logic..

what he said

lol, I opened VGchartz and saw this adjustment. I was like wtf did I miss something.

At the end I still think x360 is the winner because they dominate the USA and the UK.
The ps3 lost a lot of terrain compared with his predecessor.

Not only that, but we're talking about a global tie ratio difference of only 1.2 games per console. So the average 360 owner has 10 games (rounded up) and the average PS3 owner has 9 games (rounded up). The difference is largely irrelevant. If PS3 tie ratio was 6 then you could level a claim that lots of PS3 were bought just for the Blu-ray.

And now that we are into digital sales in earnest for full AAA games as well as arcade titles tie ratio nbased only on disc sales has become completely irrelevant as a pissing contest thing. It's only ongoing value is in wondering about the ongoing viability of specialist video game retailers.

What I realize is that when PS3 came out, everybody was shitting on it, the hate was on, 600€, they lost a lot of people at this moment. And this was because of Bluray. If it wasn't came out with a Bluray it would have a different story, less expensive, more sell. So no you won't make me think that the Bluray thing was a bonus. Right now it is. At first not at all sorry.

I remember when I was 15 and Resident Evil 4 just came out, and Gamecube was ahead of the X-Box (Well VGC wasn;t around, but I heard it was only to loose near the end of the gen, much like 360 is loosing now).

LOL, in 2007, I just got a 360, I wanted something "different." Different is what I got, I want to go back to my old Nintendo/Sony combo!