But 360 did outsell PS3 in 2007, late Euro launch or not. The entire point was that people were claiming PS3 outsold 360 in '07 when that's not true in the least. There are no "buts" about this.

Still spinning. He should state Xbox sold more in 36 months than the ps3 sold in 33 months.

He is making it seem they had the same sale length which is in fact spinning. Making something look better than it really is. (by the way 500k is in the margin of error. In the length of 52 weeks it would have been undertracked by 3k in each region)

I would employ the same tactics that folks have applied to Crazzyman with PooperScooper - otherwise, just continue to bash your head into here wall.

If you can't trust/believe the VGChartz numbers, get the hell up out ...

@PooperScooper

Your reasoning and rational are hardly relevant as in the ability to manufacture a product is part of its intrinsic nature. More to the point while the complexity of the PS3 might be a pleasing feature to some, and most certainly is a defining characteristic. The dreadful downside is that its harder to manufacture then its counterparts. You can't separate the flaw from the beauty. Were the machine easier to manufacture it probably wouldn't be the PS3 we are discussing it might be made with more common components.

Equally the design of the Wii is a byproduct of the Nintendo philosophy, and whether you know it or not that philosophy saved the PS3 last year. I can sense your doubt how can the philosophy that has sold more then twice the consoles be a saving grace for the PS3, and the answer is this. Nintendo is a conservative company they produced the Wii in the exact same fashion they produced the Game Cube. Thats why they have had such supply issues. They weren't aggressive. Had they been right now the entire story would be different.

The same holds true for Microsoft and their positioning strategy. Had their console received even a few more months in research and development it might have had far greater reliability. How would that have effected console sales last year. Certainly would have helped consumer confidence, and saved Microsoft a great deal of money to be spent elsewhere.

Thats the thing with what if scenarios. They don't resolve anything, and they aren't really valid answers. They ignore a very basic thing in life. Luck you only get so much of it. You can't build anything on luck. Your not going to always get lucky. Sometimes the other guy will get lucky, or you might make them lucky by being foolish yourself.

I am always irritated by those what if scenario shows that start off with the pretext that Nazi Germany could have won WWII if they only didn't screw up these dozen things, but of coarse they are already ignoring the fact that they got as close as they did, because others screwed up a dozen certain things. So basically if Nazi Germany got really lucky two dozen times that certain things happened they would have won WWII. Your really stretching reality to its limit to accommodate the last likely possibility.

Equally Sony couldn't always do everything right every time. This time around they over engineered their hardware, and desperately wanted to use it as a Trojan horse. The result was they had to delay the launch, and that wasn't necessarily stupid on their part. They had gotten away with it in the past, and if you look at European sales its plain to see that they don't mind getting the second string treatment from Sony. They seem to rather enjoy it even. The problem was that North Americans and the Japanese were far from enamored with their expensive product so a lot of consoles spent a lot of time not selling on those shelves. While consumers in Europe couldn't buy any.

Had Sony gotten lucky and consumers had really ignored how expensive their console was this wouldn't be a issue right now, but you can't get lucky every time, and if your betting on luck to save you. Well your going to come to an unkind fate.

Now that I think about it, Sony seems to be similar to the Sega Saturn. Few must-have games, arrogant company, complete mismanagement of PR, difficult to develop for, and a very high price. Also, like Sega, Sony panicked and dropped the price several times. Not a good sign, though this year should be better.
Note that I am not saying it will fail like the Saturn (it won't, but it shares many of the same problems.

Will you people please look at Gebex first post please. He obviously wasn't taking the situation at hand. He thinks the xbox will outsell the ps3 this year because it did last year. I'm not arguing the fact that it outsold it so please stop with your idiotic responses. I'm arguing the fact that it isn't a fair comparison.

Honestly, I think the whole 360 vs. PS3 is the biggest non-event in recent gaming history. Despite massive amounts of money spent and unending tides of fanboy venom, these two platforms continue to sell at pretty much the exact same rate. In fact, there's been little difference in 360/PS3 sales throughout the lifetime of both platforms - they both track at a very similar rate, with the 360 doing better in America and the PS3 better in Japan/Europe.

Ever wonder why that is? Well for the average consumer, they pretty much are the SAME CONSOLE! Think about it. They're both high-end, expensive HD systems designed to cater to a core young male audience. Something like 85% of the game library for the two platforms are identical. As for the exclusive titles, I don't think there's as much difference as many imagine. Is Gran Turismo REALLY that much better than Forza? Is Halo REALLY that much better than Resistance? Is Final Fantasy REALLY that much better than the quality RPGs on the 360? If you can put aside your fanboy glasses for a minute, for the average person there's not a great deal of difference there.

It should come as no surprise that these two sell at about the same rate, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Yeah, I'm projecting the PS3 to outsell the 360 by about 1.5m units this year - but that still leaves it about 6m behind overall, certainly not tipping the scale decisively one way or the other. I really don't care which platform eventually ends up "winning" second place, since I think both will finish with very comparable sales lifetime, probably in the ~40-50m range.

I hear a lot of talk about the PS3 exploding past the 360 in sales, but I've yet to see much sales data to back it up.

Because the 360 has the Chief.

I guess because most people see the 360 as a better product so logically assume the better product wins.

Past price cuts matter little. The ps3 has managed to outsell the 360 worldwide for the past few months despite the 40gb ps3 despite being $130 more expensive than the Arcade/Core 360, and despite the console having a much smaller game library. That says something. The 360 also had Halo 3 and Mass Effect to carry it through the holidays, versus only Uncharted for the ps3. What's going to happen this year when the ps3 is getting the big exclusives like MGS4? The ps3 will only gain ground on the 360 from here on out, barring a major exclusive upset in the form of something as big as GTA.

As for the exclusives, that argument is old and a bunch of BS. For every exclusive the ps3 has lost (DMC4, VF5, etc.), it has gained an exclusive via some other means. Haze, Heavy Rain, and Wardevil were all once multiplat, but are now ps3 exclusives (though Haze may be timed). In the end, things evened out, not to mention that the multiplat games I listed will still or have come out on the ps3, but the others will never come to the 360.

And the 360 has lost its share of exclusives as well, like Eternal Sonata.

Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "one year head start in software production" thing from, as final ps3 devkits weren't sent out until August '06, 11 months after the X360's were sent to developers.