Uh Dio. 50 is the cost of a Wii game. They're 10 dollars cheaper then PS3 games in the first place... not counting Wii's extensive discount library. Wii's library having so many cheap titles is likely a flaw in your math.

Also PS3 having a higher percentage of software sales vs microsoft should be expected, if that wasn't the case it would be in trouble.

Reason being, the early adopters are going to be your bread and butter diehard I buy a lot of games, gamers.

Those who adopt later are casuals.

As usual you are overlooking everything that disagrees with what you want it to say to get a faulty conclusion.

As for the overtracking software... you are making even more mistakes in your calculations.   

To many faults in the reasoning for me to point out. Luckily others are doing it so I don't have to try.

Good attempt at analysis though, diomedes.

Rockband cost like 180, and many were sold. Wasen't it in the top 5. Make rockband cost the same as a regular game and 360 and Wii are probably much closer in total $. Then take into account cost of games, Wii is ahead.

The console with the smallest userbase will most often have the bigger attach rate ( owners tend to be more hardcore gamers..)

As others have already said, too many untrackable variables here to discern meaningful data.

Actually, my main response to these totals is a comparison between 360 and Wii software. Even in revenue, now, the Wii total is approximately 15 percent away from 360. If we were to compare total units of software sold, it's likely that the Wii and 360 once again sold approximately the same amount of software in January (the assumption being that if Wii was within ~15 percent of total revenue, they're withing 5 percent of total units sold). 

The reason they focused on dollars spent and not unit sales is because otherwise the standings would obviously favor somebody other than Microsoft.

Well ,its clear I coulndt do it perfectly as we dont have canadian data and its about impossible to make a good ration between budget/full price games on the Wii specially .

But I calculated Wii games at 50 not 60 once I did the Wii math .

And took in count the 10% due to canadian data .

But I think this way can be explored though .We have Wii Play sales ,GHIII sales ,Rock Band sales and prices after all.And Wii Sports ,and bundled software are easy to take apart  .Budget games is more tricky thats true .I wont spend more time in this but correctly done it could give us very accurate numbers .

Kasz216 ,thats exactly the point .PS3 owners are buying more games as they are hardcore gamers thats why the ratio is better .So no more about "people buying PS3 for the Blu Ray player and dont buy games " please .

 Doing very broad math, it would likely be very close between the Wii and the 360 in terms of total units sold.

Ballpark figures (assuming the average Wii game is 47 dollars and the average 360 game 55, which I think is generous in the direction of the 360) puts the Wii and 360 so close as to be impossible to distinguish.

It's likely they sold near-identical amounts of software last month.  

So your average is $43. and the 3 ofthe 8 you bought were, in fact, $50. Drop the $20 cheapie and your average moves to $46.  $50 average game price for Wii does not seem like an unreasonable assumption based on your experience. Statistically you have done more to help validate that $50 average is reasonable then you have helped to disprove it. 

That can only be true if you can quantify how "hardcore" early hardcore adopters are.

Your extreme hardcore gamer can buy a couple games a month. (Or at the very least 1.5 a month.)

As such, with a smaller user base it's much easier to absorb people buying 0 games.

Your casual consumer buys 1 game every 4-5 months... sometimes less... like the guys who buy a 360 only for Madden. (Causal as in plays less.)

As such, a large number of casuals who only have 1 or 2 games is harder to offset on a larger userbase then it is on a smaller userbase. This is even more true when you count in the people in between.

If you have two gamers. One who buys 16 games and another who has bout 0. You have 8 games per owner.

If you have one guy who buys 16, one who buys 3 and two who buy 1 game per system, you have an average of 6 gamers per owner.

It's just how averages work. No offense but understanding statistics is a good start before doing statistical analysis.

Sorry if i come off rude, but as someone who has had a number of classes in statistics it pisses me off when people misinterpret or twist data that should be easy to understand.

Comparing averages of two datasets with such a large difference in numbers is a bad move since the 360 had been out longer and there is an obvious bias in owning pattern based on the consoles lifespan.  The datasets just aren't comparable.