blykmik said: Sqrl said: ultraslick said: A company wide comparison is one thing, and no-one is unaware of the results of such a comparison. BUT this thread is discussing current home console sales. So deal with it. If you want to sit around and frame things in a way that makes you feel all warm in fuzzy inside thats great..feel free to do it but spare us from making a thread every time you do. The simple fact is that if everyone decided to make a thread every time they get a wild hair up their arse and want to cherry pick some data the entire site would be overrun with this drivel...and actually now that I look around it is headed that way. This comparison has no analytical purpose, the only reason to do a comparison like this is if you are a PR rep for Sony trying to find a lighting angle that makes your rewired jaw look normal. Thats the reality of the situation no matter how much you guys want to sit around and play with these numbers. I'll tell you what I'll "deal with it" and let you guys have your warm fuzzy feelings thread if you "deal with it" and stop pretending that this thread is anything but PR and lipservice for Sony.     I'm really not understanding why it is such a sin to compare console sales separate from hand-held sales. It seem that it is you that needs this warm fuzzy feeling. Who looks at numbers and gets mad? The funny thing is, the genesis of my curiosity on this started when a total non-gamer asked me a question during a lunch (where I was trying to explain why I play games...lol), and how much competiion there is... He asked basically asked two questions: Which of the three companies (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) have sold the most video game consoles since the release of the PS3 & Wii? (Since all three have been out) and Which of the three companies (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) have sold the most video game consoles since the release of the Xbox 360? (Did MS's head start help them?) We weren't talking about handhelds (and I even brough them up)... But he seemed to be wondering about who (which company) was in the living room. This person had no clue about the lifecycles of past consoles and which ones were still in production... So his question was not biased in nature.   It is amazing how personal some of you seem to take this. There is nothing twisted and "cherry picking" about those two questions... The fact that you don't approve of the real-world results doesn't change that. The Wii is selling way more than the PS3. Fact! Luckily for me I find no joy or pain in that fact... for if I did, my emotions might one day take an unhealthy turn... But don't worry... I'll be fine. (And by the way... I've done my part... I own every one of the consoles discussed in the top post... so my numbers cancel themselves out!)

 Its not a sin to compare the consoles without the handhelds, I was trying to make a point.  It is however pointless to make a  cross-generational comparison  when only one console from each generation enjoys good sales at any point during the next generation.  You could catch me walking on the street and I would have told you on the spot what the results of this test would have been.  Nobody is doubting the numbers.  The reason people got riled up is because this exact comparison has been used time and again.  The problem with the comparison is that it doesn't actually mean anything...its not indicative of anything, it doesn't show a piture of what is to come for the market and it doesn't portray what has already happened in the market.  For the most valid comparison of what is to come you would look at this, and to see what has happened you would look at this.

It would be like me asking at the beginning of the next format war who sold more recently Blu-Ray + Sony's next format or HD-DVD + Toshiba's next format.  The answer is simply not surprising and if you have any basic knowledge of the formats you could answer it readily.  

Even your questions make no sense by what you've said.  If he wanted to know what consoles are in the living room then why would the scope of the question be limited only to recent sales when there is clear evidence that many people are still using their PS2, GC, and Xbox in their living rooms.  But even still if the focus of the question was to be where things are headed then the number of people using those consoles is clearly diminishing so including them makes little sense since they are becoming less and less of a factor. Truly this comparison makes less sense than tits on a board.

As I said in my last post, you are free to make this comparison if you choose. The part I don't get (well actually I do) is if you had your answers for your friend why did you bother making a post about it?  As I've said there is simply no way you could seriously think these numbers were surprising and if we look at your title you were clearly trying to imply something.  Anyone paying attention can see you're playing coy here....your title is pure flamebait and yet you claim "I was just asking an honest question...honest!!".  Anyone who buys into this BS is pretty naive.

 

 

 

kylw said: * Note to self - Never praise Sony over Nintendo no matter what or....* leaves topic

Don't post if you have nothing to add to the topic.

ils411 said: De85 said: ils411 said: lots of sony hate going around here. but the op does have a point. if i may take you all to the world of retail...companies dont compare market share on a per sku or brand basis, for example, coke. coca-cola doest go around and saying, hey, my coke regular has x% market share as comparted to your pepsi regualr y% market share. they usally go around saying, hey, my coke product line has x% market share and your pepsi product line only has y% market share. it also makes sense that the op didnt include handheld since its a different market. much like how p&g and unilever categorizes their products under hair care and skin care. they dont combine these two when getting market shares as hair care and skin care are again different markets. so if we consider current selling home consoles, and by current i mean home game consoles that are still being manufactured sold and supported, by brand, sony is still actually leading total unit sold as shown by the ops numbers regardless if its a ps2 or a ps3. and no, that is not cherry picking as we are considering current as already stated. now if we talk about handhelds, ms has none so automatically they lose. anyway, in this market, nintendo has sonys ass so bad that its not even funny. so in the end, in the home game console market, the sony brand name still regins supreme while in the hand held market nintendo is the king. See, that's how I feel about the PS2 - it's not in direct competition with the 360, Wii, or PS3 even though it's a home console. People looking to go out and acquire an extremely economical console with an unrivaled library of games will look for a PS2, but these are not the same people who are willing to spend much more for a more innovative(Wii) or more powerful (360 and PS3) console. i understand where your coming from. price wise and generation wise, the ps2 is not in direct competition with the 360, ps3 and the wii. but it is still in the same home video game console market. the difference is in its target social class or economic class or market segment. the ps2, ps3, xbox360 and wii all target the same video game market but focuses on different classes and segments of the market. ps3 and x360 focuses on the more affluent segment of the market who are into hardcore games or into multimedia machines while the wii and the ps2 focuses on the more casual segment of the market who are itno just gaming or instant gratification.

That part about different classes and segments of the market is what makes me believe they shouldn't be compared. If I wanted I could compare Blu-Ray sales to toaster sales because ultimately they both form part of the market of "consumer goods." The data however, would most likely be meaningless, as I believe is the comparison of PS2 to PS3&360.

doesn't surprise me one bit. Sony will not lose a week until something drastic happens like a US price cut for 360.

DKII said: It's fair to ignore the PS2 because every winning console has sold well for years after the new wave of systems for released, and none of them ever had any impact on the outcome of the newcomers, so discussing whether or not it was the "right move" is a moot point--obviously it's the right move, that's why everyone's always done it.

Wow, that must have been hard for you. You know, giving a straight answer and treating other people decently. If only the other moderators could take up your example and be a dick to a new poster for several posts before actually treating them like a decent human being. *shakes his head in disgust* I can understand this bullshit coming from the other users, but moderators should be held to a higher standard and should be welcoming to new users. Both you and twesterm are complete failures.

ChichiriMuyo said: DKII said: It's fair to ignore the PS2 because every winning console has sold well for years after the new wave of systems for released, and none of them ever had any impact on the outcome of the newcomers, so discussing whether or not it was the "right move" is a moot point--obviously it's the right move, that's why everyone's always done it.   Wow, that must have been hard for you. You know, giving a straight answer and treating other people decently. If only the other moderators could take up your example and be a dick to a new poster for several posts before actually treating them like a decent human being. *shakes his head in disgust* I can understand this bullshit coming from the other users, but moderators should be held to a higher standard and should be welcoming to new users. Both you and twesterm are complete failures.

 Ahhh so true so true.  As to the topic, yes these sales surprise me i was surprised the 360 got a boost of ~5k i was thinking there would be no change.

ChichiriMuyo said: DKII said: It's fair to ignore the PS2 because every winning console has sold well for years after the new wave of systems for released, and none of them ever had any impact on the outcome of the newcomers, so discussing whether or not it was the "right move" is a moot point--obviously it's the right move, that's why everyone's always done it.   Wow, that must have been hard for you. You know, giving a straight answer and treating other people decently. If only the other moderators could take up your example and be a dick to a new poster for several posts before actually treating them like a decent human being. *shakes his head in disgust* I can understand this bullshit coming from the other users, but moderators should be held to a higher standard and should be welcoming to new users. Both you and twesterm are complete failures.

 

Really, I didn't find what Twesterm said was that bad. The OP was cherry picking fairly obviously and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that article on SDF, its exactly the style they tend to write in. If some mod had called him a moron or something rather than pointing out the flaws in his post (as Twesterm did in his second post) then I could understand you calling them out, as it is, not really. 

Its not like he actually insulted him persolly or anything. 

He's not a new user, he registered last June, do your homework. This topic has been discussed to death already in that timeframe several times.

I'll be welcoming to new users who are actually friendly and contribute to the community, but we have an infestation of parasites who want nothing more than to upset everyone else around, and these tend to make new accounts over and over and make these kind of topics over and over. If you don't like the mods you're welcome to leave. If you keep posting like that you won't have a choice about it.

Well said DKII, I like that analogy of parasites you made, quite true.

Whoa, this whole thread's amazing! I can't believe I missed it for so long! It's like running through a beautiful cherry orchard, and I can pick every single delicious one!