These executives are paid to spin, but yea this doesnt help Don Mattricks reputation much. I miss Peter Moore. And please, every profit earning organisation will spin.

Damn and I always thought it was the first to stop selling that wins.

This is not a big deal. They came out a year before all the other systems. They had a game library of around 60+ games before the Wii and PS3 even launched. The North American gap between the WiiS3 and 360 is closing quickly. Seems a little snotty-nosed to say it now.

360 bias confirmed!*Laughs*

Seriously, this is just pretarded, I think the folks in PR at MS need to get an IQ test or something.

isn't 360 now appraoching 12 million in America with Wii right on it's heels?

 They should of released this several months ago when they first shipped 10 million, i think it would have been more effective.

Saying it now gives people the impression that the 360 will most likely win the console war, and when they find out the Wii passes it a few weeks later, they will look like crap.

I don't understand their PR to be honest. 

 The console war is over, and the 360 lost. Wii has won America this generation. It out sold both competitors combined on GTA 4 week. There is no stopping the Wii.

I understand your point, but to your logic I can then claim that even your definition of spin is "spin". There are always different frames of reference when people look at facts. Who determines which is the correct frame of reference that is not "spin"? So everything ever said is spin... and we'd be going in circles for a long time. ;)

I'd be more inclined to call something spin when it CHANGES the frames of reference to compare the same things using DIFFERENT criteria for each.

For instance, Microsoft saying they beat the Wii to 10 million sales in the US. Yes, that it is a fact. But they are talking about the "speed" at which they hit 10 million, yet they are using different time frames to judge that speed. 2.5 year time frame for the 360 and a 1.5 year time frame for the Wii. That is incongruent to start. That is using DIFFERENT criteria to judge sales speed.

That is true spin.

With regards to Microsoft's press releases about GTAIV selling better on the 360, I used the same frame of reference for both (LTD installed base). Microsoft again ignores the idea of judging from an even playing field and touts the raw numbers. In your definition, both Microsoft's statement of selling better on the 360 and my calibration against install bases are both spin. You're entitled to that...

...but what do you really believe is real? What is true? With a 2.5 to 1 console advantage in the Americas, all things being equal, shouldn't the GTAIV sales ratio be 2.5 to 1 also? Were you one that believed PlayStation brand loyalty meant something here? Did you believe the episodic content was going to give the 360 the boost?

Why is the sales ratio only at 1.67 to 1? I guess it's just gotta get spun one way or the other. But I would imagine that people not invested at all in this "war", when given all the facts, would have a very simple time making their judgments about those numbers.

...as for you last generation sales comparisons, yes... Nice spin. You compared first-run exclusive release sales on a monster install base, to aged re-releases on platform with a paltry install base. You couldn't get the "frames of reference" any different there.

Another great quote:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52697

360 was at 9.9 million by NPD USA through March (April 5) and around 800k by NPD in Canada through March.

Its pretty safe to say 360 has sold ~350k by NPD USA & NPD Canada in April, putting it at over 11 million, then plus another ~90k for the last week to 11.15 million by NPD.

We cover more than just the US and Canada though, and NPD is always too low vs. regional shipments, so VGC is higher. 

Microsoft: "We won this generation by reaching 10 million first, and now presenting the... XBOX 720. 5 years ahead of Nintendo and Sony! Oh and BTW the 360 is cancelled."