Because darconi made this point, it is true that just because a person likes games and makes a lot of money doesn't mean that person will buy a PS3.  I did it because of SONY's 1st/2nd party studios, I enjoy HD both games and programming, and I have a "full" 1080P HDTV that will accomodate all PS3 games and Blu-ray movies.  But as I mentioned in my last post, I can only speak for myself.  But to say that most people who bought a PS3 are the poorest/youngest is very hard to believe.

Ugh, the old "face it, it's true" routine. It's always a giant, red flag indicating that the person doesn't actually have any evidence, but they want to overpower your argument with sheer force of will. "It's just true, too bad!"

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? Because again, the only evidence we do have is that the Wii sells to wealthier families than the PS3 or 360 do. That certainly doesn't fit in to your "functionality = more money" equation. If it's not true for the Wii, why would it be so for the 360? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, mind you, just that the basis of your assertion most definitely is. You'll have to do better than "it's just the truth."

Well, how about this for two facts. The average age of a PS3 owner is older then the average age of a 360 owner.

As age goes up, people make more money (why the Wii has a higher average income, it has a lot of older owners).

So aside from anything related to the console itself, these two facts should account for it.

Now, the question is why is the average age of a PS3 owner higher? I feel it's due to the comments in my last post.

Of course PS3 owners are more likely to have multiple consoles. PS3 doesn't have A LOT of good games. :D

I would think Wii would have the highest average age seeing how they have the entire market in a stranglehold outside the 18-35 male gamer area. Wii is the first console to really be embraced by the older population.

 Troll...?  ;)

That just shoots a huge hole into the whole theory that Wii owners will have to upgrade to a PS3 or 360 in order to "truly appreciate gaming".  In fact, that data says the opposite, that PS3 owners are the ones in search of additional gaming experience, either better motion controls or the game genres popular on the 360.

Maybe its because the PS3 is also a multimedia device and a lot of the older demographics bought it for the blu-ray?

Its install base is small enough that a significant amount of the early tech adopter can skew the averages.

So did you miss my post where i stated that said survey excluded everyone under 18 and therefore is worthless.

If PS3 had a higher average of 13-17 year old owners/users then 360 then that would be completely unrepresented.

Also while people tend to make a little more money as they grow older.  Most people don't tend to go from one bracket to a next in terms of wealth.   It's more upword mobility in their own class.

Which makes age pretty pointless in this case when detirmining wealth.

It's just because it's a percentage

the way it's set up... if the only people who owned multiple consoles owned all three...

Look at the way it's set up with the PSP/DS stat.

It may be what you say... or it may be that everyone has the same amount of people who own multiple consoles but the PS3 is lowest because it sold the lowest anmount, or it may be that even the 360 or the Wii actually has a higher number of people who own multiple consoles, just the percentage is lower because the 360 and Wii have way more total consoles.

Nor does it give any indication which consoles were bought first and which ones were bought to "sate gaming need".