and what exactly is the truth?

i am so amused at the all out war in this thread.

Also On: X360 (90.5%) | PS3 (89.0%)

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/946760.asp

for the lazy.

Well that does explain. Gamerankings have been known to tweak for fanboyism. But like I said Metacritics is harder on almost all games for 360 to maintain a higher score because the game has to impress more reviewers to stay above the 90 average. So PS3 has an advantage and still losses out.

(Didn't read the previous posts yet)

Good to see the Wii outselling its competitors combined again. With virtually endless price cuts, you'd expect MS to keep Nintendo at bay for a while.

I'm sure I entered a post... but it seems to have gone AWOL... oh well.

First, Others = 'Nintendoland' not 'Sonyland' at the moment.

Second, yes 360 sales are disappointing at the price point, but even though I don't have / want one its hardly dead in the water either.

Third, PS3 either needs a modest price cut or to have LBP, etc. drive a rise in sales (we'll soon see one way or the other whether the big games make a difference or not for the console). However effectively matching 360 at a higher price point with less high profile games (at the moment anyway) shows it's still in the game with a good chance to take second place in Others.

I hope MS doesn't make another price cut within 6 months from now. After all, they've "used up all their substitutes" in this football match! Even the GCN only had 3 main cuts!

Selnor & NNN2004:

The truth is that gamers are not sheep to numerical ratings.  I NEVER based the purchase of a game based on its average numerical rating.  I base my purchases on what I want and whether or not I think the game is worth my time and hard earned money. 

My classic example is the original Siren for the PS2.  As far as survival horror goes, both the main Resident Evil series and the Silent Hill series have received better average ratings that Siren which was around 70%.  But if you'll check its individual ratings, you'll find that the ratings ranged anywhere from 4/10 to 9/10.  And regardless of what Siren's numerical score, I find Siren to be better than RE and Silent Hill with me being a big fan of Silent Hill.  No one if going to tell me that Siren is a 70% game when I feel that it's one of the best survival horror game ever made.

If you guys base you gaming purchases on the dependence of a website's average rating, then you guys are sheep and fail as gamers.

I agree: as I look for games that I must like, I don't have to do a summary review for others, average rating makes little sense for my personal choice, it's more sensible to, yes, consider the average rating, but also average user ratings to make sure I don't buy utter crap everybody dislikes or I don't miss masterpieces everybody loves, but then, to pick the ones I could most like amongst the good ones, I try to find reviews from professional writers or simple users like-minded as me. In the past I found quite tuned with me PCZone in the times when the editorial staff included Charlie Brooker, Duncan McDonald and other crazy blokes, but also PCReview when there was Cal Jones, now I read every now and then the italian TGM (mostly when I think or I'm sure I'll like the bundled game), but I also still flip through PCZone online archive.

It's sales haven't been much different week after week for the past few months..... it's always between 60-80 in OTHERS.

It's the 360's sales that are changing every now and then.