the differences between X360 and Ps3 are small ( only 8MM ) , the publisher WILL always needs both console to sell well.

No more comments about something easy to see like this.

I would have been nice to see which systems gave them the most profit instead of revenue, oh well.

No... Revenue doesn't tell a thing about profitability. If...

- I sell mouses for $10.

- I get $0.1 profit for each mouse.

- I manage to sell 500 of those babies.

It means that my revenue is $5000(much more than Bodhesatva made).

It also means that my operating income is $0.1*500 = $50.

After taxes etc. (lets take half of it like Bodhesatva did) I get only $25(net income/profit).

So... Which one is more profitable business? Why? :)

...

But hey, lets forget that! Just because PS3 revenue > X360 revenue means that PS3 rules the market!!! (/sarcasm)

That's the funny thing about it...the ps3 had a great first quarter for Ubisoft, but has since been flat, whereas th 360 has surged over the last 6 months of the nine.  Based on the current lslate of titles to be released in the current qtr, the 360 will finish the year out being the biggest revenue generator...now, we aren't even talking about profits.  The shots I've taken are directly at the OP title, and the linked source, which wasn't much of a source, btw.  The article spins data like a crazy to make a point that when study, has very little ground to stand on.  Someone even talked about the OLD EA report from earlier this year...when the FIFA game skewed results...HUH?  Nevermind the Sept 08 qtr, which had 360 outselling ps3 $224 million to $98 million.  What kills me is that this is all publich data, but posters just post junk, instead of taking the time to READ the financial statements.

how can guys like Ubi make more from PS3 sales than they make from higher numbers on the 360?
I might have an answer, perhaps Sony lets Devs and publishers have a bigger slice of the sales pie than MS does.
for instance, a multiplat game sells for $60 retail.
Sony only takes $5 from the sale, but MS takes $10 automatically leaving more pie for the dev/publisher per sale on a PS3 than they would get from a similar sale on the 360.
Note that I'm pulling all these numbers from my ass, but to me it seems like it could be a possible reason.

this is unexpected to say the least.

Wonder how Capcom;s report will look. They are in love with the PSN and PS3.

first of all it's been shown this is a case of cherry picking, not that PS3 is doing bad but it's not doing better than the 360 even in revenue.  The second issue is that this is revenue, and revenue does not mean profit.  Revenue has nothing to do with how much Sony takes for royalties, if the game is sold at $60, the revenue is $60.

firstly, where am I cherry picking? this is an article and a statement about PS3 making more money for them than 360. I'm trying to provide a reasonable explanation, which is more than you have done thus far.

secondly, that is impossible, as then everyone down the sales line from the retailer, distributer, publisher, developer, licensing agents would each claim $60 which they would be unable to correctly in good faith report in their financial statements

Thirdly, I think you missed my point entirely. In my example, Sony leaves $5 more to be split between the pie eaters than MS does. that means more money to go around for them. that means better results for them. how can I make this more clear?

Yeah publishers don't get $60 of revenue off of games. They can only claim there little portion of the pie as revenue.

Also those that think revenue doesn't mean anything. Revenue is used to determine demand from a target market or the purchasing power of a market that can be used for future decision making in where to sell products. It is very important as it means the PS3 user base seems to have more purchasing power than the other user bases. The higher the purchasing power, the more likely a company is to make products for that target market.