@ZenfoldorVGI:
Aha! Robust argument! ‘ll gladly take you on ... (sorry it is a bit hard to work out which are your points and which are my replies - I tried to colour them in but I am not familiar with this editor)
Here's why phisheep is incorrect:
A. Most importantly. Its reasons are justifications for facts. The justifications, no matter how sensible, don't make the facts not exist. The Xbox 360 has sold more games per console than the PS3. It's just a damn fact. Justifications and damage control are synonyms.
I don't deny that. Never have. It's true.
B. Incorrect assumptions. You assume that the PS3 is destined to keep a similar pace to the Xbox 360. You are extrapolating numbers, and assuming that the 360 software advantage doesn't exist.
I have made no assumptions at all about the volume of hardware sales. The attach rate, because it is averaged over hardware sales, is independent of hardware volume.
The only assumption that I have made about hardware is that sales are roughly on a straight-line basis. And that is just for ease of calculation. In fact, because of the escalating Wii sales, this tends to underestimate the game sales rate on the Wii, and because of Christmas it tends to underestimate all consoles to about the same extent when measured towards the end of a year. But for both, the differences are not significant.
C. Ignoring inconvenient truths. It's very true that there are many other evidences that point to the 360's superior software selling ability, than simply the attach rate. Compare high profile games, or even ports.
The only hard evidence of software sales per hardware unit is sales figures. That's what I've used. And it's what Microsoft uses too. And NPD.
If you start selecting which games to compare you are missing out a lot of data, you risk selectively favouring one console over another on subjective criteria. I'm trying to avoid that.
D. The 360 IS a year ahead of the PS3. In a year, that will still be the case. The PS3 can't catch up, therefore, snapshots are what determine true software sales rates, not bullshit guessing.
That's true. Which is why I'm taking real snapshot NPD numbers and not guessing.
E. Even if you extrapolated and allowed bullshit guesses, I'd assume the 360 would still have a higher attach rate.
Well, apart from the fact I'm not extrapolating and not guessing - I'm not taking your assumptions into account either! That would add two levels of unreliability into the figures.
F. What he's saying is a theory. Numbers aren't even available to back it up. There has been one feeble attempt in this thread to do so. It's cherrypicking from a time when the PS3 was very strong in NPD.
It isn't cherrypicking. I first worked these numbers a year ago, repeated six months ago, repeated again this month. I've crosschecked global numbers, adjusted for variable sales rate, manually adjusted for Christmas sales all to check how sensitive the data were. Comes to the same answers every time near as dammit. I use the NPD numbers here as illustration because they are the most robust single set of data there is.
GGGGG!!!!! The assumption here is that every year is equal in a consoles lifecycle, and that year 1 for the Xbox 360 gave it the same attach advantage as this year will for the PS3. BULLSHIT! Year 1 is mediocre for most consoles, and the 360 is no exception. That one year advantage the 360 had, with its few million sold will have nothing on this year for the PS3, and in turn the very small amount of PS3's sold in year 1 aren't gonna start paying out with attach rate bumps of any significance. The bumps/ebbs are coming from the last 1.3 years when the consoles sold their lions-share. Again, it's impossible to extrapolate this due to cycle life and unknowns, and thus, your THEORY is again unprovable and contradicts generally accepted facts.
Ah, you'll be talking about grooski's numbers here. They are a fair approximation.
Working all the raw data comes up with pretty much the same. There's no need for assumptions that all years are equal for software sales. And it is important to note that the lead is not just down to 360's first-year software sales, but that in every subsequent year there have been that many more X360s in users hands at the start of the year. So it is not relevant whether the first year was mediocre or not.
As to generally accepted facts ... you might try naming a few?
HHH! As time has progressed, that year headstart means significantly less, until a point where it means nothing. According to your theory, in 3-5 years, when the advantage is completely diminished, the attach rates will be equal. Highly unlikely, contrary to popularly held opinions.
True. Perfectly true (well, it'll never get to ‘nothing', but in 5 years the difference will be only about 10%). Which means that the popularly held opinions are wrong.
What the assumption is here, is that since all the PS3's sold have had so little time on the market(compared to Xbox), they haven't had time to bump the attach rate enough to match the 360. It doesn't hold water. The 360 has been consistently outselling the PS3 for quite a while now, and despite that, the 360 hasn't been taking a hit in its tie ratio, or at least we should reasonably assume that.
You're drifting off the argument here. It has nothing to do with hardware volume. Nothing at all. More 360 sales shouldn't hit the tie ration, so long as people are buying games.
Saying that the 360 hasn't sold more software per box than the PS3 is nonsensical BS. It's denying a provable fact. It goes against every number we've looked at over the past several years, and it's based on a theory with nothing more than one man's illogical assertion and NO evidence at all to back it up. It's a conspiracy theory, based on a logic that sounds intelligent, but can't be grounded in any fact, and in fact, has many facts that fly directly in the face of it, and many inconsistencies that can never be ironed out or explained.
I'm not denying it. Never have. There's no doubt that the 360 has sold more software per box than the PS3. The numbers don't lie.
What we're arguing about is WHY that is the case.
...it's working backwards. First one assumes that there is no way the 360 is a superior software mover to their epic console of choice, and then they decide how they can manipulate reason in order to assert such a thing in public, where scrutiny will be given.
I've made no such assumption. And you seem to be assuming that I am a PS3 fan. Actually I have a Wii - and even I wouldn't use the word ‘epic' of it! (lots of other good words though)
Then again, he's not telling us that the 360 hasn't sold more per box. He's just giving us a reason why. The xbox 360, apparently, cheated, and its owners are nothing special. We don't buy a shit-ton of games, and it's all an illusion created by Microsoft PR.
Ah. Now you are with me. But it isn't cheating to come out first, and I never said it was.
It is, however, lying - as in deliberately setting out to deceive - to claim that Xbox 360 is some sort of software beast when the numbers show otherwise when they are properly understood. And it is worse when people actually do believe it!
The 360 sells more games per box. Calling it an "illusion" is damage control, no matter how pretty you dress up your logic, and I scoff at it. Slander.
This is, I think, the crux of the argument. The fact (admitted) that the 360 HAS SOLD more software per box does not mean that it IS SELLING more software per box.
It isn't. It never has. It has just been out longer. The numbers do not lie.
Your move ... and thanks for the challenge.
(Former) Lead Moderator
