How badly does Nintendo have to collapse for Sony to catch up?

anyone who expects a massive change is just wishful thinking in my opinion. Theres already been threads on this. Just look at the math people. BEST case scenario the PS3 can tie the 360 in what 2012? The gap is just too big at this point IMO. Thats not saying the PS3 is a bad system its just that we are far enough into this generations lifespan that I think we are looking at

1. Wii
2. 360
3. PS3

end of story.

Garnett, that's not a fair comparison either. Going on what you propose - the 360 still had a year head start in library, momentum, advertising, word of mouth, etc...

Really, the ONLY fair way to compare them in sales is the first 2.5 years of Ps3, to the first 2.5 years of 360. And Ps3 has sold better than 360 in that frame. That is fact, weather you guys want to accept it or not.

Why is chaning space-time conitinuum to make ps3 look better is fair?

We could compare 5 years to 2.5 years if you like. The point is to compare total sales.

2.5 years into Ps3's 8-10 year lifecycle isn't nearly long enough to come to a conclusion like that.

-Ps3 still hasn't hit the $299 price point.

-The 3 biggest exclusives on Ps3 still havent released yet (GOW, GT5, FFXIII in japan).

If nothing changes after those 2 points, THEN we can say there won't be any change or turn around this gen. Until then everything here is bias nonsense. You dont have a crystal ball and neither does anyone else. Declaring winners and losers when a console isn't even close to HALF WAY through it's lifecycle is simply stupid.

It proves that if the PS3s sales don't improve by a huge margin that the gap between them on that graph will sink to less than 1M consoles by the end of the year. Because it proves that, it proves a lot.

Lets see: NES: 1st in generation, sold for ages. SNES: First in generation, sold for ages. N64 second in generation, was discontinued before the SNES was. Gamecube: Discontinued 5 years later, 3rd in generation.

PS1: 1st in generation, sold for ages. PS2: 1st in generation, sold for ages. PS3: will get a close 2nd using the most optimistic projections at best and most likely 3rd, will not survive a generational transition the 2nd/3rd place consoles never do.

So wheres your proof that the PS3 will buck the trends and last 10 years? The fact that the previous generation console was first and sold for ages does not give the next generation console a legacy, see N64 for proof.

Btw the record for support for a console actually belongs to Nintendo the SNES and NES both lasted longer than 10 years.

If Sony had a 2nd/3rd place console that lasted 10 years you'd have proof.

and my point is that comparing total sales of a console that's been out for a whole year longer is RIDICULOUS.

People can fairly compare Wii and Ps3's sales and talk about how Wii is killing Ps3. But comparing 360 to Ps3 total sales is ridiculous as they are pretty much EVEN at this point in their life cycles.

and how would comparing the first 2.5 years of their life cycles make the Ps3 look better?

Simply put: that is the ONLY FAIR way of comparing sales between the two systems. There wasn't a huge change in the market between when 360 launched and when Ps3 launched that would work in Ps3's favor, so how would that possibly make any difference.

Its not rediculous. Its the world as we see it today. Thats how business works. Even someone seeking a comparison would most likely be more interested in how the 360 performed after the ps3 was released, since it would be hard to get a comparison while it was on the market alone.