But we don't know that this sample is accurate like you described. For all we know, half of the Wii's could have been used less than an hour a day, and only 10% of PS3s and 5% of 360s. And there are several factors in the equation- usage time, storage conditions, country, care when handling, etc. We don't know that this sample is any good. I mean, the title could at least state that this was a survey of 16,000 people.

I also highly doubt more 360s succumb to disc read errors than RROD...

its old technology

the difference its only 90nm instead of 180nm of the gamecube.

higher clocked cpu.

tech of the wii its macbook tech from powerpc G3.

and accelerometers  used in cellphones from years now.

using it as a controller its the new things, but rather using exisiting technogy to get a different output.

It is highly likely that such a massive sample is statistically representative, of consoles in North America at least.

And unless there is some large consumer bias, which there also isn't likely to be for brick and mortar retailers, the Neilson statistics work fine for factoring in usage.

You pointed out how it's newer technology in your post. Last gen it couldn't have been so small or have had that cpu and gpu speed at such a size while also being affordable. That is new, and it's just looking at it from a perspective other than an increase in processing power.

On paper, yes those are concerns. In reality it doesn't really work out that well. The probability of getting a terrible data set like you described is virtually non-existant if the data is an accurate sample. I wish I could show you the proof of it, but thats how it comes out in the end. If you want to try and run the numbers yourself you can try to think of it as a bag of marbles. Take 100 million marbles, and divide them up into whatever broad categories you want. Then calculate how likely you are to get enough of a certain type of marble to severly influence the average population. It gets to be an absurd improbability at an extremely rapid pace.

A short hand example that won't help much. Lets say you have 3 green marble, and 97 blue ones. If you picked 10 marbles at random, how likely are you to get a large number of green marbles? You could get all 3 in theory. Assuming no replacement the propbablity would be 1/(100*99*98) or 1/970,200. To get just 2 marbles in would be 1/9900 which is significantly more likely, but still extremely improbable. Hopefully this gives you some idea of how it scales. You can be off by a little bit, but to be way off becomes almost impossible.

so what about cell 45nm now and old 90nm?

still the same ps3, but there is not a gen change, or power difference.

so the slim it's next gen?.

its new technology used to built its  old 2005 cell but smaller.

Who said anything about generations...? You seem to be the first to use the word.

Of course the slim is newer technology than the phat, if that's what you mean.

@ Demotruk

If you weren't a Wii fanboy you wouldn't be arguing semantics. The moral of the story the Wii's capabilities are primitive and far cheaper to manufacture. Other than size there's nothing cutting edge about it.

meh

I was going to say something along these lines just not as bluntly! haha. If I get banned again it will probably be for 3 months so I gotta be real careful.