No difference? What are you talking about? 1 year is 1/3 of the total life span of the Wii and the PS3. How are you saying that that makes no difference?

Let's just look at a huge franchise like Fifa soccer from EA for an example. Overall the Fifa Franchise has sold over 5.98 million copies on the XBOX 360. Compare that to the lifetime sales on the PS3 which is 4.97 million copies sold. That's a 1 million unit drop off in sales. Using your logic you would think that the XBOX is a much more popular console for the Fifa franchise. However if you compare the releases to each other the PS3 outsold the XBOX 360 with Fifa 08, Fifa 09, and now Fifa 10. All by a rather large margin of 220.000, 340.000, and in one weeks sales 213,000 respectively. The only reason the 360 sold more total was because of the extra FIFA games that were released in the extra years time. 

The same could be said for every franchise EA has, which is a lot. And could also be said for all three publishers in this thread. I'm not saying the PS3 outsells the 360 with every game like it does with FIFA, there are plenty of game which the 360 outsells the PS3 but even those totals would be greatly distorted ratios because of the extra year of releases. The whole point of analyzing data is to determine results and influence decisions and your information not only distorts results but it will also misguide decisions. So again thank you for the hard work, interesting to note, but very useless except for the last section of data because that information is independent from each console. 

Nintendo is itself the largest publisher in the world. And seeing as their games are exclusive to the Nintendo brand you can probably figure the rest out...

Nintendo probably takes the lions share of Wii software sales

It makes very little difference now. 25 million xbox 360 software was sold before the PS3 and the Wii were released. Last year the xbox 360 sold 110 million, and the total is well above 250 million. That means that the period you are so concerned about is about 10% of the total sales of the xbox.

You could argue that one should instead discount the last year of period, because software sales are rising in time with the userbase. I personally do not think that software and hardware of the same generation exist in a bubble. What happens to the PS3 this year also affects the Xbox this year, not last year. And what happened to the Xbox last year will not suddenly be an issue for the PS3 this year.

So, if you are simply aware of the fact that the xbox actually has a years lead, these numbers can be used to draw a couple of nice conclusions.

54%, if I recall correctly from Pineapple's previous thread about it.

So what conclusions are those? You can theorize time and time again but I gave you a concrete example of how your data paints a flawed picture. 50% of EA's sales this gen have been on the 360, while around 25% have been on the PS3. You would have one believe that on average an EA title will sell twice as much on the 360 as on the PS3 but that is grossly inaccurate. Infact the Last two EA titles to be released (FIFA10 and NFS:S) have both sold more on the PS3 than the 360. Even a franchise like Madden which is greatly skewed towards the American market and thus the 360, still doesn't even come close to reaching the sales ratio's(39% increase compared to your data which is a 100% increase) that your data has one believe. So I ask you what conclusions can you come up with using this data? 

Even you alluded to in your own post that you can't determine how much to discount the one year head start. So how can you even start to analyze these numbers with such a big variable being unknown? The only thing you can do is go game on game sales to determine anything of use. 

It's pretty simple. EA has released 51 games on the PS3, and 63 games on the Xbox 360.

That means each EA game sells 900k average on the Xbox 360.
And each EA game sells on average 600k on the PS3.

So here's a nice conclusion I've drawn based on this nice little data. EA sells 50% more on average per title on an xbox title.

Ubisoft sells pretty much the same (480k ps3 vs 520k xbox), and Activision sells a whopping 75% more on the xbox (700k per title vs. 400k)

You really should stop cherrypicking data when looking at the big picture. It sort of defeats the purpose of looking at the big picture.

The funny thing is EA's xbox titles are selling very, very well, and those were the ones that you tried to show were pointing toward the data being flawed and useless. Ubisoft isn't getting much success on either platform, and Activision has the xbox crowd pinned down while absolutely failing on the PS3. It says a lot about which company's strategy is working the best. All companies have released more games on the xbox, and each company is selling more on the xbox per title.

ahh yes it does make a difference. A fucking year of software sales, + a year of existing userbase during launch.

It makes a gigantic difference.

Xbox sure has quickly (and quitely) become the leader for 3rd party developers, simply crazy. Last gen I would've swore that they would need to have more MS Stuido games to have a shot at serious growth... damn was I wrong but in a hella good/cool way.

Those were not cherry picked. Those were the two most recent EA titles that were released on both consoles. I will gladly wait for the next two to come along and prove you wrong again.

And that's a great conclusion you came to but like I said it is useless and misleading for current market analysis. If you really think an EA game released on the 360 and PS3 will sell 50% more on average on the 360 than on the PS3, you are a fool. Not only does your data fail to minimize the year of additional releases , it fails to factor in delayed ports, and unestablished userbases at the time of release which are no longer issues in the marketplace. And you also fail to factor out the impact of recent exclusives like Left 4 Dead sales.  The same can be said for Ubisoft and Activision's ratios. They are grossly misleading and your conclusions, though it may be accurate in your math, are useless and misleading. 

Your initial data posted would have one believe that a 360 game outsells a PS3 game by 100%(a ridiculous number), then in your last post you finally added in the factor of the additional games which cut that increase to 50%(which is better but still rather misleading). Well I decided to total up the games released this year and see the sales difference. I added the sales of the 12 different EA titles released this year (trivial pursuit, tiger woods 10, Skate 2, NHL 10, Madden 10, NBA Live 10, Harry Potter: HBP, FIFA 10, NFS: Shift, Fight Night: R4, Godfather II, and Beatles Rock Band) The total sales came out to 5.66 million units for XBOX 360 and 4.63 million units for the PS3. That comes out to only a 22% sales advantage for the 360. That is not even close to the ratio posted in the OT and still less than half the advantage in your subsequent conclusion.

So if you would have done your analysis last year and used it to predict this years sales you would have been way off and if you worked for EA to forecast sales or success on a console you would have been fired. Expect the rest of this year and next years sales ratios to be even a smaller sales advantage for the 360 and maybe even close to no or minimal advantage. 

As for Activision, though I suspect the sales advantage is also grossly smaller than the 75% you believe it to be on average, I don't think it will be as minimized as EA's sales advantage has been. And that is exclusively because of the COD franchise. The 360 kicks the PS3's ass with the series and will continue to do so with the MS/MW2 promotional relationship that they have established. As for all the other activision games the sales advantage will be very Minimalized. The same can be said for the whole Ubisoft line up.