''the 360 has outsold the PS3 since it's launch''

Alot of people are saying that but that's NOT true, not since the Slim launched atleast. I agree with people saying LTD is what matters and that this topic is somewhat useless, but don't counter that with false facts. X360 hade already sold over 7 million before PS3 came out, witch means it has sold about 25 million since, the same amount of total PS3 sold right now. But since PS3 missed a half year in Europe and it's currently outselling X360 easily, PS3 has sold better than X360 even if we don't factor in the 360's year head start.

Let me put it this way. The generation generally starts to die when a new console from one of the major manufacturers is released - this event occurs at the same time for all manufacturers.

The PS3 and the XBOX360 will be hit by the downturn caused by the start of the next generation at the same time and it is therefore illogical to compare them in the way the OP does.


Imagine two people in a first to the finish running race where one person gets a five second head start. While the other person may run faster it doesn't mean they're going to cross the finishing line first.

Some of us have more interests than video games. For me, business analysis and sales is one of them. And it probably is an interest for many other people on this site. Hence the reason they came to a video game sales site instead of just a video games site. If you don't like the debate then go to another site that is not about video games sales. I on the other hand enjoy analyzing and debating about future possibilities in the video game business. So me and my fellow members will continue to debate about this issue. 

Is that so? Go ahead and look at the decline of the XBOX and PS2 sales. Then go back and look at the N64 and PS sales declines. They are not at the same time. Not even close. You are just coming up with some poor analogy to fit your assumptions that are incorrect. 

Not to ignore your other points, but this is the part I find most interesting.

First a question, is there any console in the past that released a year before the others in its generation that had a shorter lifespan than any other in the same generation? Apart from Dreamcast, that is.

Second, I believe that if you should compare any in those previous generations, it should be the two loser consoles. That is Xbox and Gamecube in particular, as well as N64 and Saturn.  Of course, they actually released at the same time... But comparing the PS2 and PS1 to the others is pointless, they did not in any way follow the same curve. It would also be interesting to compare the NES/Mastersystem and SNES/Mega Drive as well. (I tried to find data for all of this so I could compare, but failed miserably.)

With the PS3/Xbox however, the situation is unique. If you look at the Gap charts, this one from september, you'll see that they follow each other very closely with quick changes when one system has a priceut.

However well one console is selling, the other sells at a comparable rate, with the advantage to the machine that most recently saw a pricecut. Things like games, economy and such seem to have effected the sales of both consoles equally, at least to my untrained eye. That means that so far they have been following the same curve, except for pricemoves. At a comparable price, they so far appear to be following each other.

There is a definite possibility that the latest Sony move was the stalemate breaker and that the PS3 will kick ass from now on, but I am not certain of this at all. I believe that the public view of both consoles is so similar that they almost can be counted as one. When the next generation hits it will have the same effect on both of them, at the same time. They will die off either quickly, or slowly, but they will die off together. In the end, I believe the xbox will have had a lifespan of PS3+1 year.

Historically that is because the console that is at the lead at the time the next generation begins continues to sell for a measure into the next generation.

An example of the next generation killing sales I believe can be given by this graph.

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=GC&reg1=All&cons2=XB&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&start=38284&end=38935

Now my model of the runners is obviously hugely simplistic and doesn't represent the real world situation well at all when taken as the sole model, but it does represent an important aspect of the situation that the OP ignored. It ignores the fact that outside factors at a certain time can have an effect on the sales of both consoles.

To state that either the PS3 is going to win because it is ahead in sales in the same amount of time since launch or that the 360 is going to win because it is ahead in overall sales is incorrect either way. Both of them ignore certain factors that drive sales.

First question... you answered it yourself. You can't make exceptions when making points of "has this ever happened...?" Besides there has only been about 3 generations in which we have enough sales information for and one of those generations is not over yet so that means 1/2 generations thus far has had a console come out a year in advance and die first in a generation. 

Second question... Again why are we making exceptions? Why should we not compare all the consoles? I assume you say this because the 360 and PS3 are behind the Wii. But all we have to do is look to the Dreamcast again to answer your question. However I don't think we could compare either the 360 or the PS3 to the Dreamcast as both consoles are already more successful than the dreamcast. I think it would be more accurate to compare it to the battles of the PS and N64 and to a lesser extent the PS2 and the GC/XBOX. I feel that they have more in common it just so happen that the wii tapped into a market that is generally not a part of the gaming world. 

I do agree with your analysis of the chart. But you are looking at a monthly comparison as opposed to a yearly comparison that I suggested. The reason for this is because of, like you assessed, the sudden jumps in the gap as a result of the price cuts. The 360 makes a big price cut and the gap jumps, then the PS3 makes a price cut and the gap shrinks. If you zoom out your plot points and make them broader it will start to reduce the gap jumps.

The problem with this chart though is you are looking at the gap size and in a bell shaped curve life cycle the gap will generally be the same size once both consoles hit their growth period and the first half of their maturity, assuming both consoles are relatively similar in sales. The switch doesn't occur until the console that started first starts to decline in sales YoY. That wont happen until next year at the earliest and probably not till next year. The issue is when the 360 starts to decline will the PS3 decline as well. Some people seem to think so but I think that would not be the case. The sales gap may be reduced even while the 360 is still growing in sales, but I don't believe the PS3's sales pace will be that significantly more than the 360. It will be until the 360 sales start to level out or decline before the PS3 passes total sales of the 360 in a relatively short period of time. 

You don't need the wifi adapter, especially if your house doesn't have wifi. And blu-ray drive is irrelevant for playing games on 360.

Your right about the hard drive and you could have mentioned the live subscription fee ($60)

The dreamcast was discontinued before the Gamecube and Xbox were released. Since the it was never possible to choose between it and two of the consoles of that generation, it was obviously not quite in the same generation. It's a middle child, there has never before nor after been a console that behaved like it. Its exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with the question I was asking. And I was asking, not trying to make a point. You didn't have an answer, so I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

It's a well known fact that the winner of each generation plays by its own rules. When the generation ends, the winner alone can play on. The losers die out quickly. That is, if there is a clear winner. NES, PS1, PS2. SNES almost made it. Those are the ones so far. If there is no winner, I have no clear picture of what happens. You want to compare the winner to the losers. I find that to be an inaccurate comparison, since they are not following the same pattern. Unless your basic assumption is that the PS3 is and will behave like a winner. Then your way of thinking would make perfect sense.

Some would say that the Wii is the winner this gen, but I'm not really sure it will work that way. In fact, the HD consoles combined outsell it, and that has never happened to a winner before. It also has a clearly different target audience so it almost stands apart. No, the reason I think you should look at the loser consoles only is because they appear to show the same comparative behaviour. They are fighting neck to neck with a competitor, but they are both in the shadow of someone else. They have core followers, but few casual players. They have about the same amount of exclusive content. In short, they behave more like the losers of previous generations than they behave like the winners. Taken together however, they do behave differently, but this is about one vs. the other, so that's a different story.

When you talk about the bell curve, I assume this is the one you mean. However I look at it, there is no way I can see a product with a left shifted and scaled down curve selling the same amount of units for such a long part of the cycle. That is the reason I brought up the gap chart in the first place.

I think there is still room for both Microsoft and Sony to take control of the situation. Sony's latest move was brilliant. It removed two huge flaws in the product, the price and the size. It also brought an added freshness to the product. If Microsoft can make an equally brilliant move, perhaps with the Natal (though I'm sceptical), they can reverse the roles once again. None of the companies are entirely bound by the curve, but I believe that the generation is.

Much of my analysis here is flawed, because I cannot find the actual numbers. The_Source has as far as I recall made several really great articles about generations that I have been trying to find. I cannot though, so I cannot get those numbers I so desperatly want to look at. :(

Also, a lot of your points are good. Especially in your previous post. I can see where your opinion and assumptions differs from mine, and it's great for me to actually have to put them down in words.

To me that graph just shows me that the GC's sales were already declining and when the 360 was released it enabled the GC to start outselling the XBOX. Look at the graph, the year prior to the 360 release the XBOX outsold the GC every week, then once the 360 was released the GC outsold the xbox for the whole holiday season and then regained the sales advantage around may and continued on while the XBOX stopped being manufactured. It doesn't look like it accelerated the decline of the GC all that much, it kept it's same steady decline while the XBOX on the other hand shot down pretty quickly once the 360 was available. Let's take a look at the graph continued...

http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=GC&reg1=All&cons2=XB&reg2=All&cons3=PS&reg3=All&start=38627&end=39327

As you can see the GC continued to sell fairly well into the next holiday season while the XBOX was just dying a slow death. We don't even have to mention how fast the DC died that generation...

As for your mention of other certain factors playing a role. I addressed that in a post about 10 posts above the one I just quoted you in. I suggest reading that and then furthering your point by addressing that post and counter pointing anything I said there. I would like to hear what you have to say.