You fail at what if...

You can't just say that because the PS3 has sold more than the 360 in the same number of days since release, then it could have been released earlier and would have outsold it. That's like claiming that if the Wii released at the same time as the NES it would be outselling it already.

The fact is, the PS3 couldn't be released 1-1.5 years earlier without some fairly major changes

Price would have been higher at launch
Supply would have been lower
Console reliability would have been lower - the RROD was an obvious consequence of MS rushing the 360 to market. MS weighed up wether the repair bill they would pay would be higher than the benefit of an early release.

Aligning the launches of the PS3 and 360, results in the PS3 ahead of the 360 by 4 million units for the first 3 years of the two consoles on the market.
If only we could send the PS3 back in time to launch a year earlier alongside the 360 launch in 2005 or make the 360 launch a year later to launch with the PS3 in 2006.
Time travel is being worked on at the moment and this may become a reality.

Obviously the playstation 3 would sell more than the xbox 360 worldwide by 2 million - 3 million units. Look up the chart.

thanks :D but it's Bugrimmar.

I'm not sure where people are getting the "ps3 would be 5 million above" thing when you can easily run the numbers in the hardware table and find them completely equal...

yeah but everybody would have bought it and a lot of exclusive would have remained on PS3

for example ... FFXIII !!!

if no BR = cheaper price = more accessibility + brand name = GG

EDIT : that doesnt mean no one would have bought the 360

I'd have to guess that 360 would have a smaller total than you calculate and PS3 a higher one. The 360 would have lost its early time on market to gather more titles/developers, and as a result most likely the majority of developers would have headed straight for PS3 vs 360 apart from a few of the more PC centric developers at the time.

The PS3 launch, particularly looking at Europe, would have put it quickly ahead so general perception would have been 360 was losing almost right from the start, therefore PS3 would probably have won the media battle from the off and been seen as the HD system of choice.

Of course, MS were well aware of this being the likely scenario, which is why I believe they decided they had to launch first at all costs and rushed 360 to market.

If Sony somehow would have manged to release PS3 at the same price that the 360 had, and not lose too much money on it, the 360 would have been in a really bad position, kinda like the Dreamcast.

but that is just a fantasy scenario.

It may be a different story if it just meant an extra year working on the 360 - no more RRoD, for one. If Gears Of War launched 2006, the 360 would have still whooped the PS3 in America, as well as in 2007 due to Halo. If you add a year to all of its games though (on the 360 side), it's obviously screwed.

As for your software totals, they aren't fair, due to a number of reasons - one being the factor of time, more 360 owners have had their consoles longer than PS3 owners, and hence buy more software (removing earlier games does not even this out).

^I've also removed those consoles that were bought earlier than the PS3 launch.

So I've removed both the hardware and the software. Who is buying earlier now? Which owners are you talking about?

I think the 360 would still have the edge because of price.

However, if PS3 released at the same time as the 360 and had the same price? Sony would crush MS in Europe and Japan, and go toe to toe with them in America.

I think MS has learned that releasing early (outside of RROD fiasco) and at a fair price is the way to go. I'm sure they'll try to release the XBox 3 before Sony is out with a PS4 which will be in about 3-4 years for MS. Ten year plan indeed.