Did the 360 have one year without competition?

I hear this alot in SW, that the 360 had a one year head start (true) without any current-gen competition (false). It is usually brought up in order to bolster the "360 had a years head start w/ no competition and only sold XXX units!" arguments.

There can be no doubt that the 360 spent the end of 2005 and most of 2006, about one year, alone on store shelves without any current-gen competition. However, this is not the same as saying it had no current-gen competition at all. Whether the PS3 or the Wii was on the shelf or still months from being released, if even one single gamer held off on buying a 360 in order to either wait for the PS3 or the Wii or wait for all 3 to come out in order to see who "wins" this gen and make their buying decision accordingly, this IS a lost sale due to competition.

Any cow out there who waited a year for their black behemoth, then comes here and claims the 360 had a year without competition is completely lacking in logic and self-awareness.

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

so your saying selling 5-7 million year befroe the ps 3 and wii is not a head start.GARRYTH

So you're saying you didn't even make it through 1 line of my post? I've never said this before, but... self-owned.

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

jangojay

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

Only if you consider the PS2 "no competition" because the PS2 outsold the 360 month after month in its first year on the market.rockydog1111

Note that I repeatedly stated "current-gen" competition, like 3 times at least.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

dsmccracken

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

There is a difference between competition and preference. Here's the thing, I like sony HDTVs, there is a version I want that has yet to release, sony products have always been good to me, so I prefer the brand, so instead of going for a panasonic I wait for the sony.

Then look at this, I am a consumer with no brand loyalty, the same Sony TV you are waiting for I am interested in, but then I see the panasonic which is cheaper and has a few extra bonuses and basically the same as the sony TV. Why wouldn't I take the Panasonic instead of waiting for the sony?

There is a difference between competition and preference. Here's the thing, I like sony HDTVs, there is a version I want that has yet to release, sony products have always been good to me, so I prefer the brand, so instead of going for a panasonic I wait for the sony.

Then look at this, I am a consumer with no brand loyalty, the same Sony TV you are waiting for I am interested in, but then I see the panasonic which is cheaper and has a few extra bonuses and basically the same as the sony TV. Why wouldn't I take the Panasonic instead of waiting for the sony?

jangojay

I'm not sure how this impacts my point. A lost sale due to preference is competition. A lost sale due to a sale price is competition. A lost sale due to a store's inventory policy is still... a sale lost to a competitor, and therefore competition. Anything that means company A gets your hard earned cheddar and not company B, that is competition. Otherwise, what would we call it, a lost sale due to act of God? Gravity? The tides in Portugal?

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

There is a difference between competition and preference. Here's the thing, I like sony HDTVs, there is a version I want that has yet to release, sony products have always been good to me, so I prefer the brand, so instead of going for a panasonic I wait for the sony.

Then look at this, I am a consumer with no brand loyalty, the same Sony TV you are waiting for I am interested in, but then I see the panasonic which is cheaper and has a few extra bonuses and basically the same as the sony TV. Why wouldn't I take the Panasonic instead of waiting for the sony?

dsmccracken

I'm not sure how this impacts my point. A lost sale due to preference is competition. A lost sale due to a sale price is competition. A lost sale due to a store's inventory policy is still... a sale lost to a competitor, and therefore competition. Anything that means company A gets your hard earned cheddar and not company B, that is competition. Otherwise, what would we call it, a lost sale due to act of God? Gravity? The tides in Portugal?

There mass market are not fan boi's they are willing to buy the cheapest/best system for thier money. The only one available which had very high quality games was the Xbox360. Why would I wait a whole year when that's already on the market?

X360 did have a year headstart. Sure ppl knew the other consoles were coming out, but that doesnt change the fact that the X360 sold consoles at a time when no other current gen console was on the market. Thats what a headstart is. II_Seraphim_II

C'mon, man! I say, right in the first line of my post, that it did indeed have a head start. It is the no competition thing that I'm disputing.

The real fact is the first year MS had most of it's sales and now there trying to hold that market share but it's slipping away every month in worldwide sales. Some areas the 360 lost over 100,000 in monthly sales when the PS3 was released and the Wii has taken this market share from MS.jimm895

Good point, wrong topic.

the 360 had to compete with all of sonys lies about how great the ps3 was going to be.but other than that no real competition.

the 360 had to compete with all of sonys lies about how great the ps3 was going to be.but other than that no real competition.

marklarmer

Why did sony exactly lie about? The ps3 is still the best console(technical wise) on the market.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

jangojay

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

There is a difference between competition and preference. Here's the thing, I like sony HDTVs, there is a version I want that has yet to release, sony products have always been good to me, so I prefer the brand, so instead of going for a panasonic I wait for the sony.

Then look at this, I am a consumer with no brand loyalty, the same Sony TV you are waiting for I am interested in, but then I see the panasonic which is cheaper and has a few extra bonuses and basically the same as the sony TV. Why wouldn't I take the Panasonic instead of waiting for the sony?

Don't really care about how anybody sees it...a year is a year and physically the 360 was there to be had BY ITSELF hence the numbers. Now that it has some contenders, not so much dominance is being shown. Had the PS3 came out at the same time, yes the 360 would sell but......Sony's machine would definitely be closer than what it is now. They say Live is the on-line experience but the PSN is closing in on feature for feature and (check 1up.com) XMB is coming to PSN now so the advantages are slimming down now. Also the hardware failures don't help at all either (33% not acceptable realistically IMO). No mater what you say, they had a head start but if u look closely....the PS3 is catching up! DMC2677

You are now the 3rd person to claim that I deny that the 360 had a head start. Has a single PS3 fan bothered to actually read my post?

Dsm, you're losing what should be a logical battle, but alas, it isn't. Don't expect the average individual to understand the finer points of economics. That was competition, and it is not an arguable point. Competition began between current-gen systems four years ago before any of them were released. Even so, the 360 did still have a 'head-start'. Because what you're considering only applies to informed consumers. The average consumer is quite the opposite of informed. Because of the simple fact that PS3 and Wii units were not on the shelves, the 360 sold more consoles. Likewise, because these consoles were soon to be released, a sizeable portion of the demographic waited and did not purchase a 360, due to competition. So, your argument is partially correct, though inherently flawed. Part of the reason it is flawed is your fanboyism. You do understand the laws of economics more clearly than your average person, but your perception of the product of said economics is altered by your subjectivity.

- Happy Xbox 360 owner, future PS3 owner, and the owner of every system to date directly or indirectly since the 3rd generation.

That is complete BS. The 360 had competition from the best selling console in history the PS2. It doesn't matter if it's last gen, the PS2 is undeniably the best console ever and continues to put up respectable numbers 7 years in. What other console can say that? To say the 360 didn't have competition is foolish. JayPee89

Competition from the PS2? LOL cause if i didn't own a ps2 the first 3 years after it came out I'll suddenly go run out and buy one instead of a next gen platform. Ya.. right..

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

jangojay

How can you say the PS3 would be blowing the Xbox 360 out of the water...since it hasn't been doing that now?

Throughout 2007, The 360 outsold the PS3 everywhere besides Japan and the PS3's sales there haven't exactly been something to call home about. Only a couple (if that) months ago did the PS3 begin to really outsell the360 worldwide and even then, it's only by a small margin.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]X360 did have a year headstart. Sure ppl knew the other consoles were coming out, but that doesnt change the fact that the X360 sold consoles at a time when no other current gen console was on the market. Thats what a headstart is. dsmccracken

C'mon, man! I say, right in the first line of my post, that it did indeed have a head start. It is the no competition thing that I'm disputing.

Ok, let me explain to you using an analogy. Lets say the console market is the automotive market. There are cars and motorcycles and obviously they are in competition. But the matter remains that people who want cars will buy cars and people who want motorcycles will buy motorcycles, thus the real competition comes between the manufacturers of the different types of automibles. Now lets take this to PS2 v X360. There are 2 types of gamers, those that want last gen consoles (PS2,Xbox,GCube) and those that want next gen consoles (PS3,X360,Wii). Ppl who want a next gen console arent gonna blow their cash on a last gen console, so very very few ppl who want a next gen console will be dissuaded by the PS2. They are 2 different groups of ppl so u cant say that PS2 was direct competition to X360.

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

ReverseCycology

this debate is not about who's fault it is for coming out a year early or not. We are merely trying to explain to the TC that the X360 coming out a year before other consoles gave it an advatantage and that PS2 cannot be considered a valid competitor in the NEXT GEN console market much like MotorCycles are not competitors in the car market, even though they may affect sales of cars a little bit.

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

jangojay

I agree the PS3 would have overshadowed 360 sales, but not because its the better system of the two. I would have beaten the 360 because of hype and misinformation (similar to the PS2 dogging the Dreamcast). And once again the industry would have looked back once the smoke and mirrors were gone and said, "you know the 360 was a good system , too bad we didnt give it a chance" but by that point Sony would have all of the support of the industry with devs biting the bullet to learn the PS3 tech (sounds familiar?!?!?).

But thankfully thats not the case this gen and consumers have several systems to choose from to serve their gaming needs instead of bowing down to one particular company.

Game On...

Ok, let me explain to you using an analogy. Lets say the console market is the automotive market. There are cars and motorcycles and obviously they are in competition. But the matter remains that people who want cars will buy cars and people who want motorcycles will buy motorcycles, thus the real competition comes between the manufacturers of the different types of automibles. Now lets take this to PS2 v X360. There are 2 types of gamers, those that want last gen consoles (PS2,Xbox,GCube) and those that want next gen consoles (PS3,X360,Wii). Ppl who want a next gen console arent gonna blow their cash on a last gen console, so very very few ppl who want a next gen console will be dissuaded by the PS2. They are 2 different groups of ppl so u cant say that PS2 was direct competition to X360. II_Seraphim_II

Cars and motorbikes are indirect competitors, but not direct like mid-sized sedan vs. mid-sized sedan. The PS2 vs 360 are closer competitors than bikes are to cars, but not as direct as the PS3 vs 360. HOWEVER, when I say that the 360 did indeed have competition (what I actually said was current-gen competition, like 3 times or more) for that 1st year, I am talking not about the PS2 but about the PS3 and Wii, even though they were not on shelves yet.

I repeat, the PS3 and the Wii were competition for the 360 for the first year, even though the 360 had a head start. Not the PS2, the PS3 and the Wii. According to most here in SW who claim the 360 had a year without competition, this cannot be because of all its current-gen brethren it sat alone on store shelves. However, and I'm repeating myself here, every single gamer who held off buying a 360 in order to either a) buy a PS3; b) buy a Wii; c) wait and see who would "win" the console war before buying anything, these are all sales lost to MS due to competition REGARDLESS of whether its direct same-gen competition were on shelves yet or not.

Dsm, you're losing what should be a logical battle, but alas, it isn't. Don't expect the average individual to understand the finer points of economics. That was competition, and it is not an arguable point. Competition began between current-gen systems four years ago before any of them were released. Even so, the 360 did still have a 'head-start'. Because what you're considering only applies to informed consumers. The average consumer is quite the opposite of informed. Because of the simple fact that PS3 and Wii units were not on the shelves, the 360 sold more consoles. Likewise, because these consoles were soon to be released, a sizeable portion of the demographic waited and did not purchase a 360, due to competition. So, your argument is partially correct, though inherently flawed. Part of the reason it is flawed is your fanboyism. You do understand the laws of economics more clearly than your average person, but your perception of the product of said economics is altered by your subjectivity.

- Happy Xbox 360 owner, future PS3 owner, and the owner of every system to date directly or indirectly since the 3rd generation.

YourChaosIsntMe

Please provide further detail on how my fanboyism has coloured my reasoning.

Does no one remember Sony saying "don't buy a 360 in the fall when the PS3 is coming in the spring." I still have all the magezines, web pages, and memories of people waiting in line with me to get a 360 at launch saying 'yeah I'm getting a 360 now and in the spring I'll get a PS3'.. Does no one remember this at all. Did Sony wipe all your minds !

[QUOTE="ReverseCycology"]

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

II_Seraphim_II

this debate is not about who's fault it is for coming out a year early or not. We are merely trying to explain to the TC that the X360 coming out a year before other consoles gave it an advatantage and that PS2 cannot be considered a valid competitor in the NEXT GEN console market much like MotorCycles are not competitors in the car market, even though they may affect sales of cars a little bit.

Sony knew for years when will the 360 would come out, but they weren't ready. Like I said, its not Microsofts fault the other consoles weren't ready to release a NEXT GEN console. Sony said it themselves "the next gen doesn't start until we say so" meaning they weren't ready to go toe to toe with the 360. And look at the Wii vs PS3, they came out the same time and guess who's winning between those two?

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

ReverseCycology

PS3 was only delayed in Europe :| both PS3 & Wii came out in Nov 06, a year after 360 released. PS3 arrived in Europe in Mar 07 giving 360 another 4 months to increase it's lead there buth what happened ? the PS3 is gaining momentum in Europe while 360 is selling lacklustre despite 360's 16 month lead in Europe. PS3 is on track to overtake 360 Q3 08 in Europe thus leaving you guys to grasp onto 360's America lead with your dear life.

[QUOTE="ReverseCycology"]

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

II_Seraphim_II

this debate is not about who's fault it is for coming out a year early or not. We are merely trying to explain to the TC that the X360 coming out a year before other consoles gave it an advatantage and that PS2 cannot be considered a valid competitor in the NEXT GEN console market much like MotorCycles are not competitors in the car market, even though they may affect sales of cars a little bit.

At what point did I ever say I was talking about the PS2? I clearly (and repeatedly) stated that I was talking about the PS3.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

The_Game21x

How can you say the PS3 would be blowing the Xbox 360 out of the water...since it hasn't been doing that now?

Throughout 2007, The 360 outsold the PS3 everywhere besides Japan and the PS3's sales there haven't exactly been something to call home about. Only a couple (if that) months ago did the PS3 begin to really outsell the360 worldwide and even then, it's only by a small margin.

Who knows what would have happened, considering the 360 wouldn't have had the library advantage, but would have still had the RROD.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="ReverseCycology"]

And people forgot, mostly cows, that the PS3 was delayed due to some problems. It wasn't Microsofts fault why it took a year or so for the other console to come out.

dsmccracken

this debate is not about who's fault it is for coming out a year early or not. We are merely trying to explain to the TC that the X360 coming out a year before other consoles gave it an advatantage and that PS2 cannot be considered a valid competitor in the NEXT GEN console market much like MotorCycles are not competitors in the car market, even though they may affect sales of cars a little bit.

At what point did I ever say I was talking about the PS2? I clearly (and repeatedly) stated that I was talking about the PS3.

I was trying to make heads a tails of your arguement. The only arguement that kind of makes sense about the X360 having competition would be from the PS2, but to claim that X360 had competition from a console that wasnt out...thats a little ridiculous. Thats like saying "well, we are all pretty certain that MS is gonna release a Handheld at some point in the future, so Nintendo DS and PSP have direct competition from the new MS Hand held that will come out." It doesnt work like that, If anything, if people didnt buy the X360 when no other next gen console was out, its because MS failed to attract customers. Dont throw the blame on Sony/Nintendo.

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

dsmccracken

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves. But how can you say that it had no competition (in the minds of gamers) when this board is filled with Sony fans who sat and waited for a PS3 rather than buying a 360. A lost sale due to a buyer opting for a competitors product instead of your own is still competition, even if a measure of time is involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you want to ignore the casual consumer who did not take into account which systems are scheduled for release, nor the American consumer who bought/buys the 360 due to the Microsoft nameplate, regardless of the competition.You specifically refer to the indirect competition from Nintendo and Sony, which, as I said before, is certainly relevant. You seem to avoid taking into account the partial validity of people who say "The 360 did not have any competition," even when this is valid, to a certain degree. For many consumers, there wasn't any competition, not only because the systems were not released yet, but simply because capitalism fosters what we could consider "instant gratification syndrome," many consumers did not contemplate how the Wii and PS3 would compare to the 360 or the consequences of purchasing the first next-gen console on the market. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to refuse to accept that the 360 did not have direct competition. This is where I draw my "your fanboyism creates subjectivity that clouds your judgement" statement from. Like I said before, the Xbox 360 did have competition - the same way the current Ford Mustang has competition from the 09 Chevy Camaro. You could argue this is not an adequate analogy due to price and demand, but I would have to argue that economics are not simply the product of philosophy, but also mathematics. Proportionally, this is an apt analogy.

So, to make a long-winded post short, I say that because you seem to be unable to reconcile the relationship between direct competition and indirect competition, which are vastly different in the effect they respectively have on the number of units sold in a given time frame.

So if you admit that the 360 had a year headstart, tell all of your lemming friends to stop bragging about how much more total sales the 360 is getting in comparison to PS3s because if they had launched the same time, they would be selling near the same. The PS3 hasn't even come close to releasing all of its big guns and the 360 has already released lots of quality games along with Halo 3. I'd say that the PS3 is holding off very well since its launch and will certainly do even better this year and onward.Khoaki

Its funny how the Sony crowd screams "unfair" and "foul" when people mention the 360 and its headstart but were the same people on the PS2 bandwagon yelling "who cares" when their system had the 1year lead on its rivals.

Very hypocritical if you ask me....

Game On...

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

dsmccracken

There is no doubt it had no competition on store shelves...

and....wrong. What's the PC? Current gen chopped liver? I'm living proof of a consumer opting not to buy a 360 because of all the amazing PC games that were/are coming out.

[QUOTE="Khoaki"]So if you admit that the 360 had a year headstart, tell all of your lemming friends to stop bragging about how much more total sales the 360 is getting in comparison to PS3s because if they had launched the same time, they would be selling near the same. The PS3 hasn't even come close to releasing all of its big guns and the 360 has already released lots of quality games along with Halo 3. I'd say that the PS3 is holding off very well since its launch and will certainly do even better this year and onward.FatalDomain

Its funny how the Sony crowd screams "unfair" and "foul" when people mention the 360 and its headstart but were the same people on the PS2 bandwagon yelling "who cares" when their system had the 1year lead on its rivals.

Very hypocritical if you ask me....

Game On...

[QUOTE="jangojay"]

.... it had no competition.

Had all the consoles released the same time Wii would still be leading, but ps3 would have been blowing xbox outta the water. We can't determine that now but xbox got alot of hyped games between launch and the launch of the ps3, which made people go buy an Xbox instead of waiting.......

The_Game21x

How can you say the PS3 would be blowing the Xbox 360 out of the water...since it hasn't been doing that now?

Throughout 2007, The 360 outsold the PS3 everywhere besides Japan and the PS3's sales there haven't exactly been something to call home about. Only a couple (if that) months ago did the PS3 begin to really outsell the360 worldwide and even then, it's only by a small margin.

Because those people would have just gotten a PS3 instead of a X360 since the PS2 was the leading platform the gen before and they would assume the next gen version would just be alot better. It's just common sense. Since the X360 came a year earlier, instead of waiting for that year for another system they decided to just go with the 360. Especially because the 360 got alot of hyped titles that year. *MASS MARKET ARE NOT FANBOYS* that needs to be implemented into people's heads. What ever Wows them they will go and buy. The 360 did a good job of that, hence we are where we are today.

I hear this alot in SW, that the 360 had a one year head start (true) without any current-gen competition (false). It is usually brought up in order to bolster the "360 had a years head start w/ no competition and only sold XXX units!" arguments.

There can be no doubt that the 360 spent the end of 2005 and most of 2006, about one year, alone on store shelves without any current-gen competition. However, this is not the same as saying it had no current-gen competition at all. Whether the PS3 or the Wii was on the shelf or still months from being released, if even one single gamer held off on buying a 360 in order to either wait for the PS3 or the Wii or wait for all 3 to come out in order to see who "wins" this gen and make their buying decision accordingly, this IS a lost sale due to competition.

Any cow out there who waited a year for their black behemoth, then comes here and claims the 360 had a year without competition is completely lacking in logic and self-awareness.

dsmccracken

You sound like a lemming doing early dc for when the ps3 overtakes the 360 in sales. I guess seeing it outsell the 360 worldwide lately has you worried.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]

I hear this alot in SW, that the 360 had a one year head start (true) without any current-gen competition (false). It is usually brought up in order to bolster the "360 had a years head start w/ no competition and only sold XXX units!" arguments.

There can be no doubt that the 360 spent the end of 2005 and most of 2006, about one year, alone on store shelves without any current-gen competition. However, this is not the same as saying it had no current-gen competition at all. Whether the PS3 or the Wii was on the shelf or still months from being released, if even one single gamer held off on buying a 360 in order to either wait for the PS3 or the Wii or wait for all 3 to come out in order to see who "wins" this gen and make their buying decision accordingly, this IS a lost sale due to competition.

Any cow out there who waited a year for their black behemoth, then comes here and claims the 360 had a year without competition is completely lacking in logic and self-awareness.

Dilrod

You sound like a lemming doing early dc for when the ps3 overtakes the 360 in sales. I guess seeing it outsell the 360 worldwide lately has you worried.

I am a fanboy, but not for what you think. I am a fan of logic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you want to ignore the casual consumer who did not take into account which systems are scheduled for release, nor the American consumer who bought/buys the 360 due to the Microsoft nameplate, regardless of the competition.You specifically refer to the indirect competition from Nintendo and Sony, which, as I said before, is certainly relevant. You seem to avoid taking into account the partial validity of people who say "The 360 did not have any competition," even when this is valid, to a certain degree. For many consumers, there wasn't any competition, not only because the systems were not released yet, but simply because capitalism fosters what we could consider "instant gratification syndrome," many consumers did not contemplate how the Wii and PS3 would compare to the 360 or the consequences of purchasing the first next-gen console on the market. Once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to refuse to accept that the 360 did not have direct competition. This is where I draw my "your fanboyism creates subjectivity that clouds your judgement" statement from. Like I said before, the Xbox 360 did have competition - the same way the current Ford Mustang has competition from the 09 Chevy Camaro. You could argue this is not an adequate analogy due to price and demand, but I would have to argue that economics are not simply the product of philosophy, but also mathematics. Proportionally, this is an apt analogy.

So, to make a long-winded post short, I say that because you seem to be unable to reconcile the relationship between direct competition and indirect competition, which are vastly different in the effect they respectively have on the number of units sold in a given time frame.

YourChaosIsntMe

I didn't forget any of the scenarios you listed, they just were not relevant. To take one of your examples, the "instant gratification" junkies, there may have been no real effective competition. However, I never said there was competition in the hearts of all people at all times of all states of mind, I only said that there was competition. In effect, I only need ONE person, ANYWHERE, who decided to pass on the 360 and wait a yearto get a PS3 in order to be right. Of course, there were many, many more than one, but I only need one. Anyone here want to argue that there was not even one gamer who passed on the 360 to get a Wii/PS3/see who won and buy that winner? Anyone?

Further, you talk about the "indirect" competition from Sony and Nintendo. I disagree with your premise (unless I misunderstand, in which case please correct me) that they (the PS3 and Wii) were indirect competitors until their respective launches, whereupon (presumably) they became direct competitors. This is not the case. The PS3 and the Wii were direct competitors both before and after launch. To repeat, competition is the battle for sales between brands that perform the same function. If the 360 loses a sale to the PS3, it has lost a sale due to competition, and this is not changed by the fact that the PS3 was or was not on the shelves for a year. Many waited for it (many arguing against me in this thread I'd wager) many bought it delay or not, it was a competitor.