lol at people fighting for second place.
Official numbers: XBOX still ahead.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Well M$ releases shipped numbers and Sony releases sold numbers so the PS3 may be ahead if that is the case here.wooooode
Both companies release shipped numbers.
[QUOTE="wooooode"]Well M$ releases shipped numbers and Sony releases sold numbers so the PS3 may be ahead if that is the case here.soulitaneI thought they both released shipped numbers.they do both use shipped numbers, mainly because theres no way to get accurate sell through data from europe and other parts of the world.
[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"]Gears 2 is not on the PC. Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
Halo 3 and Reach are not on the PC.Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
Fable II is not on the PC. Neither of the Forzas are on the PC.Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
And yes, even if you're talking about upcoming, I can play Forza, Halo and Gears on my 360. I already did; there's no need to go back to them.
LA Noire's Metascore- 90 on the 360 and 89 on the PS3. Yet the PS3 version of the game is still better, both from Eurogamer's Digitalfoundry and Lens of Truth. The metascore means that there were more reviewers reviewing the Xbox 360 version.
DiRT 3's Metascore- 89 for 360, 88 for PS3. I don't see how Dirt 3 was a game people were actually interested in, but the same reason as above. More Xbox 360 review sites available. And you are saying it is better due to 1 point? What was the DF and LoT comparison for this game?
Dead Space 2's Metascore- 90 on the 360, 89 on the PS3. Didn't the game get a 9.0 on the PS3 and an 8.5 on the Xbox 360 on GameSpot due to the PS3 version being the better value?
Mortal Kombat's Metascore- 86 on the 360, 84 on the PS3 More Xbox 360 review sites, as always.
Fight Night Champion's Metascore- 86 on the 360, 84 on the PS3. Didn't the Xbox 360 version have more content? If so, it deserved the better score.
Shift 2: Unleashed Metascore- 82 on the 360, 81 on the PS3 Same as Dirt 2. Why bother talking about these?
Marvel vs Capcom 3's Metascore- 85 on the 360, 84 on the PS3 1 point difference.
Top Spin 4's Metascore- 84 on the 360, 82 on the PS3 ALL these games are higher rated on the 360. And this is AFTER considering the fact that the PS3 versions have lesser number of reviews. Alright, so if you want a fair comparison, use the review sites/newspieces/etcetera that both share incommon, then come back to me.
The only multiplatform this year that has a higher score on the PS3 is Crysis 2. Even Portal 2, which was supposed to be best on the PS3, has the same Metascore on both the systems. So that argument of yours fails. Hard. The metascore determines my expereince between the two platforms? I'd rather look at the Digital Foundry/LoT comparisons and also know which one has been giving me exclusive content. So far the PS3 has been winning these.
XBL is far better than PSN. There shouldn't even be an argument here. :? It better, since it's something you are paying for.GameShtopper
1. Um, then why would you want to go back to franchises like God of War, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted when you've played their games as well? At least be consistent with yourself. Every game in every series is different, so what you say doesn't even make sense.
2. How is it better? Because you say so? or because two of of the thousands of gaming websites say so? Metacritic suggests the Xbox 360 version is better, and that is with the 360 version having more reviews. Just two sites' opinions don't overrule the game's metascores.
3. DiRT is a major driving franchise, it is counted amongst the likes of Forza and Gran Turismo. Don't say things like these, they make you look like a newbie gamer. DiRT is one of the most highly regarded franchises and DiRT 3 is one of the highest rated games this year. And multiplats are very rarely better on one platform by a margin of more than 1 or 2 points.
4. Okay, so you're telling me the cumulative score of all the gaming websites that Metacritic covers doesn't matter, and Gamespot's score does? Wow, you really are desperate to make your system look beter.
5. You know, if you apply the simplest of logic, you wil realize, as everybody in the gaming world already knows, that having more review sites for a game means it being at a disadvantage, because the game then has more chances of getting lower scores, and thus it has higher chances of having a lower aggregate on Meta. None of what you're saying is making any sense.
6. Just because you don't think these games ae important doesn't mean they aren't. These are highly regarded, very important games, that sell a lot and are praised a lot. Please, again, stop saying stupid things like these (no offense meant, sorry if implied).
7. 1 point differences matter a lot. You don't have ANY proper arguments, do you? You show mean even a single PS3 multiplat game that is more than even 2 points higher than the Xbox 360 version of the game.
8. Multiplat games ALWAYS sell more on the 360, it's a known fact.
9. So? At least you get a crash proof, safe, really user-friendly online service. I'd love to pay for Xbox Live rather than use PSN for free.
Looks like you've got no arguments there, just sheer desperation to make your system look good. None of what you said made any kind of sense. Sorry, come back to me with some PROPER arguments.
[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]
[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"]Gears 2 is not on the PC. Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
Halo 3 and Reach are not on the PC.Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
Fable II is not on the PC. Neither of the Forzas are on the PC.Played and beaten already when I had my Xbox 360.
And yes, even if you're talking about upcoming, I can play Forza, Halo and Gears on my 360. I already did; there's no need to go back to them.
LA Noire's Metascore- 90 on the 360 and 89 on the PS3. Yet the PS3 version of the game is still better, both from Eurogamer's Digitalfoundry and Lens of Truth. The metascore means that there were more reviewers reviewing the Xbox 360 version.
DiRT 3's Metascore- 89 for 360, 88 for PS3. I don't see how Dirt 3 was a game people were actually interested in, but the same reason as above. More Xbox 360 review sites available. And you are saying it is better due to 1 point? What was the DF and LoT comparison for this game?
Dead Space 2's Metascore- 90 on the 360, 89 on the PS3. Didn't the game get a 9.0 on the PS3 and an 8.5 on the Xbox 360 on GameSpot due to the PS3 version being the better value?
Mortal Kombat's Metascore- 86 on the 360, 84 on the PS3 More Xbox 360 review sites, as always.
Fight Night Champion's Metascore- 86 on the 360, 84 on the PS3. Didn't the Xbox 360 version have more content? If so, it deserved the better score.
Shift 2: Unleashed Metascore- 82 on the 360, 81 on the PS3 Same as Dirt 2. Why bother talking about these?
Marvel vs Capcom 3's Metascore- 85 on the 360, 84 on the PS3 1 point difference.
Top Spin 4's Metascore- 84 on the 360, 82 on the PS3 ALL these games are higher rated on the 360. And this is AFTER considering the fact that the PS3 versions have lesser number of reviews. Alright, so if you want a fair comparison, use the review sites/newspieces/etcetera that both share incommon, then come back to me.
The only multiplatform this year that has a higher score on the PS3 is Crysis 2. Even Portal 2, which was supposed to be best on the PS3, has the same Metascore on both the systems. So that argument of yours fails. Hard. The metascore determines my expereince between the two platforms? I'd rather look at the Digital Foundry/LoT comparisons and also know which one has been giving me exclusive content. So far the PS3 has been winning these.
XBL is far better than PSN. There shouldn't even be an argument here. :? It better, since it's something you are paying for.
1. Um, then why would you want to go back to franchises like God of War, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted when you've played their games as well? At least be consistent with yourself. Every game in every series is different, so what you say doesn't even make sense.
2. How is it better? Because you say so? or because two of of the thousands of gaming websites say so? Metacritic suggests the Xbox 360 version is better, and that is with the 360 version having more reviews. Just two sites' opinions don't overrule the game's metascores.
3. DiRT is a major driving franchise, it is counted amongst the likes of Forza and Gran Turismo. Don't say things like these, they make you look like a newbie gamer. DiRT is one of the most highly regarded franchises and DiRT 3 is one of the highest rated games this year. And multiplats are very rarely better on one platform by a margin of more than 1 or 2 points.
4. Okay, so you're telling me the cumulative score of all the gaming websites that Metacritic covers doesn't matter, and Gamespot's score does? Wow, you really are desperate to make your system look beter.
5. You know, if you apply the simplest of logic, you wil realize, as everybody in the gaming world already knows, that having more review sites for a game means it being at a disadvantage, because the game then has more chances of getting lower scores, and thus it has higher chances of having a lower aggregate on Meta. None of what you're saying is making any sense.
6. Just because you don't think these games ae important doesn't mean they aren't. These are highly regarded, very important games, that sell a lot and are praised a lot. Please, again, stop saying stupid things like these (no offense meant, sorry if implied).
7. 1 point differences matter a lot. You don't have ANY proper arguments, do you? You show mean even a single PS3 multiplat game that is more than even 2 points higher than the Xbox 360 version of the game.
8. Multiplat games ALWAYS sell more on the 360, it's a known fact.
9. So? At least you get a crash proof, safe, really user-friendly online service. I'd love to pay for Xbox Live rather than use PSN for free.
Looks like you've got no arguments there, just sheer desperation to make your system look good. None of what you said made any kind of sense. Sorry, come back to me with some PROPER arguments.
Why are you talking about multiplats with 1 point differences on metacritic? o.o If you'd actually look at the reviews for LA Noire for example, you'd see that the reviewers who gave the 3 noticeably worse scores for the ps3 version didn't actually review the 360 version at all.
Let us look at some facts, shall we?
The Xbox 360 came out November, 2005.
The PlayStation 3 came out November, 2006.
The Xbox 360 has sold 53.6 million units LTD.
The PlayStation 3 has sold 50 million units LTD.
On average, the Xbox 360 has sold approximately 0.8 million units per month.
On average, the PlayStation 3 has sold approximately 0.91 million units per month.
The PlayStation 3 is winning the "sales war".GameShtopper
They only "won" the sales war because they had to cut corners, release more SKU's, announcing tons of price drops, etc., just for them to even catch up to the 360 in sales ever since their launch.
That, & because at the time, the PS brand was too popular because of the big success off of the PS2.
PS3, however, is nowhere near successful as the PS1 & the PS2. Not even close.
[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]
Let us look at some facts, shall we?
The Xbox 360 came out November, 2005.
The PlayStation 3 came out November, 2006.
The Xbox 360 has sold 53.6 million units LTD.
The PlayStation 3 has sold 50 million units LTD.
On average, the Xbox 360 has sold approximately 0.8 million units per month.
On average, the PlayStation 3 has sold approximately 0.91 million units per month.
The PlayStation 3 is winning the "sales war".
They only "won" the sales war because they had to cut corners, release more SKU's, announcing tons of price drops, etc., just for them to even catch up to the 360 in sales ever since their launch.
That, & because at the time, the PS brand was too popular because of the big success off of the PS2.
PS3, however, is nowhere near successful as the PS1 & the PS2. Not even close.
Lulwut. Having a number of SKU's does nothing to increase sales, and the 360 has also gone through a number of SKU's. I have no idea what you mean by 'cutting corners', but sure. You make having to catch up in sales sound like some kind of fault of Sony's, when it was all because the 360 came out sooner. And I'm just going to take the opportunity to point out right now that while the ps3 was released in late 2006 in japan and the US, the rest of the world didnt get it until MARCH 2007. And Europe is the main market for the ps3, just as the US is the main market for the 360.[QUOTE="garland51"][QUOTE="GameShtopper"]
Let us look at some facts, shall we?
The Xbox 360 came out November, 2005.
The PlayStation 3 came out November, 2006.
The Xbox 360 has sold 53.6 million units LTD.
The PlayStation 3 has sold 50 million units LTD.
On average, the Xbox 360 has sold approximately 0.8 million units per month.
On average, the PlayStation 3 has sold approximately 0.91 million units per month.
The PlayStation 3 is winning the "sales war"._Cadbury_
They only "won" the sales war because they had to cut corners, release more SKU's, announcing tons of price drops, etc., just for them to even catch up to the 360 in sales ever since their launch.
That, & because at the time, the PS brand was too popular because of the big success off of the PS2.
PS3, however, is nowhere near successful as the PS1 & the PS2. Not even close.
Lulwut. Having a number of SKU's does nothing to increase sales, and the 360 has also gone through a number of SKU's. I have no idea what you mean by 'cutting corners', but sure. You make having to catch up in sales sound like some kind of fault of Sony's, when it was all because the 360 came out sooner. And I'm just going to take the opportunity to point out right now that while the ps3 was released in late 2006 in japan and the US, the rest of the world didnt get it until MARCH 2007. And Europe is the main market for the ps3, just as the US is the main market for the 360.While the 360 has had multiple SKU's, they didn't exactly go too overboard like Sony did with the PS3. Plus Sony has lost all profits that they made off both PS1 & the PS2 with the PS3, racked up tons of billion dollar losses, lost about 70% marketshare, etc.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what people are arguing about in this thread?
This generation has been the most "even" one for a long time. Even the Wii's large installed base gap advantage isn't really anything near what's been seen in other recent generations. And we're consequently left with two very healthy platforms, as Wii prepares to die to make way for its successor.
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="garland51"]
They only "won" the sales war because they had to cut corners, release more SKU's, announcing tons of price drops, etc., just for them to even catch up to the 360 in sales ever since their launch.
That, & because at the time, the PS brand was too popular because of the big success off of the PS2.
PS3, however, is nowhere near successful as the PS1 & the PS2. Not even close.
Lulwut. Having a number of SKU's does nothing to increase sales, and the 360 has also gone through a number of SKU's. I have no idea what you mean by 'cutting corners', but sure. You make having to catch up in sales sound like some kind of fault of Sony's, when it was all because the 360 came out sooner. And I'm just going to take the opportunity to point out right now that while the ps3 was released in late 2006 in japan and the US, the rest of the world didnt get it until MARCH 2007. And Europe is the main market for the ps3, just as the US is the main market for the 360.While the 360 has had multiple SKU's, they didn't exactly go too overboard like Sony did with the PS3. Plus Sony has lost all profits that they made off both PS1 & the PS2 with the PS3, racked up tons of billion dollar losses, lost about 70% marketshare, etc.
Actually both consoles have had about the same amount of SKUs, and at least the ps3 SKU's didn't include models with less than 1GB of storage and NO storage, that's what I'd call going overboard with SKU's ;) And while Sony took a risk and released an expensive console sold at a loss for awhile, its now selling at a faster rate than the 360 and at a profit, so you can't really comment on that aspect of things just yet. Not sure what that has to do with things anyway.[QUOTE="garland51"][QUOTE="_Cadbury_"] Lulwut. Having a number of SKU's does nothing to increase sales, and the 360 has also gone through a number of SKU's. I have no idea what you mean by 'cutting corners', but sure. You make having to catch up in sales sound like some kind of fault of Sony's, when it was all because the 360 came out sooner. And I'm just going to take the opportunity to point out right now that while the ps3 was released in late 2006 in japan and the US, the rest of the world didnt get it until MARCH 2007. And Europe is the main market for the ps3, just as the US is the main market for the 360._Cadbury_
While the 360 has had multiple SKU's, they didn't exactly go too overboard like Sony did with the PS3. Plus Sony has lost all profits that they made off both PS1 & the PS2 with the PS3, racked up tons of billion dollar losses, lost about 70% marketshare, etc.
Actually both consoles have had about the same amount of SKUs, and at least the ps3 SKU's didn't include models with less than 1GB of storage and NO storage, that's what I'd call going overboard with SKU's.And while Sony took a risk and released an expensive console sold at a loss for awhile, its now selling at a faster rate than the 360 and at a profit, so you can't really comment on that aspect of things just yet. Not sure what that has to do with things anyway.
Sony may be finally making a profit now, but they have a long way to go to recover all those billion dollar losses, so, I wouldn't expect a price cut on the PS3 anytime soon, especially with the upcoming NGP coming out, & they will probably take even more losses off of each NGP handheld being sold (especially when they're trying to play catch up with the 3DS in sales), so it cancels out.
Also, like I said earlier, PS3 only kept selling even when the $600 price tag was revealed because at the time, the PS2 was hugely successful among diehard Sony fans. This gen, the PS3 isn't. I doubt that Sony could easily play catch up to their competitors in sales the next time around.
[QUOTE="Recarnator"]Not bad considering the 360 has a 1 year advantage.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-26-global-ps3-sales-still-behind-xbox-360
"A record 14.3 million PS3s were sold during those 12 months, taking the global PS3 tally to 50 million.
But Microsoft's worldwide Xbox 360 total is higher, standing at 53.6 million (as of January 2011)."
The_Gaming_Baby
not bad since Sony and the Playstation brand had 2 succesful consoles and the Xbox brand is completely shunned in Japan.
Congrats! Now...let's talk about the 2010 exclusives lineup to go along with all those sold consoles...;)
TheMoreYouOwn
who says that exclusives just count?
ever thought a majority of games sold on consoles between the Xbox360 and PS3 are multiplats.
btw how is that game to console ratio working out for the PS3's favour?
[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="TheMoreYouOwn"]Lets talk about overall library instead of hiding behind a PC ;) I own all systems, so lets do talk about exclusives, or lack there of ;)Congrats! Now...let's talk about the 2010 exclusives lineup to go along with all those sold consoles...;)
Heil68
The PS3 is the one that is need of exclusives to trump the Xbox360 and so far most are just overated graphics hype from Cows - KZ2, KZ3 the perfect 10 year cycle that is GT5.
Exclusives between the Xbox360 and PS3 make the small percentage compared to the multiplat games that exist.
[QUOTE="TheMoreYouOwn"]
Congrats! Now...let's talk about the 2010 exclusives lineup to go along with all those sold consoles...;)
who says that exclusives just count?
ever thought a majority of games sold on consoles between the Xbox360 and PS3 are multiplats.
btw how is that game to console ratio working out for the PS3's favour?
When someone goes to buy a console they don't buy it because it has multiplats on it that can also be played on the other console, they buy it because it has awesome exclusives that they can play in addition to the multiplats. Derp. A strong exclusive line up not only pleases current console owners but also attracts future owners. And if you're refering to game sales on the PS3 then: "But game sales rose sharply on PS3 this year, increasing from 115.6 million the year prior to nearly 150 million"When someone goes to buy a console they don't buy it because it has multiplats on it that can also be played on the other console, they buy it because it has awesome exclusives that they can play in addition to the multiplats. Derp. A strong exclusive line up not only pleases current console owners but also attracts future owners. And if you're refering to game sales on the PS3 then: "But game sales rose sharply on PS3 this year, increasing from 115.6 million the year prior to nearly 150 million"[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="AdmiralBison"]
who says that exclusives just count?
ever thought a majority of games sold on consoles between the Xbox360 and PS3 are multiplats.
btw how is that game to console ratio working out for the PS3's favour?
sts106mat
or they buy it because it has a multiplat that appeals to them and they are looking for the cheapest console. or they get the console that their friends play. or they get the console because they prefer the look of it over the other. or they get it because a console that has a back catalogue of games that appeal to them. there a load of reasons why people buy a console, not just your reason LOL
:roll: I realise there are other draw factors, but I believe for the majority of people exclusives are the main factor. No one buys a console for one single game without thinking of buying other games in the future.
People downplay the important of exclusives far too much here.
[QUOTE="GameShtopper"]
1. Um, then why would you want to go back to franchises like God of War, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted when you've played their games as well? At least be consistent with yourself. Every game in every series is different, so what you say doesn't even make sense.
2. How is it better? Because you say so? or because two of of the thousands of gaming websites say so? Metacritic suggests the Xbox 360 version is better, and that is with the 360 version having more reviews. Just two sites' opinions don't overrule the game's metascores.
3. DiRT is a major driving franchise, it is counted amongst the likes of Forza and Gran Turismo. Don't say things like these, they make you look like a newbie gamer. DiRT is one of the most highly regarded franchises and DiRT 3 is one of the highest rated games this year. And multiplats are very rarely better on one platform by a margin of more than 1 or 2 points.
4. Okay, so you're telling me the cumulative score of all the gaming websites that Metacritic covers doesn't matter, and Gamespot's score does? Wow, you really are desperate to make your system look beter.
5. You know, if you apply the simplest of logic, you wil realize, as everybody in the gaming world already knows, that having more review sites for a game means it being at a disadvantage, because the game then has more chances of getting lower scores, and thus it has higher chances of having a lower aggregate on Meta. None of what you're saying is making any sense.
6. Just because you don't think these games ae important doesn't mean they aren't. These are highly regarded, very important games, that sell a lot and are praised a lot. Please, again, stop saying stupid things like these (no offense meant, sorry if implied).
7. 1 point differences matter a lot. You don't have ANY proper arguments, do you? You show mean even a single PS3 multiplat game that is more than even 2 points higher than the Xbox 360 version of the game.
8. Multiplat games ALWAYS sell more on the 360, it's a known fact.
9. So? At least you get a crash proof, safe, really user-friendly online service. I'd love to pay for Xbox Live rather than use PSN for free.
Looks like you've got no arguments there, just sheer desperation to make your system look good. None of what you said made any kind of sense. Sorry, come back to me with some PROPER arguments.
Why are you talking about multiplats with 1 point differences on metacritic? o.o If you'd actually look at the reviews for LA Noire for example, you'd see that the reviewers who gave the 3 noticeably worse scores for the ps3 version didn't actually review the 360 version at all. So? The metascore for the 360 versions is almost always higher, despite the fact that it has more number of scores.[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
or they buy it because it has a multiplat that appeals to them and they are looking for the cheapest console. or they get the console that their friends play. or they get the console because they prefer the look of it over the other. or they get it because a console that has a back catalogue of games that appeal to them. there a load of reasons why people buy a console, not just your reason LOL
sts106mat
:roll: I realise there are other draw factors, but I believe for the majority of people exclusives are the main factor. No one buys a console for one single game without thinking of buying other games in the future.
People downplay the important of exclusives far too much here.
LOL, people put far too much emphasis on exclusives here. early on in its lifetime, the exclusives are an extremely important factor, but just as important are the features and price point. later in the consoles lifespan the other factors i mentioned become more important, most hardcore gamers will have made their choice or have all platforms.
360 continues to sell well despite its perceived lack of exclusives, nobody seems to be able to explain why LOL.
I do agree though that people buy consoles for exclusives or a certain game, sure, i see a few gamers on Halo Reach with incredibly high ranks, your talking literally months of play to achieve these ranks and they have virtually no other games played and hardly any of the halo reach achievements, just a very high multiplayer rank. are they playing on other systems and using 360 purely for Reach, possibly, or do they only play halo? these type of gamers are few in comparison to the other hundreds of thousands of reach players with a high GS, like myself, we play other games too.
Exclusives are always extremely important. "Most harcore" gamers will have their consoles sure. But there's still millions of people out there without PS3s and exclusives are always going to draw them in.
Plus it doesn't hurt for a company to show it's continued support for its console and customers by continuing with support for exclusives. They're pretty much the strongest thing that can be put forward buy MS/Sony to get people to buy their consoles within their control. Of course, they can't stop people from buying a console just cause thats what their friends have.
You say the 360 continues to sell well, but it's still selling at a slower rate than the ps3.
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
:roll: I realise there are other draw factors, but I believe for the majority of people exclusives are the main factor. No one buys a console for one single game without thinking of buying other games in the future.
People downplay the important of exclusives far too much here._Cadbury_
LOL, people put far too much emphasis on exclusives here. early on in its lifetime, the exclusives are an extremely important factor, but just as important are the features and price point. later in the consoles lifespan the other factors i mentioned become more important, most hardcore gamers will have made their choice or have all platforms.
360 continues to sell well despite its perceived lack of exclusives, nobody seems to be able to explain why LOL.
I do agree though that people buy consoles for exclusives or a certain game, sure, i see a few gamers on Halo Reach with incredibly high ranks, your talking literally months of play to achieve these ranks and they have virtually no other games played and hardly any of the halo reach achievements, just a very high multiplayer rank. are they playing on other systems and using 360 purely for Reach, possibly, or do they only play halo? these type of gamers are few in comparison to the other hundreds of thousands of reach players with a high GS, like myself, we play other games too.
Exclusives are always extremely important. "Most harcore" gamers will have their consoles sure. But there's still millions of people out there without PS3s and exclusives are always going to draw them in.
Plus it doesn't hurt for a company to show it's continued support for its console and customers by continuing with support for exclusives. They're pretty much the strongest thing that can be put forward buy MS/Sony to get people to buy their consoles within their control. Of course, they can't stop people from buying a console just cause thats what their friends have.
You say the 360 continues to sell well, but it's still selling at a slower rate than the ps3.Yeah I think halo has far more console selling power than all the ps3 exclusvies put together.
^ maybe, so people keep saying how its selling slower, doesn't follow through with any evidence though does it? PS3 exclusives (with the exception of GT5) dont tend to sell anywhere near the quantities halo / mario can. multiplats generally seem to sell better on 360, even if PS3 version comes with additional content. indeed there is more evidence that PS3's are used for watching blurays rather than gaming, than there is that people buy them because "all teh awesomzze exclusives"sts106matYeah but really we can't tell where the sales come from, or if people bought the console because of that game. I think games like Halo/Mario/CoD blur the idea of what a good selling game is. I mean, the numbers of sales those games get is ridiculous, I kind of think of them as 'craze' games which just seem to sell no matter what (not saying they're bad games. Except for CoD maybe...). But by no means does that mean that games with around 5mill sales have sold badly. Also I'm pretty sure sure multiplats are selling mostly the same on both consoles. But we pretty much only ever see figures for the US, which are always going to favour the 360. In the article in the OP it also says game sales increased for the PS3 from something like 112-150million a year.
I just bought a PS3, so now I finally have both.
I'll admit that PS3 is better in just about every respect. The online is free, which I like very much. The Live interface may be more intuitive, but that doesn't matter to me. Since I don't play much online MP anyway, I simply can't justify paying a monthly fee. The PS3 exclusives are better and more frequent, it seems generally sturdier and less liable to break than the 360, and is a fantastic Blu-Ray player.
And yet, I still like my xbox better. I've supported MS for the last 2 generations and have come to love their consoles. 360 has given me 3 years of great gaming memories and this just isn't very easy to dismiss. Sure, I got the RROD once, which was horribly annoying at the time, but it cost me nothing to have it fixed so it's forgivable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm glad the 360 is still winning. PS3 still feels like a bit of a stranger in the room to me and will have to keep proving itself to make me change my loyalties.
Yeah but really we can't tell where the sales come from, or if people bought the console because of that game. I think games like Halo/Mario/CoD blur the idea of what a good selling game is. I mean, the numbers of sales those games get is ridiculous, I kind of think of them as 'craze' games which just seem to sell no matter what (not saying they're bad games. Except for CoD maybe...). But by no means does that mean that games with around 5mill sales have sold badly. Also I'm pretty sure sure multiplats are selling mostly the same on both consoles. But we pretty much only ever see figures for the US, which are always going to favour the 360. In the article in the OP it also says game sales increased for the PS3 from something like 112-150million a year.[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]^ maybe, so people keep saying how its selling slower, doesn't follow through with any evidence though does it? PS3 exclusives (with the exception of GT5) dont tend to sell anywhere near the quantities halo / mario can. multiplats generally seem to sell better on 360, even if PS3 version comes with additional content. indeed there is more evidence that PS3's are used for watching blurays rather than gaming, than there is that people buy them because "all teh awesomzze exclusives"sts106mat
look at this research here :-
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/survey-blu-ray-primarily-driving-ps3-purchase-intent
According to this research, Blu-ray IS the primary reason to purchase a PS3, most interesting point of the article? You will see "specific games", ie exclusives or multiplats, rank 10th on the list as a reason to buy, so much for your theory eh?
"While Blu-ray capability and the PS3 price reduction are included most often overall, there is evidence that suggests that software and gaming strongly motivate these potential buyers, with the library of games cited by 62%."
".... one-third (33%) of gamers indicate GOW III as their first choice. With no other game garnering more than 13% of the first choice vote (Final Fantasy XIII comes in as a distant runner-up) and most titles falling at 3% or below, the strong appeal of GOW III is readily apparent."
But of course, one can't take the results of a survey as fact for the general population, especially without knowing how the survey was carried out :)
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
look at this research here :-
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/survey-blu-ray-primarily-driving-ps3-purchase-intent
According to this research, Blu-ray IS the primary reason to purchase a PS3, most interesting point of the article? You will see "specific games", ie exclusives or multiplats, rank 10th on the list as a reason to buy, so much for your theory eh?
sts106mat
"While Blu-ray capability and the PS3 price reduction are included most often overall, there is evidence that suggests that software and gaming strongly motivate these potential buyers, with the library of games cited by 62%."
".... one-third (33%) of gamers indicate GOW III as their first choice. With no other game garnering more than 13% of the first choice vote (Final Fantasy XIII comes in as a distant runner-up) and most titles falling at 3% or below, the strong appeal of GOW III is readily apparent."
But of course, one can't take the results of a survey as fact for the general population, especially without knowing how the survey was carried out :)
of course gaming strongly motivates a person to buy a PS3. my point was that your theory on exclusives being THE reason was wrong, the research proves that. and its not a survey of the general population, its a survey of "active gamers without a ps3". who should they ask next? Old age pensioners?
I know exclusives aren't the only reason people buy consoles. But I strongly believe they're ultimately the most important motive, and the survey results strongly support that. Sure Blu-ray came on top, but if you interview another 700 people its quite possible that library would've come on top.
I know it's not a survey of the general population, I'm saying its a survey of some people from a population and that you can't generalise the results to everyone. Especially when we don't know how well the survey was conducted. We don't know how the people were selected to take part in the interview or anything.
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
look at this research here :-
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/survey-blu-ray-primarily-driving-ps3-purchase-intent
According to this research, Blu-ray IS the primary reason to purchase a PS3, most interesting point of the article? You will see "specific games", ie exclusives or multiplats, rank 10th on the list as a reason to buy, so much for your theory eh?
sts106mat
"While Blu-ray capability and the PS3 price reduction are included most often overall, there is evidence that suggests that software and gaming strongly motivate these potential buyers, with the library of games cited by 62%."
".... one-third (33%) of gamers indicate GOW III as their first choice. With no other game garnering more than 13% of the first choice vote (Final Fantasy XIII comes in as a distant runner-up) and most titles falling at 3% or below, the strong appeal of GOW III is readily apparent."
But of course, one can't take the results of a survey as fact for the general population, especially without knowing how the survey was carried out :)
of course gaming strongly motivates a person to buy a PS3. my point was that your theory on exclusives being THE reason was wrong, the research proves that. and its not a survey of the general population, its a survey of "active gamers without a ps3". who should they ask next? Old age pensioners?
I've been saying this for years. The effect of exclusives is massively overstated in SW. In terms of games, what matters is total game library.
It's SW. Fiscal report threads are avoided like the plague by whoever they favor when they swing one way, except for a few people offering some damage control, and filled to the brim with gloating by the same group when they swing the other. With everyone ignoring Nintendo.[QUOTE="LOXO7"]
Six pictures and you quoted yourself. Is this necessary?
shinrabanshou
For the opposite situation to this you can go back about 6 months where the gap shrunk by the exact opposite amount. The make-up of that thread in terms of posters was quite different and that fiscal report thread was accompanied by like a half dozen threads claiming Sony was lying in its earnings releases.
ur living in the paaasssttt...its a new day. and the 360 is kicking butt, rejoice.
Not bad considering the 360 has a 1 year advantage.[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"][QUOTE="Recarnator"]
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-26-global-ps3-sales-still-behind-xbox-360
"A record 14.3 million PS3s were sold during those 12 months, taking the global PS3 tally to 50 million.
But Microsoft's worldwide Xbox 360 total is higher, standing at 53.6 million (as of January 2011)."
AdmiralBison
not bad since Sony and the Playstation brand had 2 succesful consoles and the Xbox brand is completely shunned in Japan.
trying to be successful at 200 dollars and 600 dollars its 2 different things so you cant judge upon previous console....its not my fault xbox doesnt sell in japan..it sells good in UStrying to be successful at 200 dollars and 600 dollars its 2 different things so you cant judge upon previous console....its not my fault xbox doesnt sell in japan..it sells good in USplanbfreak4eva
The 360 was priced at 300 dollars when the PS3 came out. It's not my fault Sony tried to sell a 600 dollar system.
Xbox 360 sell 50 millions Gamespot. January 5 2011. http://ces.gamespot.com/story/6285921/xbox-360-sells-50-million-kinect-8-millionhttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-26-global-ps3-sales-still-behind-xbox-360
"A record 14.3 million PS3s were sold during those 12 months, taking the global PS3 tally to 50 million.
But Microsoft's worldwide Xbox 360 total is higher, standing at 53.6 million (as of January 2011)."
Recarnator
[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]trying to be successful at 200 dollars and 600 dollars its 2 different things so you cant judge upon previous console....its not my fault xbox doesnt sell in japan..it sells good in USwaltefmoney
The 360 was priced at 300 dollars when the PS3 came out. It's not my fault Sony tried to sell a 600 dollar system.
$400 the $300 model was the core 360.[QUOTE="waltefmoney"][QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]trying to be successful at 200 dollars and 600 dollars its 2 different things so you cant judge upon previous console....its not my fault xbox doesnt sell in japan..it sells good in UStormentos
The 360 was priced at 300 dollars when the PS3 came out. It's not my fault Sony tried to sell a 600 dollar system.
$400 the $300 model was the core 360.Oh, right.
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
"While Blu-ray capability and the PS3 price reduction are included most often overall, there is evidence that suggests that software and gaming strongly motivate these potential buyers, with the library of games cited by 62%."
".... one-third (33%) of gamers indicate GOW III as their first choice. With no other game garnering more than 13% of the first choice vote (Final Fantasy XIII comes in as a distant runner-up) and most titles falling at 3% or below, the strong appeal of GOW III is readily apparent."
But of course, one can't take the results of a survey as fact for the general population, especially without knowing how the survey was carried out :)_Cadbury_
of course gaming strongly motivates a person to buy a PS3. my point was that your theory on exclusives being THE reason was wrong, the research proves that. and its not a survey of the general population, its a survey of "active gamers without a ps3". who should they ask next? Old age pensioners?
I know exclusives aren't the only reason people buy consoles. But I strongly believe they're ultimately the most important motive, and the survey results strongly support that. Sure Blu-ray came on top, but if you interview another 700 people its quite possible that library would've come on top.
I know it's not a survey of the general population, I'm saying its a survey of some people from a population and that you can't generalise the results to everyone. Especially when we don't know how well the survey was conducted. We don't know how the people were selected to take part in the interview or anything.
You can also strongly believe the sky is pink but it isn't true. The truth is, gamers look at games that interest them the most. Exclusives don't matter unless their some sort of brand loyalty occuring. Again, I posted earlier in this thread. If you were around during the format war and activley at the biggest HT forums you would have seen exactly what people were getting their PS3s for, which explains software attach rates and sales.
Going back to those forums you will see a new trend in HT which is people are selling their PS3s for actual Blu-ray players now that the prices have come down and the machine specs are at least on par with the PS3.
There is all sorts of proof about this but people like to turn a blind eye. Brand loyalty like this is amazing. They should really do a study on this.
Yeah but really we can't tell where the sales come from, or if people bought the console because of that game. I think games like Halo/Mario/CoD blur the idea of what a good selling game is. I mean, the numbers of sales those games get is ridiculous, I kind of think of them as 'craze' games which just seem to sell no matter what (not saying they're bad games. Except for CoD maybe...). But by no means does that mean that games with around 5mill sales have sold badly. Also I'm pretty sure sure multiplats are selling mostly the same on both consoles. But we pretty much only ever see figures for the US, which are always going to favour the 360. In the article in the OP it also says game sales increased for the PS3 from something like 112-150million a year.[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]^ maybe, so people keep saying how its selling slower, doesn't follow through with any evidence though does it? PS3 exclusives (with the exception of GT5) dont tend to sell anywhere near the quantities halo / mario can. multiplats generally seem to sell better on 360, even if PS3 version comes with additional content. indeed there is more evidence that PS3's are used for watching blurays rather than gaming, than there is that people buy them because "all teh awesomzze exclusives"sts106mat
look at this research here :-
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/survey-blu-ray-primarily-driving-ps3-purchase-intent
According to this research, Blu-ray IS the primary reason to purchase a PS3, most interesting point of the article? You will see "specific games", ie exclusives or multiplats, rank 10th on the list as a reason to buy, so much for your theory eh?
Dude did you even read pass the line you quote.? Nielsen gathered its data over a three week period surrounding the launch of God Of War III by interviewing over 700 active gamers that didn't own a PS3 but said they were definitely or probably interested in buying one. That is Funny because that article was made around GOW3 release to 700 people lol.Who would want to buy a PS3 to play Blu-ray movies,when that survey was made on February 2010 last year,at a time where the PS3 was $299,and stand alone Blu-ray players less than $199. Also how 700 people represent millions of people.? When i posted a survey here about RROD which was made to 5,000 people way more than 700 people dismiss it how come.? 5,000 was to small but 700 is ok.?WOW I JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING
People may buy their products for multiple reasons!
Please stop these arguments about why people buy consoles, as the vast majority are flawed anyway.
Furtheremore both PS 3 and Xbox360 are alive and kicking and we will see next-gen consoles of both formats.
There is no clear winner this generation, if there is then it's probaly xbox360 by a margin that is insignificant if you look at the whole picture.
The market grew so much this gen, it's hard for a console to die in this period.
Next gen however, thats going to be exciting.
On another account, which no-one seem to have mentioned but is vital to the profit of both consoles:
PIRACY
The clear winner in this case is playstation 3, i assume we can all agree to that.
[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]trying to be successful at 200 dollars and 600 dollars its 2 different things so you cant judge upon previous console....its not my fault xbox doesnt sell in japan..it sells good in USwaltefmoney
The 360 was priced at 300 dollars when the PS3 came out. It's not my fault Sony tried to sell a 600 dollar system.
i was actually talking about ps2s price... its almost always easier to sell a cheaper console with a brand name than an expensive one.....with few exceptions here and there.....[QUOTE="Snugenz"]
[QUOTE="Easyle"] No. $599 killed it.HaloPimp978
Yes, and if you were around SW back then, you'd know that. Even at that ridiculous price it was almost SW fact that the PS3 would do better than the 360 according to some people.
I agree. If the PS3 wasn't 600 bucks back then it might be ahead and peole would say 360 sucks. But I have both so I could care less about who is ahead and who is behind.
It was worth it just for the GT5 launch game.... oh wait :D
Lulwut. Having a number of SKU's does nothing to increase sales, and the 360 has also gone through a number of SKU's. I have no idea what you mean by 'cutting corners', but sure. You make having to catch up in sales sound like some kind of fault of Sony's, when it was all because the 360 came out sooner. And I'm just going to take the opportunity to point out right now that while the ps3 was released in late 2006 in japan and the US, the rest of the world didnt get it until MARCH 2007. And Europe is the main market for the ps3, just as the US is the main market for the 360.[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"][QUOTE="garland51"]
They only "won" the sales war because they had to cut corners, release more SKU's, announcing tons of price drops, etc., just for them to even catch up to the 360 in sales ever since their launch.
That, & because at the time, the PS brand was too popular because of the big success off of the PS2.
PS3, however, is nowhere near successful as the PS1 & the PS2. Not even close.
garland51
While the 360 has had multiple SKU's, they didn't exactly go too overboard like Sony did with the PS3. Plus Sony has lost all profits that they made off both PS1 & the PS2 with the PS3, racked up tons of billion dollar losses, lost about 70% marketshare, etc.
I dont know how u can say PS3 cut corners when MS rushed a faulty product to release. Granted, Sony did lose this gen, there's no way around that
PS3 is at 51 million and 360 53.6 million, no?
PS3 at 50 mil as of now and 360 at 53.6 mil at end of MS's Q3 according to link.PS3 is at 51 million and 360 53.6 million, no?
Mozelleple112
(so no is correct to your question)
[QUOTE="_Cadbury_"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"]
of course gaming strongly motivates a person to buy a PS3. my point was that your theory on exclusives being THE reason was wrong, the research proves that. and its not a survey of the general population, its a survey of "active gamers without a ps3". who should they ask next? Old age pensioners?
sts106mat
I know exclusives aren't the only reason people buy consoles. But I strongly believe they're ultimately the most important motive, and the survey results strongly support that. Sure Blu-ray came on top, but if you interview another 700 people its quite possible that library would've come on top.
I know it's not a survey of the general population, I'm saying its a survey of some people from a population and that you can't generalise the results to everyone. Especially when we don't know how well the survey was conducted. We don't know how the people were selected to take part in the interview or anything.
so basically your answer is "theres no evidence to support my theory, but i will believe it anyway"
no...what he's saying is ur survey doesnt count because it'd mean he's completely wrong. now a survey of gamers isnt enough...maybe you should try a survey of game developers or better mario and donkey kong.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment