The PS3 Over take the 360.

lol its amazing how hard some posters are arguing when the only reply they are getting is bububu the 360 had a higher failure rate.

Just give up the people your arguing wont go beyond bububu 360 had a high failure rate this means everything.

*looks back on the ps2s and ps1s he went through* wanna know whats funny? ps1 and ps2 rebuys were far more likely cause sony always had a shit repair price I often sold my barely working ps1 and 2s to gamestop cause they had even more lax checking systems back then and it would have cost more to have it fixed than to just get as much as I could then pay 50-100 dollars more for the latest version.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] It isn't baseless,it just isn't easily quantified. Rebuys do happen. We know this. Normally we can safely ignore it because it's percentage is pretty low and the usual places are decided by far bigger percentages than any reasonable assumptions of rebuys could account for. However, this time we have a very rare case of the 2nd place being within the region of 1% of sales making all the difference. As to is it important, for some yeah. It speaks to the actual size of the fanbase, and particularly going into next gen that is quite important, at least initially. I would personally say the difference is too small to worry over, but this is SW. We quibble over minor *bleep* all the time, so not exactly unusual or unwarranted here.DerekLoffin

Are you shitting me? 

You can't prove any of that.

Prove exactly what?  That rebuys happen, even you admit they happen.  That they don't account for a large percentage of sales, that's a pretty safe assumption (one even you are using).  In fact, if it isn't, it would speak even more to the point that they should be considered, not ignored, but they are usually small percentage wise.  That they aren't easily quantified, no, that's true too, unless you want to contradict yourself and come up with some concrete number (since I agreed with you here), and if you can, wonderful, we can put this whole debate to bed.  So, what exactly are you going on about?

  You do not have a clue how small rebuys occur, or for what reason they occur so why on earth do you think you can turn it into any sort of real argument? Your feelings? Because its convient? Rebuys have occurred in every market ever, its not relevant to determing a winner because there is 0 way any tracker can prove this, quantify it in numbers and use it to discredit the competition. Stop entertaining it, its stupid.

Here is the actual reality. The size of your userbase is not an indication of fanbase because I've said 100 times, 100% of the userbase is never active at anytime. It doesn't ever work like that, software does not just scale linearly and directly to userbase ever. I have no interest in who won, but I do find this whole theory so ridiculous.

Let me give you a little math. A * X * Y * Z and B * X * Y * Z.  Now, if the differences in X Y and Z are minimal (and positive), even if you don't know what X Y and Z are, if you know the size of A and B, you can predict the relative size of the result of both these equations (so if A is bigger than B, you can predice A * X * Y * Z is bigger than B * X * Y * Z).

So, now, keep that in mind.  Now, we are dealing with wanting to know the fanbase.  If the relative values of the elements affecting such remain roughly the same percentage wise, we can predict such from the salesbase, even though you won't know the exact number.  Of course, this breaks down when we get really close, or we get one of the X Y Z factors not being consistent (for example rebuys) which is why I said it is too small to worry over. 

A) As I said, rebuys occur in every market, To what degree and for what reasons however are completely unknown to the public and to all companies. It doesn't matter, its not a metric to compare the success of your product vs the competition which is why you have never ever read a financial statement or market comparisons that factors in rebuys. You're trying to say that this might be a reason why one system is performing better than another, I'm not saying that's an incorrect conclusion, I'm telling you its not a reasonable metric which is why no one in any market has ever bothered to use it. We are going back and forth though so instead just answer this easy question. Why do you think rebuy ratio its never used?

B) I know how math and stats work but you're over complicating a really simple thing here. You don't even need multi variable math for this. Software sales vs hardware sales will give an idea of your active buying base. Any rebuys will be acounted for in tie in ratios. If you compare the PS3 tie in ratio vs the 360 tie in ratio you find that the 360 has a higher one. Even if they were equivalent for the sake of comparison, how would that make sense if a large portion of 360 hardware is rebuys unless 360 owners buy significantly more software? (which as far as I'm aware also is not the case) The only logic here is that the active base (which is a software thing, not a hardware thing like most seem to imply) stays relatively consistent between these 2 machines.

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

M$ are so desperate they give free Xbox's at every chance they got. Those should be discounted too!

Starting May 22, students buying a new Windows 7-based PC priced at $699 (U.S.) or more will also get a free Xbox 360 4GB console.

coasterguy65

Because free consoles don't count as sales by law. They are giveaways.

I don't get the point of Gue1's post. Sony gave away a PS3 with every HD TV sold for 6 months in 2011.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Are you shitting me? 

You can't prove any of that.ActicEdge

Prove exactly what?  That rebuys happen, even you admit they happen.  That they don't account for a large percentage of sales, that's a pretty safe assumption (one even you are using).  In fact, if it isn't, it would speak even more to the point that they should be considered, not ignored, but they are usually small percentage wise.  That they aren't easily quantified, no, that's true too, unless you want to contradict yourself and come up with some concrete number (since I agreed with you here), and if you can, wonderful, we can put this whole debate to bed.  So, what exactly are you going on about?

  You do not have a clue how small rebuys occur, or for what reason they occur so why on earth do you think you can turn it into any sort of real argument? Your feelings? Because its convient? Rebuys have occurred in every market ever, its not relevant to determing a winner because there is 0 way any tracker can prove this, quantify it in numbers and use it to discredit the competition. Stop entertaining it, its stupid.

Here is the actual reality. The size of your userbase is not an indication of fanbase because I've said 100 times, 100% of the userbase is never active at anytime. It doesn't ever work like that, software does not just scale linearly and directly to userbase ever. I have no interest in who won, but I do find this whole theory so ridiculous.

Let me give you a little math. A * X * Y * Z and B * X * Y * Z.  Now, if the differences in X Y and Z are minimal (and positive), even if you don't know what X Y and Z are, if you know the size of A and B, you can predict the relative size of the result of both these equations (so if A is bigger than B, you can predice A * X * Y * Z is bigger than B * X * Y * Z).

So, now, keep that in mind.  Now, we are dealing with wanting to know the fanbase.  If the relative values of the elements affecting such remain roughly the same percentage wise, we can predict such from the salesbase, even though you won't know the exact number.  Of course, this breaks down when we get really close, or we get one of the X Y Z factors not being consistent (for example rebuys) which is why I said it is too small to worry over. 

A) As I said, rebuys occur in every market, To what degree and for what reasons however are completely unknown to the public and to all companies. It doesn't matter, its not a metric to compare the success of your product vs the competition which is why you have never ever read a financial statement or market comparisons that factors in rebuys. You're trying to say that this might be a reason why one system is performing better than another, I'm not saying that's an incorrect conclusion, I'm telling you its not a reasonable metric which is why no one in any market has ever bothered to use it. We are going back and forth though so instead just answer this easy question. Why do you think rebuy ratio its never used?

Because we rarely ever get close enough for it to matter.  Here we're down to the wire, a 1% difference can decide things.  Companies don't bother reporting it as it is too much effort to measure for too little gain (they don't even tell us how many were sold to consumers, let alone how many were unique consumers). 

B) I know how math and stats work but you're over complicating a really simple thing here. You don't even need multi variable math for this. Software sales vs hardware sales will give an idea of your active buying base. Any rebuys will be acounted for in tie in ratios. If you compare the PS3 tie in ratio vs the 360 tie in ratio you find that the 360 has a higher one. Even if they were equivalent for the sake of comparison, how would that make sense if a large portion of 360 hardware is rebuys unless 360 owners buy significantly more software? (which as far as I'm aware also is not the case)

Not really, as we have seen in the past that attachment ratios radical differ between consoles.  Again, we are right on top of each other here, so a minor difference in attach ratio can throw this off.  Software sales could be used if the difference was much larger, and time on market consistent, but since neither of these are the case, it tells us little.  It should and is brought up, but doesn't counter that the rebuy percentage is likely inconsisent and potentially larger on 360's side.

It is all about the uncertainties here.  One uncertainty being larger when we're this close will change who is in the lead.  Again, I think it is too little to worry about (PS2 had a huge lead, didn't matter much for PS3), but again this SW, we quibble over every minor little thing, no matters how irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

Let me give you a little math. A * X * Y * Z and B * X * Y * Z.  Now, if the differences in X Y and Z are minimal (and positive), even if you don't know what X Y and Z are, if you know the size of A and B, you can predict the relative size of the result of both these equations (so if A is bigger than B, you can predice A * X * Y * Z is bigger than B * X * Y * Z).

So, now, keep that in mind.  Now, we are dealing with wanting to know the fanbase.  If the relative values of the elements affecting such remain roughly the same percentage wise, we can predict such from the salesbase, even though you won't know the exact number.  Of course, this breaks down when we get really close, or we get one of the X Y Z factors not being consistent (for example rebuys) which is why I said it is too small to worry over. 

DerekLoffin

A) As I said, rebuys occur in every market, To what degree and for what reasons however are completely unknown to the public and to all companies. It doesn't matter, its not a metric to compare the success of your product vs the competition which is why you have never ever read a financial statement or market comparisons that factors in rebuys. You're trying to say that this might be a reason why one system is performing better than another, I'm not saying that's an incorrect conclusion, I'm telling you its not a reasonable metric which is why no one in any market has ever bothered to use it. We are going back and forth though so instead just answer this easy question. Why do you think rebuy ratio its never used?

Because we rarely ever get close enough for it to matter.  Here we're down to the wire, a 1% difference can decide things.  Companies don't bother reporting it as it is too much effort to measure for too little gain (they don't even tell us how many were sold to consumers, let alone how many were unique consumers). 

B) I know how math and stats work but you're over complicating a really simple thing here. You don't even need multi variable math for this. Software sales vs hardware sales will give an idea of your active buying base. Any rebuys will be acounted for in tie in ratios. If you compare the PS3 tie in ratio vs the 360 tie in ratio you find that the 360 has a higher one. Even if they were equivalent for the sake of comparison, how would that make sense if a large portion of 360 hardware is rebuys unless 360 owners buy significantly more software? (which as far as I'm aware also is not the case)

Not really, as we have seen in the past that attachment ratios radical differ between consoles.  Again, we are right on top of each other here, so a minor difference in attach ratio can throw this off.  Software sales could be used if the difference was much larger, and time on market consistent, but since neither of these are the case, it tells us little.  It should and is brought up, but doesn't counter that the rebuy percentage is likely inconsisent and potentially larger on 360's side.

It is all about the uncertainties here.  One uncertainty being larger when we're this close will change who is in the lead.  Again, I think it is too little to worry about (PS2 had a huge lead, didn't matter much for PS3), but again this SW, we quibble over every minor little thing, no matters how irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

So what this whole argument hinges on is, we don't know but lets pretend it matters?

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

A) As I said, rebuys occur in every market, To what degree and for what reasons however are completely unknown to the public and to all companies. It doesn't matter, its not a metric to compare the success of your product vs the competition which is why you have never ever read a financial statement or market comparisons that factors in rebuys. You're trying to say that this might be a reason why one system is performing better than another, I'm not saying that's an incorrect conclusion, I'm telling you its not a reasonable metric which is why no one in any market has ever bothered to use it. We are going back and forth though so instead just answer this easy question. Why do you think rebuy ratio its never used?

ActicEdge

Because we rarely ever get close enough for it to matter.  Here we're down to the wire, a 1% difference can decide things.  Companies don't bother reporting it as it is too much effort to measure for too little gain (they don't even tell us how many were sold to consumers, let alone how many were unique consumers). 

B) I know how math and stats work but you're over complicating a really simple thing here. You don't even need multi variable math for this. Software sales vs hardware sales will give an idea of your active buying base. Any rebuys will be acounted for in tie in ratios. If you compare the PS3 tie in ratio vs the 360 tie in ratio you find that the 360 has a higher one. Even if they were equivalent for the sake of comparison, how would that make sense if a large portion of 360 hardware is rebuys unless 360 owners buy significantly more software? (which as far as I'm aware also is not the case)

Not really, as we have seen in the past that attachment ratios radical differ between consoles.  Again, we are right on top of each other here, so a minor difference in attach ratio can throw this off.  Software sales could be used if the difference was much larger, and time on market consistent, but since neither of these are the case, it tells us little.  It should and is brought up, but doesn't counter that the rebuy percentage is likely inconsisent and potentially larger on 360's side.

It is all about the uncertainties here.  One uncertainty being larger when we're this close will change who is in the lead.  Again, I think it is too little to worry about (PS2 had a huge lead, didn't matter much for PS3), but again this SW, we quibble over every minor little thing, no matters how irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

So what this whole argument hinges on is, we don't know but lets pretend it matters?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]

Not really, as we have seen in the past that attachment ratios radical differ between consoles.  Again, we are right on top of each other here, so a minor difference in attach ratio can throw this off.  Software sales could be used if the difference was much larger, and time on market consistent, but since neither of these are the case, it tells us little.  It should and is brought up, but doesn't counter that the rebuy percentage is likely inconsisent and potentially larger on 360's side.

It is all about the uncertainties here.  One uncertainty being larger when we're this close will change who is in the lead.  Again, I think it is too little to worry about (PS2 had a huge lead, didn't matter much for PS3), but again this SW, we quibble over every minor little thing, no matters how irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

DerekLoffin

So what this whole argument hinges on is, we don't know but lets pretend it matters?

Wait what? We have shipment numbers which is what you use to determine sales. Before being discontinued the PS2 reached 155 million shipped. Unless you are talking about the lumping PS2 and PS3 hardware together in which case that's usually done to hide below expectation performance. But even then, bringing that up is nothing but literally saying we don't know so let's not bother using this information. When people try to insinuate a large portion of 360s were rebought, they are trying to attach that as reasoning for higher sales than the PS3. That's a no.