me in 2006: idc where the 360 ends up because there have been a pile of last place consoles i have liked.
me in 2011: idc where the ps3 ends up because there have been a pile of last place consoles i have liked.
Xbox 360 11 million sales ahead of PS3 in US
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Ahh, and again the cows try to combat the fact that 360 has more hardware sold and sells more software (BF3 #s) with assumptions that have no sourced backing. Sure, the 360 had a bigger failure rate than PS3, but there is absolutely no PROOF that millions of 360's were rebuys. And even if they were, doesn't that just show how much people like the console? Cows continue to say these things like "360's always break" or "xbox live is a ripoff" and the truth is that true gamers on 360 just don't care. They know that their console is great and provides them with tons of fun, so they will continue to use it. I myself have a friend who just bought his 3rd 360, not because his old ones broke, but because he wanted a new slim model. On the flipside, when his PS3 disk drive went out, he waited 6 months to get it fixed, because he only buys exclusives on PS3. Everyone has different opinions but cows believe that since Sony was the dominant force in the industry, they owe them their loyalty. Sorry cows, but Sony did not win this gen. They have been playing catch up for 5 YEARS and have still not passed the console that all of you say is garbage. Fact, not opinon.PlaguelessIts a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.
As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...
Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.
My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.
Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.
Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.
[QUOTE="ImportBMWRacer"]
Older models yes, newer ones no. Stop spreading lies.
tormentos
Older models yes,the problem is that the majority are older models,maybe you forgot that the slim 360 was introduce last year,so no i am not sprading lies.
You do realise that they have changed the actual hardware before the slim right? So as I said stop spreading lies, Really, I dont know what you get from doing that.
Its a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.[QUOTE="Plagueless"]Ahh, and again the cows try to combat the fact that 360 has more hardware sold and sells more software (BF3 #s) with assumptions that have no sourced backing. Sure, the 360 had a bigger failure rate than PS3, but there is absolutely no PROOF that millions of 360's were rebuys. And even if they were, doesn't that just show how much people like the console? Cows continue to say these things like "360's always break" or "xbox live is a ripoff" and the truth is that true gamers on 360 just don't care. They know that their console is great and provides them with tons of fun, so they will continue to use it. I myself have a friend who just bought his 3rd 360, not because his old ones broke, but because he wanted a new slim model. On the flipside, when his PS3 disk drive went out, he waited 6 months to get it fixed, because he only buys exclusives on PS3. Everyone has different opinions but cows believe that since Sony was the dominant force in the industry, they owe them their loyalty. Sorry cows, but Sony did not win this gen. They have been playing catch up for 5 YEARS and have still not passed the console that all of you say is garbage. Fact, not opinon.ianuilliam
As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...
Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.
My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.
Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.
Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.
You got cliffnotes for dat.
cool, when i own stock in these companies i will actually care.
Chris_Williams
This, I never understood the fascination with sales as if they have a stake in the companies.
[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]
cool, when i own stock in these companies i will actually care.
Bikouchu35
This, I never understood the fascination with sales as if they have a stake in the companies.
It's just another way of saying "my console is better than yours".Its a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.[QUOTE="Plagueless"]Ahh, and again the cows try to combat the fact that 360 has more hardware sold and sells more software (BF3 #s) with assumptions that have no sourced backing. Sure, the 360 had a bigger failure rate than PS3, but there is absolutely no PROOF that millions of 360's were rebuys. And even if they were, doesn't that just show how much people like the console? Cows continue to say these things like "360's always break" or "xbox live is a ripoff" and the truth is that true gamers on 360 just don't care. They know that their console is great and provides them with tons of fun, so they will continue to use it. I myself have a friend who just bought his 3rd 360, not because his old ones broke, but because he wanted a new slim model. On the flipside, when his PS3 disk drive went out, he waited 6 months to get it fixed, because he only buys exclusives on PS3. Everyone has different opinions but cows believe that since Sony was the dominant force in the industry, they owe them their loyalty. Sorry cows, but Sony did not win this gen. They have been playing catch up for 5 YEARS and have still not passed the console that all of you say is garbage. Fact, not opinon.ianuilliam
As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...
Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.
My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.
Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.
Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.
Well thank you for making an educated reply, bringing up some valued points. As to the BF3 numbers, someone earlier in this thread posted them, and they are worldwide. If you do some research, you will find that the majority of mulriplats sold better on 360, and some of them were originally PS3 exclusives (GTA 4 for example) This is why i bring up that point. With regards to your friends, I completely agree. IMO, the 360 is the console you want if you spend most of your entertainment time playing games. If you love online gaming and play daily, I would highly recommend a 360, but in your friends case I would have recommended the PS3. If you dont use the features of Xbox Live other than Netflix, there is no reason to own a 360. It would be a waste. However, If you are like me, and use most of Lives features daily (I literally use party chat every time my xbox is on) then that would be the best choice imo.
[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]
cool, when i own stock in these companies i will actually care.
Bikouchu35
This, I never understood the fascination with sales as if they have a stake in the companies.
No. They absolutely do. Sales show what games are going to have sequels, guaranteed. And this affects gamers. If you want to look into the future, use sales to do so.
Its a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.[QUOTE="Plagueless"]Ahh, and again the cows try to combat the fact that 360 has more hardware sold and sells more software (BF3 #s) with assumptions that have no sourced backing. Sure, the 360 had a bigger failure rate than PS3, but there is absolutely no PROOF that millions of 360's were rebuys. And even if they were, doesn't that just show how much people like the console? Cows continue to say these things like "360's always break" or "xbox live is a ripoff" and the truth is that true gamers on 360 just don't care. They know that their console is great and provides them with tons of fun, so they will continue to use it. I myself have a friend who just bought his 3rd 360, not because his old ones broke, but because he wanted a new slim model. On the flipside, when his PS3 disk drive went out, he waited 6 months to get it fixed, because he only buys exclusives on PS3. Everyone has different opinions but cows believe that since Sony was the dominant force in the industry, they owe them their loyalty. Sorry cows, but Sony did not win this gen. They have been playing catch up for 5 YEARS and have still not passed the console that all of you say is garbage. Fact, not opinon.ianuilliam
As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...
Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.
My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.
Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.
Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.
Thumbs up for that post Ian. One of the few posters on here that can make a educated and non fanboyish post ;)
I would also like to point out, in terms of hardware failure, that if my xbox 360 slim failed, I would purchase another xbox 360. If my ps3 slim failed, I would mark it as a loss and move on with my life. The fact that so many people are willing to rebuy a faulty system rather than sell their games and get the competitor's system says at least a little bit for the experience on xbox 360 being an enjoyable one, despite the myriad problems it has.
Cool story bro. Year head start, products home country and xbox rebuys would all be factors that contribute to that lead. How far ahead is the ps3 in japan? joel_c17japan, the land of dating games and RPGs where the men dress in bikini tops and the women dress in...bikini tops.
Well thank you for making an educated reply, bringing up some valued points. As to the BF3 numbers, someone earlier in this thread posted them, and they are worldwide. If you do some research, you will find that the majority of mulriplats sold better on 360, and some of them were originally PS3 exclusives (GTA 4 for example) This is why i bring up that point. With regards to your friends, I completely agree. IMO, the 360 is the console you want if you spend most of your entertainment time playing games. If you love online gaming and play daily, I would highly recommend a 360, but in your friends case I would have recommended the PS3. If you dont use the features of Xbox Live other than Netflix, there is no reason to own a 360. It would be a waste. However, If you are like me, and use most of Lives features daily (I literally use party chat every time my xbox is on) then that would be the best choice imo.PlaguelessI must've missed it earlier. Looking on Google, all I can find about BF3 sales between PS3 and 360 is forum posts, and one or two blogs, all of which, eventually, point to VGCharts as the source. :|And to further my feeling of :| , they all say the 360 version "almost doubled" the PS3 version. 2.2 million vs 1.5 million. 2.2 million is 50% more... 100% more (3 million) would be doubling. 50% more is not "almost" 100% more, even if there WAS a real source. :?
The problem with doing research on software sales comparisons is that there just aren't any real sources out there. Periodically, a games publisher will announce sales when the game hits a milestone (1 million, 5 million, etc.) but they may or may not announce platform splits. We have trackers like NPD and Media Create, but these have a number of problems. For one thing... they are basically fancy guesses. Trackers track a number of retailers in a market, and then extrapolate data for the rest, to determine an educated guess about sell through in that market. Eh, I guess it's better than VGChartz, but it's still just a guess. Secondly, we don't have worldwide trackers. NPD is just the US. Mediate Create is Japan. Every now and then, we get data from the EU. What about Asia, Africa, S America, the rest of N America, and Europe for those times when there isn't up-to date info floating around from EU? As much as many people like to think America = the whole world, it doesn't, nor does America + Japan. Third, NPD doesn't release split-platform software numbers anymore. As I understand it, they may say 1 million copies of a game sold this month... and then someone applies the month's US software tie ratio for the PS3 and 360 to that game... but that's not really reliable. What if the game in question actually sold higher on PS3 that month, but 360 had a higher US tie ratio that month because the Halo remake came out or something? Applying the above maths will result in guesses that show the 360 version selling more. And then, on top of all that... trackers are only tracking the top 20 games. So a game that never reaches the top 20, even if it sells a steady amount for years, and eventually passes many other games that sold great and were in the top 5 for a month or two... but then dropped off to nothing, won't have any data at all. The only thing that leaves is VGChartz, widely viewed as a joke here, or when the platform holders release tie ratio or sales totals. In MS' case, they do that every month... using NPD report data, so its only for US, and prone to all the otherflaws I listed about using trackers. For Sony and MS, they list worldwide software totals alongside hardware in their fiscal reports, which would be ideal for actually answering the question of which sells more software, if MS did the same. As it stands, it will never be provable one way or the other, but it still gets taken for granted all the time around here that 360 sells more software.
As for my sister and bro-in-law... yeah, they totally screwed the pooch getting a 360. For their needs, PS3 would have been better, but the majority of purchasers aren't as informed as people that live on video gaming forums, and see 2 fairly comparable products, one of which has a lower base price. For some people, 360 is better. As I said before, when I bought my PS3, I compared price and features, and a 360 would've cost me more (and ultimately been a losing bet, since, as I guessed it would, BR beat HDDVD and PS3 wound up with more exclusives I like), but that's not the case for everyone. If wifi wasn't a factor, if you don't buy movies, or care enough to get them in HD (or didn't have an HD tv), if you were a die-hard Halo fan (nothing wrong with that, either), or if Live's features (ie, CGC) outweigh its extra cost... then sure. 360 might have been the better choice, and I'm not trying to imply that any of those are wrong or invalid... Basically, especially at launch, PS3 had a higher base cost, but it included all of the premium features that 360 either lacked, or charged extra for. If you just wanted games, and either didn't play online, or didn't mind paying for that as a seperate annual cost, 360 was a great console. Now, in some ways, they are even closer... the 360 has brought a lot of feature parity to the table, but still lumps a lot of those into their paid service, and still lacks BR, but PS3 has brought it's base price to basically the same (still more than the lowest 360... which has no HDD, but less than the more comparable 360). So now, more than ever, it comes down largely to which exclusives you prefer... Unfortunately, MS' current approach is to put out nothing else but casual and kids games, while cutting off the 80%or so of their market that haven't bought Kinect, and giving them 1-2 games a year, so IMO, the PS3 is considerably better for the core gamer at this point.
But yeah, thanks for actually reading my post, instead of just making a comment about walls of text, tl/dr, or asking for cliff notes. I know my posts ca get a little long-winded sometimes, but it's not like some of these walls with no capitalization, no punctuation, terrible spelling and grammer, and no coherent thought process. People act like they want to have something resembing intelligent debate, but then they act like it's too hard to read anything longer than one or two sentences. One or two sentences are grand... if you're just maing a remark, or going for some ownage or something like that... but if you're trying to discuss something with someone with thought out arguments, sometimes it's just not sufficient to explain your reasoning. So kudos to you, sir, for being able to read, and not whining about having to do it on a message board. (Seriously, does that not make anyone else go :? ?)
[QUOTE="racing1750"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Its a given here that everyone will use generalizations about the other fan-groups, and credit what a few say to the entire faction... I know I'm guilty of it, from time to time, as well, so while I don't think most cows say things like "360 has only sold more because of how many 360 owners had to re-buy out of warranty RRoDs," I'm not going to try to act like there aren't cows who do say it... Personally, I focus more on how PS3, while being more expensive the entire time, has sold something like 11 million more, worldwide, in the 20 fiscal quarters it's been released than the 360 did in the same time. When people are analyzing and comparing product sales succcess, its almost always done with launch-aligned sales graphs.
As for software, I haven't paid any attention at all to BF3, what's so big about the sales numbers? What are the numbers, what's the source, and are they worldwide, or just US? Its funny you say something about cows using "assumptions that have no sourced backing" right after saying 360 "sells more software," since there is no source to confirm that, at least in regards to total worldwide software...
Now, as I implied earlier, I don't really throw around the "360 numbers are inflated because of re-buys" excuse, but with regards to your question that "doesn't that just show how much they like the console?" and your anecdotes about your firend who bought another 360 because he loves it so much and wanted the new model, but waited to replace his broken PS3 because he only gets it for exclusives... Everyone's story is different. Here's an anecdote to go along with yours.
My sister and brother-in-law just bought a second 360. They initially got a 360 instead of a PS3 based purely on the base model price being cheaper. Then when they realized they needed an HDD, and saw how much a MS charged for them, they said they wish they'd gotten a PS3 instead. They ended up getting a second-hand 20gb HDD from a friend. Then they found out they couldn't use Netflix without Gold, which they use exclusively for tv watching, since they don't have cable and over-air service is terrible where they live (they don't do a lot of online gaming, so they basically have to get Gold JUST for Netflix). They REALLY hate that. When they got a RRoD, they went 3 weeks with no entertainment (no gaming, no dvd player, no netflix), but the replacement was free, at least. Then a few months ago, the dvd drive completely failed, out of warranty. So after saving up (playing nothing but arcade titles), they went out and bought a new 360 for $300... complaining about how they'd rather have a PS3 all the way to the register. But since that would mean having to rebuy all their games that they regularly play (and restart them again...), including Rock Band 1, 2, 3, and Beatles, along with instruments, and all their DLC, and all that would cost way too much, they basically had no choice.
Personally, I don't think I owe Sony my loyalty because they were dominant during the PS1/2 gens... I picked a PS3 at launch because, for me, it was the better system, and was the safer bet for being better in the long haul. Factoring in the cost and features that I was interested in, a 360, with similar capabilities and features, would have cost more... upgrading the HDD was limited and way overpriced, wifi at the time cost extra, rechargable battery packs cost extra, guessing on at least 5 years, Live would have added $250, which turned out to be a lowball estimate, since the 360 went past 5 years, and the cost of Live went up, an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies cost extra, and I was betting on BR anyway, which turns out to have been right... and then there were all these early reports about faulty hardware floating around. Add to that the fact that Sony had a much better record for creating new firt party IPs, so even if third party exclusives seemed like they were going to be less common, chances are by the end of the gen, PS3 would have gotten more/better exclusives. Lems like to act like cows are just blindly loyal to Sony for no reason because of the PS2 domination (see, that's me doing the generalization thing too), but don't waqnt to accept that some people picked PS3, even back when it was $600, based on actually comparing and making predictions (which turned out right, as it turns out) about games, price and features.
Also, inb4 Allthishate complains about my reply being a wall of text. If it's too long or difficult for you to read, you don't have to read it, or respond to it.
sts106mat
Thumbs up for that post Ian. One of the few posters on here that can make a educated and non fanboyish post ;)
he is SW answer to Tolkien.Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:he is SW answer to Tolkien.Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:[QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="racing1750"]
Thumbs up for that post Ian. One of the few posters on here that can make a educated and non fanboyish post ;)
ianuilliam
It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.
Perhaps. But it may also say something about how people, 5-6 years into a gen, might have very large libraries, or large investments in DLC, or games with expensive peripherals, and would rather rebuy a faulty system, even though they might to switch, than to have to take pennies-on-the-dollar in value for their collection to start again, completely lose out on any DD games and DLC they had purchased, and have to rebuy peripherals which may be hard to find new or in good condition.I would also like to point out, in terms of hardware failure, that if my xbox 360 slim failed, I would purchase another xbox 360. If my ps3 slim failed, I would mark it as a loss and move on with my life. The fact that so many people are willing to rebuy a faulty system rather than sell their games and get the competitor's system says at least a little bit for the experience on xbox 360 being an enjoyable one, despite the myriad problems it has.
xLittlekillx
Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"] he is SW answer to Tolkien.racing1750
It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.
I know what you're saying, its refreshing these days.[QUOTE="racing1750"][QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:
Heil68
It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.
I know what you're saying, its refreshing these days.I disagree. I don't think there's anything mature about arguing with strangers on the internet about which video game system is better. I see system wars as a place that is perpetuated by mega-biased blasting of things that other people like in order to fuel an ongoing war in which neither side can truly win. It's all for fun!
There is no mature and logical way to tell people that they like the wrong thing. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="sts106mat"] he is SW answer to Tolkien.racing1750
It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.
Well, that's true on one hand... but we'd miss out on a lot of the lulz. :) You know, actualy, I take that back... there'd still be room for funny sigs (I really need to change mine like about a month ago...) and gifs, and even some of the light-hearted trolling, if we just got rid of some of the pure outright crazies, and people that take things way too personally. There's folk like you, and sts106mat, and the delta-whatshisname-fella, that even when I'm arguing against, and on the complete opposite side on an issue... I can still respect your position, and we can debate using adult things, like words. And logic. And even if we never agree on the issue, we can walk away and still repsect the other. And then there's people that always resort to personal attacks, or look like they must be posting from a cell phone... back before they had qwerty keys ("y u h8 360? ps3 is 4 losers," and that sort of gibberish), or outright refuse to read any post with more than 25 words. It would indeed be better if there were more people like the former, and less like the latter.
Quit trolling Cow. My 360 broke 3 times and I haven't paid a penny to get it replaced each time. I'm pissed that the hardware was poor but give microsoft credit in giving free replacements. And don't even bring up the slim, cause if you haven't already noticed there's a PS3 version of that too.
Magescrew
Wait until your warranty is out and let us know if paying $100 or more for repairs is great.
Also why would i give credit to MS for replacing free a console that was defective to begin with.?See this is one of the most wrong things i have read,and you are not the only 360 user that actually defend and credit to MS for replacing or repairing the defective console they sold you.
You know what if MS would have have not extended the warranty several things would had happen.
1-The RROD problem would be even bigger.
2-The goverment would have step in because of the law sue,and would have force them,like it happen with DRE and sony.
3-They could had been force to do a recal that would be even worst.
You do realise that they have changed the actual hardware before the slim right? So as I said stop spreading lies, Really, I dont know what you get from doing that.
ImportBMWRacer
Yes and it last longer and suffer less from RROD,but it does suffer it RROD wasn't wipeout from newer fat models,they just tolerate heat better,but they still RROD,all 360 models but the slim RROD.
Well thank you for making an educated reply, bringing up some valued points. As to the BF3 numbers, someone earlier in this thread posted them, and they are worldwide. If you do some research, you will find that the majority of mulriplats sold better on 360, and some of them were originally PS3 exclusives (GTA 4 for example) This is why i bring up that point. With regards to your friends, I completely agree. IMO, the 360 is the console you want if you spend most of your entertainment time playing games. If you love online gaming and play daily, I would highly recommend a 360, but in your friends case I would have recommended the PS3. If you dont use the features of Xbox Live other than Netflix, there is no reason to own a 360. It would be a waste. However, If you are like me, and use most of Lives features daily (I literally use party chat every time my xbox is on) then that would be the best choice imo.Plagueless
How is that a shocker.? The xbox 360 has more units sold since the PS3 arrive,is a given they will sell more games that is not even something that should be devated,the xbox 360 has a bigger user base since the PS3 launch,in fact it was basically 8 million 360 0 PS3 on october 2006.
Eh doesn't change the possiblity that by the end of this year the ps3 will be in 2nd place...will it mean something? no it took em 6 years or so to do it..
Eh doesn't change the possiblity that by the end of this year the ps3 will be in 2nd place...will it mean something? no it took em 6 years or so to do it..
WilliamRLBaker
To be specific PS3 is 3rd worldwide and dead last in US
3rd is last, saolin/ablefa3/theseekar.To be specific PS3 is 3rd worldwide and dead last in US
loosingENDS
The 360 is currently last in the collective PAL territories, non-Japanese Asia and Japan.
The PS3 is currently last in the US.
The Wii is first in ALL territories.
Besides.
[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]
Eh doesn't change the possiblity that by the end of this year the ps3 will be in 2nd place...will it mean something? no it took em 6 years or so to do it..
To be specific PS3 is 3rd worldwide and dead last in US
um...yes it is 3rd world wide right now doesn't change the fact that world wide by the end of this year it will likely be 2nd place world wide it wont matter cause it took em 6 years to do it comming from having a 120m selling machine then a 150m selling machine. But they will get to 2nd place.[QUOTE="racing1750"]
[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Oh, you guys... now I'm blushing. :oops:
ianuilliam
It's refreshing to know that some people on this forum can sit back and make a fair unbiased post. If most on here had your maturity then SW's would be a much better place to post in.
Well, that's true on one hand... but we'd miss out on a lot of the lulz. :) You know, actualy, I take that back... there'd still be room for funny sigs (I really need to change mine like about a month ago...) and gifs, and even some of the light-hearted trolling, if we just got rid of some of the pure outright crazies, and people that take things way too personally. There's folk like you, and sts106mat, and the delta-whatshisname-fella, that even when I'm arguing against, and on the complete opposite side on an issue... I can still respect your position, and we can debate using adult things, like words. And logic. And even if we never agree on the issue, we can walk away and still repsect the other. And then there's people that always resort to personal attacks, or look like they must be posting from a cell phone... back before they had qwerty keys ("y u h8 360? ps3 is 4 losers," and that sort of gibberish), or outright refuse to read any post with more than 25 words. It would indeed be better if there were more people like the former, and less like the latter.Agreed. We can completely disagree but respect the others view. Some people on here who I'll not mention are so loyal to their platform their posts disgust me how fanboyish they come of as. I have more bias towards the 360 but not for one second will I not praise another systems exclusives, hell I even rated UC2 a 9.5. I actually lol'd at the bit about the cell phone, some folks on here can't grasp the english language and it hurts my eyes reading their posts :P
Approximately 50 million of that 150 million was sold this generation.um...yes it is 3rd world wide right now doesn't change the fact that world wide by the end of this year it will likely be 2nd place world wide it wont matter cause it took em 6 years to do it comming from having a 120m selling machine then a 150m selling machine. But they will get to 2nd place.WilliamRLBaker
The "marketshare" arguments are flawed. There is no translation of marketshare between generations.
Approximately 50 million of that 150 million was sold this generation.[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]
um...yes it is 3rd world wide right now doesn't change the fact that world wide by the end of this year it will likely be 2nd place world wide it wont matter cause it took em 6 years to do it comming from having a 120m selling machine then a 150m selling machine. But they will get to 2nd place.shinrabanshou
The "marketshare" arguments are flawed. There is no translation of marketshare between generations.
LOL dude dont even start face it the ps3 went from a 120m selling system, to a 150m selling system to a less then 60m selling system and 3rd place. That means a hell of alot more then any thing the 360 has done. I'm simply disagreeing that the 360 will stay in the lead by any means such as using US specific numbers it will become 3rd place world wide this is a guarantee...But it wont mean anything since this generation is pretty much over.
P.S: and no it wasn't no 50m sold this genration its more like 20m.
LOL dude dont even start face it the ps3 went from a 120m selling system, to a 150m selling system to a less then 60m selling system and 3rd place. That means a hell of alot more then any thing the 360 has done. WilliamRLBakerI'm well aware of what the PS1 and PS2 sold. And that the PS3 has not sold anywhere near as much and hasn't done anywhere near as well.
But there is no way to accurately calculate marketshare across console generations.
At the launch of the current gen the PS2 had sold approximately 100 million units. At the launch of the sixth gen, the PS1 had sold around EDIT: 50 million if counting the gen from the launch of the Dreamcast.
They didn't go from a "150 million selling" console to a "55 million selling console." The argument holds no real validity.
No. It's been 50 million. I have actual sources when I make a claim or statement, unlike you.P.S: and no it wasn't no 50m sold this genration its more like 20m.
WilliamRLBaker
No. It's been 50 million. I have actual sources when I make a claim or statement, unlike you.Oh snap. :o[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]
P.S: and no it wasn't no 50m sold this genration its more like 20m.
shinrabanshou
Yeah... I hate the "150 million down to 55! Biggest loss of marketshare evar! Sony are teh LOSE!" argument. Ignoring the fact that that's not how marketshare works... if we're using 2011 PS2 numbers, maybe we should wait till either the PS3 is 11, or 5 years after the PS4 launches, to see how PS3 did comparitively. I don't expect it to be around 150 million... but it'll be a lot more than 60. Assuming "next-gen" hits Q4 next year, and PS3 posts similar sales as it did the last 2 years, it'll be near, or above, 70 million before the start of the next gen. If it keeps selling for 5+ years into next gen, and drops to bargain prices like the PS2 did, it's very possible it could hit 100 million lifetime sales. And no matter what SW says about who won or lost this gen, 3 100 million selling consoles in a row would be hell of a hat trick for Sony.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment