[QUOTE="tutt3r"]
[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]At this stage the gap is essentially meaningless
so why do these number bug you so much?
Inaccurate reporting is inaccurate reporting. If you don't care about inaccurate reporting then that's your prerogative. But if you have no interest in the numbers and have nothing to add to the thread besides your awesome oh so witty zingers then I don't see why you bothered to read and post in the thread.
you realize this isn't time or ny times, but a gaming site? But even they use estimations and rounding, so they innacurately used already inacurate numbers thats going to throw the whole thing off right? These numbers are not for in depth analyzation but to look at the big picture.
And these numbers are for the 360, not the ps3. Its just showing how far MS has come with the xbox.
shinrabanshou
Sure go ahead and look at how my arguments are "flawed" but really I think you should realize you missed the whole point of the original article.
The numbers don't really "bug" me, that was your take on my comment. My comment simply pointed out an inaccuracy in the reporting. Although inaccurate reporting and the resultant perpetuation of falsehoods is never a good thing.Do you mean the point of the original Gamasutra article or the point of the "Gaming Bolt" article?
The Gamasutra article offers a summary of Microsoft's earnings release. That is it's intent. And it mentions nothing of Nintendo or Sony's rival systems.
Presumably, the intent of the "Gaming Bolt" article is nominally the same. But they for reasons unknown decided to put in a console wars slant to it, using an outdated figure. And did it wrong.
Appropriate comparisons can be made when Nintendo and Sony release their earnings results next week, until then it's presumptuous to make any comparisons.
The 360 has done well for sure. If that's the big picture they're going for that's all well and good, but they shouldn't need to misinform to do so.
okay Ill admit maybe it was quite presumptuous of me to label you in the same group as fanboys, but typically fanboys tend to take a simple article waaaaaay out of proportion.
Since the gaming industry is typically neglected from analysts, research groups, and the like, there tends to be a slowdown of "numbers" informations(not only that but its dealing with millions of consoles/games from around the world). Thats why game sites must rely on 2 month old data. Also game site don't exactly have the best journalists (like how you noticed they decided to add some SW fuel) But when numbers get into the millions its not going to be 100% accurate, and 41.7 and 42 million doesnt seem like that huge of a difference, because the whole idea is that its a lot of consoles sold.
however it is true that maybe they should wait to compare, but their forums thrive off of this data and sensationalizing it a bit only helps their netowrk traffic. and yeha i agree with them needing to be more accurate, but until gaming sites actually get "proffessional" journalists I don't expect much
Log in to comment