I'm confused, which console ended up last in sales? X360 or PS3?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

It doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not you enjoyed your system(s).

#52 Posted by the_bi99man (11028 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"] RRODPinnacleGamingP

That made no sense.

are you denying RROD didnt lead to extra sales?

I'm sure there were people who went out a bought another 360 after theirs sh!t itself, but, lots of them were under warranty, and were replaced by MS. I could be wrong, but the way I understand it, warranty replacements for RROD don't get counted as new sales, in anyone's numbers.

#53 Posted by planbfreak4eva (2870 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zurrur"]

70 milj in 6 years is better than 70 milj in 7 years

So xbox360 came in last

OneLazyAsian

Sorry doesn't work that way. 70 mil is 70 mil, whether it took you 6 or 7 years to make it is irrelevant.

so if you were saving lets say 70k. there is no difference in saving it in 6 years or 7years? the excuses that lems use
#54 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

you denying RROD didnt lead to extra sales?PinnacleGamingP

Why would I deny simple speculation? There's no need.

#55 Posted by SonySoldier-_- (713 posts) -

So the 360 released a year earlier than their competition and still couldn't outsell them in the long run. I think Lems are in complete shock and damage control right now. They never thought this was happen.

#56 Posted by EnergyAbsorber (4893 posts) -

I like how lems are saying "360 won" and cows are saying "PS3 won" yet nobody is providing any source/link for evidence.

#57 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

I like how lems are saying "360 won" and cows are saying "PS3 won" yet nobody is providing any source/link for evidence.

EnergyAbsorber

There's a thread full of it. It's just spilled over into multiple other threads, because people are stupid.

#58 Posted by Shift05 (599 posts) -
[QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]

[QUOTE="Zurrur"]

70 milj in 6 years is better than 70 milj in 7 years

So xbox360 came in last

planbfreak4eva

Sorry doesn't work that way. 70 mil is 70 mil, whether it took you 6 or 7 years to make it is irrelevant.

so if you were saving lets say 70k. there is no difference in saving it in 6 years or 7years? the excuses that lems use

Just because someone starts a year later and is able to save the same amount doesn't mean he therefore has more money, at the end of the day they both only have 70K to spend. 70K=70K even in this scenario.
#59 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

Of course you're confused. You've got fanboys fighting tooth and nail about something that woon't be decided for several years.

360 is still ahead now. But despite the voracious desire to artificially end the 7th gen now, it's not nearly over. Not in real life, and not in here.

#60 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

Of course you're confused. You've got fanboys fighting tooth and nail about something that woon't be decided for several years.

360 is still ahead now. But despite the voracious desire to artificially end the 7th gen now, it's not nearly over. Not in real life, and not in here.

santoron

In here, the current gen ends upon release of the first next-gen console. The gens do run alongside each other in the real world.

#61 Posted by Badosh (12727 posts) -
[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"] :lol: you wanna use month and half ago headstart on numbers argument, but you dont wanna use year head start on the same argument. your argument, is sad. but lets do it. a month of RROD, and a half for E74. count the free 360s? No. how bout this tho, my rate of sales flow, still mathematically outdoes your month and half sales bro.

Uh...
#62 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Whichever of the three has the least number when it is retired from retail.
#63 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Of course you're confused. You've got fanboys fighting tooth and nail about something that woon't be decided for several years.

360 is still ahead now. But despite the voracious desire to artificially end the 7th gen now, it's not nearly over. Not in real life, and not in here.

lundy86_4

In here, the current gen ends upon release of the first next-gen console. The gens do run alongside each other in the real world.

Now why on earth would you think that? It makes no logical sense, anymore than it would to not count consles until all platforms release. Such inconsistency is an attempt to shy away from the facts. Would you ignore the last two years of the 6th gen, simply because the Dreamcast was out in Japan, ignoring 2 full years of fantastic games? Making such arbitrary distictions is meritless, and ignores dozens of high scoring games and - for those playing a different game - millions of hardware sales. For No Good Reason.

Show me where such was thing is written and agreed upon, and I'll happily concede the point.

#64 Posted by planbfreak4eva (2870 posts) -
[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"][QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]

Sorry doesn't work that way. 70 mil is 70 mil, whether it took you 6 or 7 years to make it is irrelevant.

Shift05
so if you were saving lets say 70k. there is no difference in saving it in 6 years or 7years? the excuses that lems use

Just because someone starts a year later and is able to save the same amount doesn't mean he therefore has more money, at the end of the day they both only have 70K to spend. 70K=70K even in this scenario.

for a company its better to reach milestones earlier. they did it in 6 years. anyway. why we even fighting over sales
#65 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

Now why on earth would you think that? It makes no logical sense, anymore than it would to not count consles until all platforms release. Such inconsistency is an attempt to shy away from the facts. Would you ignore the last two years of the 6th gen, simply because the Dreamcast was out in Japan, ignoring 2 full years of fantastic games? Making such arbitrary distictions is meritless, and ignores dozens of high scoring games and - for those playing a different game - millions of hardware sales. For No Good Reason.

Show me where such was thing is written and agreed upon, and I'll happily concede the point.

santoron

Why would I think that's what happens here? AFAIK, it;s been the way of doing things for a while.

Dude, very few rules are written down regarding the metagame, yet we happily use it (in most cases). This was the closest thing we had to guidelines regarding System Wars.Nobody is ignoring anything. Attention simply shifts. Last generation discussion gets designated to the legacy forums.

----

Can you find anything written regarding the generation carrying on until other arbitrary conclusions draw a close? System Wars rules are mostly unwritten.

#66 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Now why on earth would you think that? It makes no logical sense, anymore than it would to not count consles until all platforms release. Such inconsistency is an attempt to shy away from the facts. Would you ignore the last two years of the 6th gen, simply because the Dreamcast was out in Japan, ignoring 2 full years of fantastic games? Making such arbitrary distictions is meritless, and ignores dozens of high scoring games and - for those playing a different game - millions of hardware sales. For No Good Reason.

Show me where such was thing is written and agreed upon, and I'll happily concede the point.

lundy86_4

Why would I think that's what happens here? AFAIK, it;s been the way of doing things for a while.

Dude, very few rules are written down regarding the metagame, yet we happily use it (in most cases). This was the closest thing we had to guidelines regarding System Wars.Nobody is ignoring anything. Attention simply shifts. Last generation discussion gets designated to the legacy forums.

----

Can you find anything written regarding the generation carrying on until other arbitrary conclusions draw a close? System Wars rules are mostly unwritten.

As far as I know, that Never has been the way things were done. We don't say the PS2 sold 100 million units, we say it sold 150 some million units. We still talk about AAA PS2 games released for the system post 360 launch. We still count PS1/N64 sales and games released from late 98-2000, even though there was the Dreamcast out and about.

Honestly, I've never seen anyone make this claim except in the recent case, and only because of the tight race for last around here in the (non-metagame) HD twin salesrace. I'd think that in the absence of any clear rule or reason to discount relevant info, we'd - by common sense - count everything. It's a bummer for those wanting to have an immediate "Who got last?" answer in the sales race, but the Metagame cares not for such things anyhow.

#67 Posted by Shift05 (599 posts) -
[QUOTE="Shift05"][QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"] so if you were saving lets say 70k. there is no difference in saving it in 6 years or 7years? the excuses that lems useplanbfreak4eva
Just because someone starts a year later and is able to save the same amount doesn't mean he therefore has more money, at the end of the day they both only have 70K to spend. 70K=70K even in this scenario.

for a company its better to reach milestones earlier. they did it in 6 years. anyway. why we even fighting over sales

To companies net income matters far more than number of products sold, I would strongly doubt that those numbers would favor Sony though. But I do share your sentiment, fighting over sales at this point in time is irrelevant, the generation is coming to an end, we will see focus moved to the new generation no matter how much they continue to sell.
#68 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shift05"][QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"] so if you were saving lets say 70k. there is no difference in saving it in 6 years or 7years? the excuses that lems useplanbfreak4eva
Just because someone starts a year later and is able to save the same amount doesn't mean he therefore has more money, at the end of the day they both only have 70K to spend. 70K=70K even in this scenario.

for a company its better to reach milestones earlier. they did it in 6 years. anyway. why we even fighting over sales

if we're going by what matters to companies then the PS3 is in last place, seeing as how it was the console that lost the most money

#69 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Now why on earth would you think that? It makes no logical sense, anymore than it would to not count consles until all platforms release. Such inconsistency is an attempt to shy away from the facts. Would you ignore the last two years of the 6th gen, simply because the Dreamcast was out in Japan, ignoring 2 full years of fantastic games? Making such arbitrary distictions is meritless, and ignores dozens of high scoring games and - for those playing a different game - millions of hardware sales. For No Good Reason.

Show me where such was thing is written and agreed upon, and I'll happily concede the point.

santoron

Why would I think that's what happens here? AFAIK, it;s been the way of doing things for a while.

Dude, very few rules are written down regarding the metagame, yet we happily use it (in most cases). This was the closest thing we had to guidelines regarding System Wars.Nobody is ignoring anything. Attention simply shifts. Last generation discussion gets designated to the legacy forums.

----

Can you find anything written regarding the generation carrying on until other arbitrary conclusions draw a close? System Wars rules are mostly unwritten.

As far as I know, that Never has been the way things were done. We don't say the PS2 sold 100 million units, we say it sold 150 some million units. We still talk about AAA PS2 games released for the system post 360 launch. We still count PS1/N64 sales and games released from late 98-2000, even though there was the Dreamcast out and about.

Honestly, I've never seen anyone make this claim except in the recent case, and only because of the tight race for last around here in the (non-metagame) HD twin salesrace. I'd think that in the absence of any clear rule or reason to discount relevant info, we'd - by common sense - count everything. It's a bummer for those wanting to have an immediate "Who got last?" answer in the sales race, but the Metagame cares not for such things anyhow.

We're not cutting off all knowledge of the gen when it ends. We're not gonna quote sales numbers that are years old. The PS2 won last gen... We've seen it stated here hundreds of times (hell, Cows are still on it).

When do we stop the generation? Upon the release of all next-gen systems?

----

I'd be interested to see which of us is correct, as it seems we've seen very different aspects of System Wars.

I think we should vie for strict rules, stated in a sticky.

#70 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -
I think it's fair to say they're even.
#71 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

I think it's fair to say they're even._Cadbury_

Yep. Such an odd way to come out of a huge "war".

#72 Posted by darkspineslayer (19370 posts) -

[QUOTE="PinnacleGamingP"]ps3 won, but some lems will make you think its a tie. even if this was the case, the tiebreaker would go to the season series winner where the PS2 destroyed the xbox, therefore by default!!lundy86_4

How, exactly, did the PS3 win?

Dat elusive 3rd place. Wii and PC don't exist, silly :p
#73 Posted by Eddie-Vedder (7767 posts) -

Cows say 360 is last.

Lems say it's a tie.

360 is Last.

#74 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Why would I think that's what happens here? AFAIK, it;s been the way of doing things for a while.

Dude, very few rules are written down regarding the metagame, yet we happily use it (in most cases). This was the closest thing we had to guidelines regarding System Wars.Nobody is ignoring anything. Attention simply shifts. Last generation discussion gets designated to the legacy forums.

----

Can you find anything written regarding the generation carrying on until other arbitrary conclusions draw a close? System Wars rules are mostly unwritten.

lundy86_4

As far as I know, that Never has been the way things were done. We don't say the PS2 sold 100 million units, we say it sold 150 some million units. We still talk about AAA PS2 games released for the system post 360 launch. We still count PS1/N64 sales and games released from late 98-2000, even though there was the Dreamcast out and about.

Honestly, I've never seen anyone make this claim except in the recent case, and only because of the tight race for last around here in the (non-metagame) HD twin salesrace. I'd think that in the absence of any clear rule or reason to discount relevant info, we'd - by common sense - count everything. It's a bummer for those wanting to have an immediate "Who got last?" answer in the sales race, but the Metagame cares not for such things anyhow.

We're not cutting off all knowledge of the gen when it ends. We're not gonna quote sales numbers that are years old. The PS2 won last gen... We've seen it stated here hundreds of times (hell, Cows are still on it).

When do we stop the generation? Upon the release of all next-gen systems?

----

I'd be interested to see which of us is correct, as it seems we've seen very different aspects of System Wars.

I think we should vie for strict rules, stated in a sticky.

Love the idea of formalized rules. If for my OCD more than anything. :oops:

IMO, you never stop a generation. We aren't here to invent or mold facts, simply to reflect and hotly debate them. As far as the relevant SW conversation, (as in, which systems do we talk about here) I'd say it's the current platforms from each player. So for the next year, (IMO) the WiiU, PS3, and 360 are still in play, and we don't legacy current platforms just because one of the 3 has made a switch. If not, imagine how boring this place would have been if Nintendo would have brought out a new system 2-3 years ago as many predicted? That's not a fun SW. Goitta keep all the factions playing, until their Maker of choice leaves the business.:P

As far as sales/games, though? They Always count for those interested. So when the 360 eventually passes 100 million, that's still going to be a fact, as will be whatever the other 2 sell. And those wanting a first/last on those sales will always use the actual numbers. However, their main continued discussion on those three would by then be over in Legacy.

Honestly, with the number of motivated participants here, a Mega rules series of threads with actual posted votes on a few situations seems like a great idea. A no brainer, too.

#75 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

Dat elusive 3rd place. Wii and PC don't exist, silly :pdarkspineslayer

The Wii isn't allowed to win. Stupid kiddy plaything :x

#76 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

Cows say 360 is last.

Lems say it's a tie.

360 is Last.

Eddie-Vedder
I see you're in denial
#77 Posted by Cheleman (7616 posts) -

They're technically tied, if I'm correct.

#78 Posted by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

Love the idea of formalized rules. If for my OCD more than anything. :oops:

IMO, you never stop a generation. We aren't here to invent or mold facts, simply to reflect and hotly debate them. As far as the relevant SW conversation, (as in, which systems do we talk about here) I'd say it's the current platforms from each player. So for the next year, (IMO) the WiiU, PS3, and 360 are still in play, and we don't legacy current platforms just because one of the 3 has made a switch. If not, imagine how boring this place would have been if Nintendo would have brought out a new system 2-3 years ago as many predicted? That's not a fun SW. Goitta keep all the factions playing, until their Maker of choice leaves the business.:P

As far as sales/games, though? They Always count for those interested. So when the 360 eventually passes 100 million, that's still going to be a fact, as will be whatever the other 2 sell. And those wanting a first/last on those sales will always use the actual numbers. However, their main continued discussion on those three would by then be over in Legacy.

Honestly, with the number of motivated participants here, a Mega rules series of threads with actual posted votes on a few situations seems like a great idea. A no brainer, too.

santoron

Feel you on that one. I don't have OCD, but it seems like it on occasion :P

Funnily enough, I agree that the 360 and PS3 should still be debated here with the WiiU. Largely because it would be a barren place without them., like you say.

Hell, PS2 sales even crop up here on occasion. They will always be relevant, undoubtedly. Especially since we are looking at the successors.

----

All in all though, I hope we do get some strict outlines for the new generation. Be it via debate or polling.

#79 Posted by Duckyindiana (2288 posts) -

They're technically tied, if I'm correct.

Cheleman

Pretty much but expect people to b*tch moan and fight for days too come!

#80 Posted by LLYNCES (381 posts) -

The 360 crossed 70 million a month before the PS3 did, so while the gap is practically negligible, the PS3 is still behind the 360. khoofia_pika
and the Xbox 360 is the far more successful console in terms of profits.


#81 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

must be ps3.

because about 2 months MS said it sold 70 million. Just few days ago sony said they hit the 70 million mark.

Now what you think is going sell more?

A: redesigned ps3?

B 360 slim price cut?

#82 Posted by TheEpicGoat (2006 posts) -

Does it really matter?

#83 Posted by The_Game21x (26342 posts) -

Cows say 360 is last.

Lems say it's a tie.

360 is Last.

Eddie-Vedder

360 fans don't say it's a tie, the numbers say it's a tie.

Or, at least, the PS3 has tied Microsoft's numbers that were released a month and a half ago.

I know things like "facts" are a little hard for you to understand but it is what it is.

#84 Posted by CwlHeddwyn (5314 posts) -

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

Cows say 360 is last.

Lems say it's a tie.

360 is Last.

The_Game21x

360 fans don't say it's a tie, the numbers say it's a tie.

Or, at least, the PS3 has tied Microsoft's numbers that were released a month and a half ago.

I know things like "facts" are a little hard for you to understand but it is what it is.

Actually Sony's latest numbers include PS2 sales.
#85 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9726 posts) -
according to vgchartz, the most respected news source in the world, the 360 is in the lead by 1.7 million.
#86 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9726 posts) -

must be ps3.

because about 2 months MS said it sold 70 million. Just few days ago sony said they hit the 70 million mark.

Now what you think is going sell more?

A: redesigned ps3?

B 360 slim price cut?

k2theswiss

plus there's the impact of Halo 4. Also btw, the new PS3 is overpriced. They might have been in the lead now if they did the ps2 slim strategy and pass the production savings onto the consumers.

#87 Posted by planbfreak4eva (2870 posts) -

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"][QUOTE="Shift05"] Just because someone starts a year later and is able to save the same amount doesn't mean he therefore has more money, at the end of the day they both only have 70K to spend. 70K=70K even in this scenario. rilpas

for a company its better to reach milestones earlier. they did it in 6 years. anyway. why we even fighting over sales

if we're going by what matters to companies then the PS3 is in last place, seeing as how it was the console that lost the most money

well ps3 pushed out blu ray though. sony didnt shoot themselves in the foot. they knew exactly what will happen with that 600 dollar tag.
#88 Posted by super600 (29988 posts) -

It looks like the 360 is ahead for now based on future sales reports.

#89 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"] for a company its better to reach milestones earlier. they did it in 6 years. anyway. why we even fighting over salesplanbfreak4eva

if we're going by what matters to companies then the PS3 is in last place, seeing as how it was the console that lost the most money

well ps3 pushed out blu ray though. sony didnt shoot themselves in the foot. they knew exactly what will happen with that 600 dollar tag.

is that why Sony's shares are now worth 10% of what it did before the PS3 was out?

is that why Sony has had massive layoffs and has massive debt when it didn't before 2006?

is that why Sony's rating was downgraded to a level just a cut above 'trash'?

#90 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -

M$ hasnt released its numbers for a few months. Sony just did, so the cows are claiming they won even though there are months of 360 sales not being counted.

#91 Posted by moistsandwich (0 posts) -

360 hit 70 million 1 month before the PS3.... so there is that. Unless the 360 just stopped selling right when Halo 4 launched for some crazy reason it's obvous the 360 is a smidgen ahead of the PS3 in overall sales.

Or did the PS3 get a system seller in the last 2 weeks that I'm unaware of?

#92 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

is that why Sony's shares are now worth 10% of what it did before the PS3 was out?

is that why Sony has had massive layoffs and has massive debt when it didn't before 2006?

is that why Sony's rating was downgraded to a level just a cut above 'trash'?

rilpas

Whoa there, pardner!

Sony's TV business has a lot more to do with Sony's financial shape than their gaming division. Sony, like MS, is a lot of different businesses, and each (see, Bing) have their albatrosses. Sony simply doesn't have something like Windows to mitigate the worst of it. I don't think most would argue the 360 business didn't do better than the PS3 business, but farther than that it gets down to fanboy speculation in a big hurry, since even each console business is wrapped inside much larger divisions encompassing many things, and the nature of both utilizing a strategy of selling hardware at a loss through a portion of the gen.

#93 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

is that why Sony's shares are now worth 10% of what it did before the PS3 was out?

is that why Sony has had massive layoffs and has massive debt when it didn't before 2006?

is that why Sony's rating was downgraded to a level just a cut above 'trash'?

santoron

Whoa there, pardner!

Sony's TV business has a lot more to do with Sony's financial shape than their gaming division. Sony, like MS, is a lot of different businesses, and each (see, Bing) have their albatrosses. Sony simply doesn't have something like Windows to mitigate the worst of it. I don't think most would argue the 360 business didn't do better than the PS3 business, but farther than that it gets down to fanboy speculation in a big hurry, since even each console business is wrapped inside much larger divisions encompassing many things, and the nature of both utilizing a strategy of selling hardware at a loss through a portion of the gen.

he said the PS3 helped push blu-ray out of the gate and as a result the PS3 is the more sucessful system.

As soon as he said that we effectively left gaming division discussion to focus on sony as a whole. I can't help it if he didn't think his argument through

#94 Posted by Meeeper282 (1602 posts) -

It's a draw, they have both shipped 70m

/Thread

#95 Posted by lild1425 (6757 posts) -

Am I the only one that likes when they are extremely close in sales. Brings on great competition (which means lower prices).

#96 Posted by Meeeper282 (1602 posts) -

360 hit 70 million 1 month before the PS3.... so there is that. Unless the 360 just stopped selling right when Halo 4 launched for some crazy reason it's obvous the 360 is a smidgen ahead of the PS3 in overall sales.

Or did the PS3 get a system seller in the last 2 weeks that I'm unaware of?

moistsandwich

I'm sick of explaining this to everything, these figures are shipped! not sold! both sony and microsoft hasn't sold 70m to consumers meaning it's a tie

#97 Posted by RyanShazam (6498 posts) -

Oh.... Lol at fighting over 2nd place. Nintendo is King!

#98 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
I think the PSWIi60 did.
#99 Posted by Meeeper282 (1602 posts) -

Oh.... Lol at fighting over 2nd place. Nintendo is King!

RyanShazam

#100 Posted by santoron (7472 posts) -

he said the PS3 helped push blu-ray out of the gate and as a result the PS3 is the more sucessful system.

As soon as he said that we effectively left gaming division discussion to focus on sony as a whole. I can't help it if he didn't think his argument through

rilpas

Yeah, well you can't blame him for your decision to follow him into la la land. You're not going to argue trolls into being reasonable, and certainly not by acting unreasonable.:P