bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
Here are the U.S. hardware unit sales for January 2010 (vs January 2009):
1. Nintendo Wii: 465,800 (-31 percent)
2. Nintendo DS: 422,200 (-17 percent)
3. Xbox 360: 332,800 (+7.7 percent)
4. PlayStation 3: 276,900 (+36 percent)
5. PSP: 100,100 (-42 percent)
6. PlayStation 2: 41,600 (-59 percent)
1. Nintendo Wii: 465,800 (-31 percent)
2. Nintendo DS: 422,200 (-17 percent)
3. Xbox 360: 332,800 (+7.7 percent)
4. PlayStation 3: 276,900 (+36 percent)
5. PSP: 100,100 (-42 percent)
6. PlayStation 2: 41,600 (-59 percent)
If they came out at exactly the same time, the 360 would still have more units sold.
Most hugable too, haha. THAT and FF13 + uncompressed music, oooo burnnnn.... JKJK
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Tristicus
Diamond Member
I'm sure. I'm sure.
Didn't the Wii come out after the 360?
Because everybody stated the Wii sold as good as the Virtual Boy, correct?
My jasper elite just died on me. I had not used it in around two months, turn it on and three nice little red lights. Its in well ventilated place and didn't use it that often, just casually.
Very disappointing to say the least, have to send it in now. I do like the console though and the live service and I prefer the controller over the PS3. Hopefully my replacement doesn't die either or I might consider switching to a PS3.
Very disappointing to say the least, have to send it in now. I do like the console though and the live service and I prefer the controller over the PS3. Hopefully my replacement doesn't die either or I might consider switching to a PS3.
?? The Wii has slapped around every console this generation in regards to total units sold. And it came out AFTER the 360. The only reason the PS3 has done as well as it has (3rd place), is because it has a Blu-ray drive. Quite a few people were buying it solely as a BD player, no gaming. If it didn't have a BD drive, those sales number would be MUCH lower. So as far as a pure gaming machine, I'd say the 360 easily beats the PS3.
Last edited:
I dunno if I would go far on the basis that the 360 'easily' beats the ps3 as a pure gaming machine. Maybe a long time ago in the past, but the ps3 has matured a LOT. It has good games, and I enjoy it very much. Of course, I'm not a hardcore gamer. the only games I have are valkryia chronicles, gta4 (i got it with the slim), fifa, and my brother has nba. All are very enjoyable and i don't feel short changed. I also have not played a single blue ray movie because i just haven't been put in a position to use it.
If anything I feel the Wii is somewhat lackluster outside of first party nintendo games. Most of my friends who have a Wii pretty much only have first party games - SSB, Mario Galaxy, the new Mario, Mario Party, etc etc. Me? I never bought games for the Wii, which i've played for less than 3 hours total since I bought it 2 years ago simply because it doesn't feel as good. That said, I do know I need to pick up Zelda eventually
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,653
- 205
- 106
actually the reason the PS3 isnt leading the 360 in total sales is becasue of its 599 launch price.
Launch price, game selection, no equivalent to Xbox Live. It took all the way up until just recently to even have a similar selection of games as the 360. Most would say the 360's game library is still better. The differences between the 360 and PS3 from a gamer standpoint were so great for a long time that people were willing to buy Xboxes that they knew were going to fail relatively soon over the PS3.
Nowadays, it's a tossup between the two.
Tristicus
Diamond Member
No shit Sherlock, ever heard of sarcasm? The Wii was a great idea to attract everybody for Nintendo, and it worked wonders. Whether people play it or not is beyond me, but who cares- they made the initial purchase, and that is what has counted. Blu-ray drive is the only reason? Lol, I guess that's why there are only about 10,000 copies of every game sold on the system. The initial purchase is what is counted- what people use it for is beyond that. Hell, most 360s bought were because the first one failed, or the first three for that matter, or people bought it specifically for piracy, something which hasn't been done on the PS3 until recently, and still not near full piracy.
Oh yeah, I forgot we didn't have PSN.
Launch price was there because it was the most advanced gaming system on the market at launch, had top notch parts, and was a great system. Of course it was going to be expensive, they weren't going to lose $600 a system. The game selection was fine. There were plenty of games like Resistance, Motorstorm, non-console exclusives that kept people playing, so drop that silly argument. It's called quality over quantity, which Sony has always excelled in on their exclusive titles, and even had both when the PS2 reigned supreme.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
I just bought AC2 for the PS3. I was going to buy it for the 360, but I felt guilty that I've owned the PS3 for all this time and only ever played Uncharted 1 and 2 on it...
And if the PS3 did not have blu-ray, it would have been a lot cheaper so your analysis is incorrect.
It wasn't sarcasm, it was just a retarded post. That's why I put questions marks at the beginning.
Your excuse was the PS3 came out after the 360, that's why the PS3 is in 3rd place. I used the Wii as an example of a console beating the 360 in units sold even after a year late release.
And you can "lol" all you want. The facts are, A LOT of people bought the PS3 for the sole purpose of watching BDs. That's it. So you really can't use raw sales number to prove one console is better than the other. If that were the case, the Wii is the best console by far.
I'd rate the 360 as the better gaming system because of its gaming library (however it's pretty much a moot point now) and XBox Live. Live is absolutely a HUGE part of online gaming with friends, and NOT having it a massive strike against a console. I'd say it can DEFINITELY make the console. However, if you like to play single player or play with strangers online, the PS3's PSN is just fine. So if you were looking at it from a PURE gaming perspective, I just don't see how you can rate the PS3 above the 360. The 360 can do everything a PS3 can do gaming wise, and more.
If the PS3 didn't have a BD drive and was priced the same as the 360, why would anyone buy a PS3 over a 360? The 360 had a better game library and XBox Live. The PS3 had PS2 backwards compatibility. Do you honestly think that would trump the benefits of owning a 360?
Most of the people I know bought a PS3 because it was an awesome BD player. If it didn't have a BD drive, they would have bought a 360 or not bought anything at all.
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
You're still not thinking this through all the way. You point out that the PS3 had BC, but considering they cut it to reduce the manufacturing cost there's a good chance they would have kept it if the initial price had been lower. IMO it's fairly obvious that while including the BD drive helped defeat HD-DVD, it hurt them in the console market. It's no stretch at all to think they would have sold more at this point without the BD drive.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying if all things were equal, both the 360 and PS3 were priced equally, Sony kept the BC but left out the BD drive, the 360 would be the clear choice. I just don't see why anyone would choose a PS3 over a 360 unless they were a die hard Sony fanboy. It would would be much harder to dismiss the 360's better game library (a year or two after launch) and XBox Live if the PS3 didn't have a BD drive.
They would've chosen the PS3 because of the thousands of PS2 games, free PSN, free wifi, easier upgradeability, better multimedia support, etc...
It's also a lot more reliable.
Anyway, I really think Sony got arrogant with the PS3. The PS2 didn't have a good line-up of games for the first year it was out and was up against the Dreamcast which had a very good game line-up. All it had was the PlayStation brand name built by the PS1 and a DVD player. I think Sony thought using the Blu-ray player would give the PS3 the same kind of lift, but there's a HUGE difference between launching a $300 console and launching a $500-600 console. In the end they snagged some sales from the early adopting home theater market and alienated the bulk of the console market.
So you think they would have chosen a PS3 for the better PS2 game library rather than better 360 library? Maybe, but I think unlikely. Like I said, the people that I know (5) bought the PS3 because of the BD player. If it wasn't for that, they would have bought a 360 or stand alone BD player. My friend and I bought 2 PS3s each. However I bought the PS3 for its BD capability plus I didn't want to limit my game selection to just one console. If I had to choose ONE console for gaming though, it would be the 360, hands down.
Also let me state that I think the PS3 (old version) is built MUCH better than the 360. Better constructed and very feature rich (touch sensitive controls, media slots, wifi, and BD player). Unfortunately PSN is AWFUL. It has gotten better but no unified chat is a REAL pain in the ass when trying to get together with friends online. It is like having an AWESOME PC with no internet connection. :|
Last edited:
OptimumSlinky
Senior member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 345
- 1
- 76
+1 for the Blu-Ray.
None of the PS3 exclusives impress me much. I've gone through three different Xbox 360s, but the main reason I bought the PS3 Slim was I figured I could spend $300 on a decent BD player, or spend $300 on the PS3 and get the BD features and the ability to play PS3 games should I choose.
None of the PS3 exclusives impress me much. I've gone through three different Xbox 360s, but the main reason I bought the PS3 Slim was I figured I could spend $300 on a decent BD player, or spend $300 on the PS3 and get the BD features and the ability to play PS3 games should I choose.
Not going to compare PS3 with other consoles. But I have to add that as a media player, PS3 is not really good. The file formats are too strict. I encoded few AVIs with Xvid and MP3 for my family, but it would not play, I even set the FourCC to DIVX. I will have to look into why later. Hopefully they loosen the restriction and allow more file formats to be played, like H.264 with AC3.
But I have to add that as a media player, PS3 is not really good. The file formats are too strict. I encoded few AVIs with Xvid and MP3 for my family, but it would not play, I even set the FourCC to DIVX. I will have to look into why later. Hopefully they loosen the restriction and allow more file formats to be played, like H.264 with AC3.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter