I see someone buying a Wii while 360s and PS3s sit in the warehouse collecting dust.

It's the first console that has true universal appeal and it's all due to overall design and the innovative user interface that is intuitive and completely accessible just about everyone with hands regardless of age, gender, and background.

Nintendo made a smart move to include Wii Sports to provide a complete starter package that works out of the box. No extra purchases necessary. Easy to budget and easy to have fun.

The Wii, in addition to being a social tool that brings friends and family together has now evolved into a fitness device, anti-aging tool, etc... Nintendo successfully took the lessons learned from the DS and Playstation Eye Toy (appeal to all age groups) and transferred it to the home console.

Bravo Nintendo! The PS3 has the most advanced technology, the 360 has the best selling exclusive titles, but the Wii owns the market in a way that simply isn't possible on the other two platforms.

To give credit to Sony, they were the first to make a real move towards universal appeal with the Eyetoy.

Is because wii fit, wii sports etc are intriguing to people, and they all want to play them. They don't buy a wii for traditional games. Most people who got a wii either got it for wii (whichever wii title) or mario/zelda, as those fans have been with nintendo for ages. I see people saying the wii is beating the ps3 but they are playing a different game. Nintendo did a great job of getting into a new market, and they did it by seeing the success of the ds and replicating it.

MNicholas that sounded like a press release lol, but you are right.

Nintendo said it themselves, that people reluctantly buy the wii in order to play their wii titles, which seems simple but that is exactly what is happening. Sometimes it pays to listen to the owners of a console.

These are not vgchartz numbers and are NPD ESTIMATES only... i.e. best guess from NPD. Wait two more weeks folks, but does it really matter?

I won't change my gaming habit or affect me in any way.

predicting NPD. But thats not necessarily a bad thing, Vgchartz have been quite accurate for some time. As long as people realise they are estimates and can be wrong then I don't see everyones problem. Its a free service. If you don't like them then ignore the numbers.

They are far off most times , and there are just estimates , but it gives ppl an idea of what they can expect...

im a lil disappointed that more PS3 owners didn't go out and buy KZ2 lets hope sales are a little higher when NPD is actually out

killzone 2 has sold more than 600k units just in NA, the fastest selling first party game on the ps3, killzone 2 is doing very well

The Wii is a fine system, but I too am surprised by its overall success. The thing is, though, that I believe a lot of its success has come from people who've bought it as their first videogame system. Or perhaps as a return to videogames since a long hiatus (perhaps original Atari owners, hmm?). A lot of people who were hardcore gamers last generation, while they probably have been buying Wii's as well, are also certainly interested in the 360 and the PS3.

The PS3 is looking like its doing pretty well without the price cut.

Killzone 2 has not met expectations and, in my view, has sold rather poorly. When I look at all the hype and the talk about doing MGS4 numbers, then I see these estimates, I just don't see it doing anything close to MGS4.

And before you throw out the brand recognition crap, Gears didn't have any when it released. Yet MS actually pushed the game, which is what your supposed to do when you want something to sell.

Just goes to show, even a mega-hit EXCLUSIVE like Killzone 2 can't help the PS3 sell consoles. I'll bet the salivating PS3 fans probably love that feeling of being such EXCLUSIVE gamers.

"Just goes to show, even a mega-hit EXCLUSIVE like Killzone 2 can't help the PS3 sell consoles. I'll bet the salivating PS3 fans probably love that feeling of being such EXCLUSIVE gamers."

You mean how the PS3 sells more on average per year? Or how it reached 20 million sold a lot quicker then the 360 did.

But hey...it doesn't sell.

It's unlikely that the PS3 will ever outsell the 360, not unless the 360 is phased out for another console.

It's sad that the PS3 fanboys are getting moist thighs over Killzone 2, a game which has barely sold a million copies yet - a feat almost doubled by Halo 3 in presales.

Think on that.

Killzone 2 has sold close to 1.5 million and i'd probably guess it's closer to 2 million now.

But hey...continue making stuff up to try and make yourself feel better. You'll continue to be proven wrong.

I'm simply using the offical NPD results as an example. Quote VGChartrz all you want, but the fact remains that a AAA game for a Playstation console can't even reach the presales of Halo or Gears - that should tell you something.

Where in the blue HELL are you getting that data from? We won't know what it actually did until the hard numbers come out, but if we want to use these estimates:

X360 - 383,525
PS3 - 324,603

That's only down by 60K consoles, which is not bad at all considering the things that have been working against the PS3 recently (the whole price cut thing, the media whores, stuff like that), yet you're coming on here complaining about PS3 fanboys when you're just as bad as they are by b!tching.

And, umm...SCEA DID say that they moved 500K KZ2 units already, so they must be doing SOMETHING right!

"I'm simply using the offical NPD results as an example. Quote VGChartrz all you want, but the fact remains that a AAA game for a Playstation console can't even reach the presales of Halo or Gears - that should tell you something."

It tells me you're an idiot, for two reasons.

1. 99% of games don't reach those pre-sales.

2. NPD is America only.

"this is a vgchartz estimate, not official numbers, article says wait until 16th. of course we know vgc corrects their numbers but only after npd has released, and vgc have been known to be very off with their estimates."

Its simple. They forgot to carry the one.

"It seems that most shooter fans are on Xbox 360. Darn, I can't believe so few people bought Killzone 2 in the US (And Worldwide) considering it's been the most hyped game in Sony's history"

I know and to think ppl on this site think they are the majority of buyers.

I mean I can seriously see many of u buying singstar, buzz! Lips, and Dance dance Revolution.

"Nintendo made a smart move to include Wii Sports to provide a complete starter package that works out of the box"

I agree. They have been doing it for years too. Think back to the nes days and snes says when they always packaged games with their consoles. The tide started to turn when they stopped doing that with the n64 and gamecube....i think i see a pattern here.

"To give credit to Sony, they were the first to make a real move towards universal appeal with the Eyetoy. "

Many ppl on this site wouldnt give credit, ...to be honest most of them wouldnt even consider the eye toy or any sony product to be "casual"...coz all their systems are so hardcore.

Apparently.

@ cayal

I know that NPD is just America, you moron. I'm saying that it's amusing that Killzone 2 is supposed to be the biggest FPS the PS3 is likely to see, and it's only sold 600,000 in American - where FPSs sell the best.

Sad.

you recognise the power of the brand-name, then you totally fail to see why the 360 doesn't slaughter the ps3 sales wise! have you thought that the power of the playstation brand-name allows the ps3 to almost keep pace with the 360?

seriously, no platform holder could do whay sony have done, release an expensive console like the ps3 and still compete.

oh, and to what you say about the wii....it's a totally different animal, and destroys the ps3/360 pretty much in every territory. and in all honesty, shouldn't be included.

@ callahan09

while your looking at the brand names as selling points, let me just ask, how many units did Halo 2 sell in its first month or even its first week ? because the only other claim to fame was halo 1... and it didn't have the whole " this is the best looking game on console ever " hype following it around.

killzone has had more then enough attention over the last few years starting all the way back with the 2005 trailer and the endless amount of bragging the ps3 fans have done off the back of it. All we have heard is killzone will do this, killzone will do that, wait till killzone 2 comes out... don't get me wrong, i own the game but you people should stop making excuses for it.

And what about the ps3's brand name driving sales. to be quite honest, a lot of the people i know who have bought the ps3 have done so just because its " playstion "... and when you look at the 120 million or so ps2 owners ( ok, maybe it was a 100m at the time the ps3 launched ) i am supprised the ps3 has not already overtaken the 360. You make it sound like the 360 has had an easy ride, the 360 has had just as much a hard time with the RROD issue. up till now we still see articles about it and this is something that has been highlighted my some of the major news outlets around the world. over here in the uk the 360 was on watchdog at one point because of its technical issues. then there has been the whole problem of it scratching discs as well.

personally i still think eventually the ps3 will overtake the 360 but its supprising that its not already done so.

Yes, I do realize that the brand name of the PS3 helps it to keep close to the 360 in sales. But the point is, you shouldn't expect something as simple as brand name alone to make a product sell more than its closest competitor which costs half as much money. The PS3 costs more than the 360. A lot more. And the Xbox brand name is being underhanded here, because it is also a very, very big and popular brand name.

It's not like the Xbox is some unheard of brand and the Playstation is the giant that nobody can see past. Where it sort of IS that way between Killzone and Halo as brands, and those games all cost the same amount of money, whereas the two consoles have drastically different price points. Also, nobody can argue against the point that Microsoft supports the 360 with advertising on TV, etc. much more than the PS3 gets. All of these things considered, the 360 should be destroying the PS3 in sales. But, it's not, and yes the Playstation brand name has something to do with that, but to expect brand name alone to be able to beat out something that costs half as much and gets much more advertising is just a ridiculous expectation.

I mean, for instance a BMW sells pretty well, but nowhere near as well as a Camry. Costs twice as much, and more people have obviously heard of BMW and associate it with a quality automobile, but when it really comes down to it, you get the same basic functionality from the Camry, for half as much money, so it sells way, way, WAY more. The thing is, the 360 does NOT sell way, way, WAY more than the PS3, despite being so much cheaper, among other factors.

Also, the only other claim to fame of Halo 2 was Halo 1? What is that supposed to mean? Halo 1 was by far the most popular Xbox game and was one of the highest rated videogames of all time. That's a big claim to fame. Killzone 1 was far from one of the most popular Playstation games and it did not get good reviews. Totally different.

Below who's expectations? Last time I checked the PS3 was handily hitting it's ship targets, and it's over 3 million console above where the 360 was at this point in it's lifecycle, despite the higher price. On top of that, companies like EA, Ubisoft, Take Two, Activision - they're numbers are coming out and they're all reporting the same thing. Despite the fact that the 360's installed userbase is higher by about 30-35%, software revenue shows revenue from the PS3 is almost identical to what the 360's doing. I would think if I was a developer that would speak volumes to me.

Like callahan09 pointed out above - you have to wonder why at half the price the 360 isn't selling far more than the PS3...or the Wii for that matter.

I'm sorry, I'm so sick of listening to fanboys bickering over sales data especially the x should be doing this and y should be doing that and I'm surprised that z is only doing this well that I have to respond to this silly one sided argument. There are other factors you have left out...

360 is 25-50% cheaper yet it is only outselling ps3 by 18%

360 had a halo themed game release yet it is only outselling ps3 by 18%

360 is the cheapest way to play RE5 yet it is only outselling ps3 by 18%

Now consider the flip side of the coin you tossed

ps3 has both the sony and the playstation brand names attached to it yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

the ps3 rarely breaks and the 360 has a 30% failure rate yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

the ps3 has free online and the 360 costs $50/yr yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

the ps3 is still one of the best blu-ray players on the market yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

the ps3 has a wireless adapter which costs $100 on 360 yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

ps3 had killzone 2 released for it, the best looking game this gen that's been hyped to the max since 2005 with rave reviews coming from everyone yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

Resident Evil was a huge game on the ps2 last gen so there should be a horde of sony loyalists upgrading to the ps3 to play RE5 yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

ps3 has tons of games coming and 360 has none yet the 360 is still outselling it by 18%

See, everyone can come up with a stupid list to support whatever claim they want to spew so why don't you just play games and be happy. The 360 AND the ps3 have healthy businesses with good games so drop it already.

I'm sorry, but I did NOT leave out the argument of the Sony / Playstation brand name. My entire second post was practically devoted to the idea behind brand name recognition. People treat it as though Microsoft is some little guy that nobody's ever heard of. Get real. The Xbox name is huge. It's not like some guy named Joe just started a company called Viziodic Electronics or something and released a console. We're talking about Microsoft and Xbox. It's hardly a small upstart that we're talking about here.

And also, brand names alone have never and will never be the reason that consumers do their shopping. I mean, at one time Ford was by far the world's biggest and best-known auto manufacturer, with the most cards made and sold each year by a long mile. Now, they're a footnote on the worldwide scale of auto manufacturing. Toyota's got them absolutely destroyed. Brand names don't sell products forever. You have to market, you have to have the competitive price, etc. The fact is, Microsoft spends much more money marketing the 360, and they have their system at a window-shopper friendly price point. The average consumer doesn't consider the 50 dollar annual fee of Xbox Live versus the free PSN service. The average console buyer probably doesn't even know such differences exist. When it really comes down to it, the Xbox is the one sitting on the shelf with the sticker that says 199.99, while the PS3 says 399.99. You've got almost the same library of games on both machines (Madden, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil 5, Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Call of Duty, all the big, popular games) and more marketing pushed in your face by Microsoft for the 360, that lower price... it all matters.

And don't get me started on the failure rate of the 360. First of all, that's been out of the media for so long it ain't even funny. Sure people still talk about it on these message boards online where a bunch of hardcore gamer nuts like us get together and talk. But the general consumer has never even heard of the RROD, or they simply accept that it's a risk factor, and that the 360 has a 3 year warranty that covers it, and that they're fine with that. I don't know a single person in real life that bought a system since Halo 3 came out and had an RROD. Coincidence? Maybe. But I think that Microsoft has made the system more reliable with their chip revisions. Sure it isn't flawless, but then again, they've got the Yellow Light of Death on the PS3. No piece of hardware is flawless. The 360's failure rate is practically nonexistent from the perspective of a mainstream consumer. They've probably never heard about it, and if they have then they're probably aware of the warranty. Now, again, with a caveat: I know FOR CERTAIN that the RROD and the system's hardware failure issues have slowed down the progress of sales for the 360, just like I know FOR CERTAIN that the brand name Playstation has helped the PS3 progressed faster in sales than it otherwise might have. But, that's because we don't live in a vacuum. There are circumstances and so forth that effect everything. But given those counterbalances, I think the fact that a mildly advertised 400 dollar system selling at such a close rate with a heavily advertised 200 dollar system is remarkable.

"And also, brand names alone have never and will never be the reason that consumers do their shopping."

That's absolute bullsh*t... Apple products sell like a mother#)!%#( and yet they're priced to oblivion compared to other products that can do the same thing.

The Playstation brand right now IS going by it's name and the fact that it's made by Sony. I remember when I got my Playstation 2 just due to the fact that I knew it was Playstation and owned the first one. And yet, for 2 1/2 years, I was disappointed with it.

The Nintendo Wii is a prime example of this.

Brand name is a HUGE portion of sales.

Really? If you personally buy your products due to brand name, then that's your issue to sort out. It's not my issue, that much I know for sure. I was happy with my PS2 the day I bought it, because SSX was absolutely awesome, and Gradius 3 & 4 was a great collection of classic games. Within the first year I had Soul Reaver 2 (brilliant), Silent Hill 2 (also brilliant) and Grand Theft Auto 3 (the pinnacle at its time). Then, one month after the one year anniversary I had Metal Gear Solid 2, which was just an absolutely mindblowing experience for my then-18-year-old mind, and a month after THAT was Final Fantasy X. So within 14 months I had all that goodness. And that's why the PS2 was a worthy purchase for me in the year 2001.

For PS3, I bought the system, again not because of the brand name, but because of games like Folklore (for my money, one of the most beautiful, brilliant games of the generation so far), Warhawk (a marvel of the concept of "balance" in an online game), The Eye of Judgment (what can I say, I love collectible card games, and one that lets me play online with full animation of what my cards are doing in the match is pretty damn awesome), Metal Gear Solid 4 (total Hideo Kojima fanboy here, I'll never purport that I'm not), etc. have all been viable reasons for my purchase of the PS3.

Look, I've owned literally every home console that's been released since the NES, including the Master System, Turbo-Grafx 16 w/ CD add-on, Sega CD and 32x add-on's for the Genesis, Jaguar, 3DO, CD-i, and yes the Wii, PS3, and 360. For me it's never been about brand name, it's been about being a freaking videogame addict.

By trade I'm a programmer, so for me the greatest thing in the world is to marvel at the prowess of game developers who put together stuff that I couldn't even think of doing on my own. It's a pleasure. And I love games. So, I analyze things from my own personal perspective, and the way I see it, I think the PS3 is doing way better than it ever had any business doing at such an insane price point. I lived through the 3DO and CD-i, so I know a little something about the trials and tribulations of a highly priced console. And the PS3 is a success, whether you like it or not.

You honestly didn't tell me a thing except a life story about how you have owned all home consoles and that you're a programmer (is it even for gaming?).

WHAT I AM SAYING... is that brand name is a HUGE portion of sales. Which I've already stated clearly with Apple, Sony, and Nintendo.

Yes. I was disappointed with the Playstation 2 for a couple of years due to the fact that I was young when I bought it. There was literally nothing that could cater to me except for a few RPGs.

And also, quit going on your fanboy rants. I never said the PS3 was not a success, did I? I f*cking own one. But it does not take a rocket scientist to analyze the fact that the PS3 is priced at a massive amount in this economy. So WHY is it selling, then? Because going by the sales of games across the WORLD, it's not that.

What do you want me to do? How can you prove that brand name is everything, and how can I prove that it's not? It's just one man's opinion versus another's, but quite frankly I have a hard time accepting that the brand of "Playstation" should make a 400 dollar console sell more than a 200 dollar machine called "Xbox" (especially considering, AGAIN, that the Xbox name is perfectly well-known, particularly in its strongest region of America, and that the Microsoft name is absolutely huge). And no, I'm not a game programmer. I make productivity software. But my knowledge of the very languages and logical techniques that go into programming games gives me a sort of unique perspective of appreciation for the wonderful things being accomplished in games today. Anyway, if you want to think the PS3 is a failure, you go right ahead. But the facts are against you. Them system was outsold by less than 1/5 by a machine that costs 1/2 as much, and Sony has stood strong at their current price point for a year and a half. That's impressive, whether you want to accept it or not.

In the nes and snes era you didn't play video games you played nintendo. In the ps1 and ps2 era you didn't play video games you played playstation. Even my grandmother knows what a playstation is and she doesn't even have a dvd player! You don't say I drive a car you say I drive a ford, toyota etc. You don't think brand recongnition means anything?! Ask companies like Coca Cola, Nike, Google, Disney, McDonald's, Goodyear, Colgate, Telus, IBM, Ikea, Mattel, Ferrari, Honda etc if they think you are right. Just watch an hour long television show that is actually 40 minutes with a whopping 20 minutes of brand building commercials and ask yourself if you are right. Ever notice that no-name brands are always significantly cheaper than brand name items even though they are often identical and sometimes even manufactured by the owner of the brand name on the same production line? You can't possibly support the position that brand is meaningless and playstation is a powerfull brand built on hundreds of millions of sales worldwide.

And it takes lots and lots of active marketing and money to maintain that brand recognition. Believe it or not, Xbox has been building in brand recognition due to lots of marketing and money plunked down by Microsoft. Playstation has not been, and it's because they haven't been aggressively marketing it, they haven't been aggressively pricing it. Let's use Coke as an example. Eventually, Pepsi came around and started getting aggressive and giving Coke a run for their money. These things don't last forever. If Coke had sat on their laurels, then the Coke brand would've been forgotten and Pepsi would've totally replaced it. But, Coke amped up and kept their marketing strong, so you've got a strong rivalry between those two brands now, versus before where you had just Coke. And you know what? Coke and Pepsi cost the same amount. Playstation and Xbox don't cost the same. That's it. I'm done talking about this. I'm just trying to get the point across that the PS3 is doing fine. If you don't want to believe that in light of anything I've presented, then I won't change your mind on it. Happy gaming.

Now you're just going off-topic, man. The initial statement from you was "brand names alone have never and will never be the reason that consumers do their shopping."

Which was incorrect.

No, it is NOT incorrect. If YOU do your shopping by brand names alone, then that's your issue. Your average consumer does not base their purchase on brand name alone. Why do you think there are so many cheaper off-brands of basically every product you can find at the grocery store? Well, because lots of people want those products for various reasons, usually because they're cheaper. Often times, those products are not as good as the more expensive version, so the more expensive version often sells more. Also, the more expensive version often has more advertising. In many instances, the "name brand" is the only version that gets advertising, and the "other brand" gets none whatsoever. When you tell me that I'm incorrect by saying "brand names alone have never and will never be the reason that consumers do their shopping" then you're absolutely wrong. Because I am correct. Brand names are A REASON, but not the SOLE REASON that people make their purchasing choices. Read my statement carefully. I said "brand names alone."

And again, I've tried time and again here to prove how brand names come and go, and how the Xbox BRAND is the up-and-coming brand, and the Playstation BRAND is basically just resting on its laurels from a marketing push standpoint. Microsoft is undoubtedly focusing its money from the Xbox division towards aggressive marketing, and Sony is undoubtedly focusing its Playstation division funding towards improving the quality of the brand, not the awareness of the brand. There's a huge difference.

You may be forgetting that we're talking about the United States of Amnesia here (to use a phrase from Gore Vidal). People forget. Brands are popular solely because they're in the public eye. Coke and Pepsi are equals because I can turn on my TV and see on an average night the same number of commercials from each company. Fruit Loops are more popular than Fruity-O's because Fruity-O's don't have commercials, and Fruit Loops have got Toucan Sam on every commercial break during Saturday morning cartoons. But people forget. If Toucan Sam dies tomorrow and we see some snazzy Fruity-O's commercial every Saturday morning from now on, all other things being equal, the Fruity-O's will take over the Fruit Loops. Because those kids will see, here and now, Fruity-O's on the teletube. And that's what they'll ask their parents for. And that's what's going on with videogames. The Playstation brand isn't being marketed like the Xbox brand. The Playstation 3 is now perceived as the just-out-of-reach luxury product which costs twice as much as the competing but very similar Xbox 360. These factors are important. When you really take things into consideration, the way your real actual television watching, bargain-hunting red-blooded American looks at things, the 360 has got everything going for it to be a raging success. Now, there's the argument: the fact that the 360 isn't doing that much better than the PS3 right now, given all these factors, is that due to the Playstation brand living on in popularity? In part, of COURSE. And that's damned impressive.

Then why is it that the Apple Laptop, which is absolute crap compared to just a standard laptop which can be fully customized, still selling like hotcakes, at a $2,600 price?

Why has Halo 3 sold a megaton amount of over 8.6 million and continues to sell?

Why is the Nintendo Wii selling more than the PS3 and 360 combined, even though the 2 other consoles are obviously superior?

Why does every Pokemon game that come out sell a TON even though there's very minor differences between them all?

I'm not basing this off of MY buying habits.. I'm basing it off of the people I see around me and how they want a certain product JUST BECAUSE it is a certain brand?

Do you know how popular the Apple store is? There are TONS of people that walk in there to play around with a laptop that has no significant differences from the other laptop that is 1/6th the price.

Brand names alone can sell a product like a motherf*cker.. The Playstation 3 on launch day is the perfect example. I'm surprised that you think a brand name alone can NOT sell a product. To me, it just sounds like you're disagreeing just to disagree.

My freaking MOTHER knows about the Playstation brand and yet, has never played one or does any research on the damn thing. If I were to point out to someone which HDTV they should get, which one do you think they would get? A VISIO or a Sony?

And you're proving my point. When someone sees a product on TV such as Fruit Loops and has never tried it and wants to.. they go to the store and see Fruit Loops and 6 other off-brand types. Which one do you think they'll choose?

You're also trying to factor in "Well Sony hasn't advertised the Playstation 3 much, so it obviously CANT be because of it's name." Which is obviously incorrect, since there's be 2 previous consoles and they have been successful.

edit:

"Now, there's the argument: the fact that the 360 isn't doing that much better than the PS3 right now, given all these factors, is that due to the Playstation brand living on in popularity? In part, of COURSE. And that's damned impressive."

I don't understand... you're saying that a product name cannot sell a product alone, but then you say that the Playstation 3 IS living off of it's previous success?

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not saying that brand name is meaningless. I'm just saying it isn't EVERYTHING. I've specifically stated - NUMEROUS TIMES throughout these exchanges - how brand name is relevant. I'm also saying that there are other reasons people choose to buy things. And I've tried time and again to prove that the Xbox brand is big . . . it's not a no-name off-brand. And associated with that brand are things like Halo, which you realize perfectly well is one of the biggest brands in gaming, and is explicitly associated with the Xbox brand. So to argue that the Xbox and Halo brand aren't helping the 360 at all is just as ludicrous as the notion that the Playstation brand isn't helping the PS3. My point is that expecting the most expensive console with the smallest library of software in a poor economy to outsell something with almost an identical library of big-name games (really, most of the best-selling games are multiplatform across the PS3 and 360), that costs half as much money, that has way more public exposure through marketing in America . . . you just can't expect such a thing to happen.

The PS3 is doing well. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's simply not the floundering machine that people say it is. You try and tell me with a straight face that when the PS3 is the same price as the 360, the 360 still outsells it. Hell, last year before the 360 dropped price, the PS3 outsold it and it was still more expensive. Now, it sells slightly under, but it costs even more because they've neglected to drop price. If PS3 does another price drop and the 360 doesn't, then you'll see the PS3 beating the 360 again. That's a prediction, I can't know it for certain, but I'm pretty confident in it.

About the Apple thing, Apple computers have a lot of productivity software that people like (Final Cut Pro, Pro Tools, etc.) People like the operating system for its stability and security. People like the industrial design of it. Sure it's not the right choice for a gaming PC, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right choice for a lot of people, despite the cost and despite the brand name. I've owned an Apple computer, and it wasn't because it was an Apple, it was because I needed Final Cut Pro and Pro Tools, so that meant I needed OS X and a G5.

My entire point is that brand name is not the only reason that things sell. Microsoft is just as big as Sony. Xbox is growing rapidly due to having an expansive library, the cheapest console, and the mighty marketing push that Microsoft has been giving it. Despite all of this, the Playstation 3 is doing nearly as well, with the smaller library, the most expensive price tag, and less marketing. The brand name lives on and helps the PS3, but you can't expect a brand name to be the only basis for people's investment, especially when you've got up-and-coming competing brands that are investing even more into growing the recognition of their brand like Microsoft is currently doing for the Xbox brand. You can't expect people to just ignore the commercials they see right here, right now, to ignore the price tag on the shelf.

I owned a PSone, and a PS2. I had a good experience with both. But when I go to buy a machine, I don't just blindly buy a PS3 because I had its predecessors. I do my research and I figure out whether its worth my money. As it turns out, it took me a while to conclude that the PS3 was worth my money: I bought it last of the 3 current-gen consoles. I'm not some kind of mysterious minority that doesn't just blindly buy everything by brand name. Everyone is like me. Brand name is an influence, I've said this all along... but it isn't everything, and popularity comes and goes. Its ridiculous to have such lofty expectations. The Ford brand today is nothing compared to the Ford of 40, 50 years ago. I hope you see the relevance of that point. 50 years ago, nobody in America had ever heard of Toyota. Today, Toyota are the best selling make of car in America.

And you know what? When Sony first entered this game, they had no brand name, and Nintendo and Sega were king. And the Saturn fizzled out and the N64 was like a blip on the radar compared to the population of the then-brand-unrecognized Playstation. History has shown that you've got to consider all the other factors. It is blatantly ignorant to expect the most expensive machine with the smallest library and the weakest advertising campaign to outsell the cheapest machine with the biggest library and the strongest advertising campaign.

@ Sitdown

Unless you have proof that its actual sales and not replacements for RROD'd consoles it would be nice if you stopped the same old song and dance(see what I did there?). Also... THIS IS VGCHARTZ. YOU MIGHT AS WELL LISTEN TO PATCHER FOR NUMBERS! I HAVE YET TO SEE THEM BE EVEN CLOSE IN NUMBERS! Truthfully I dont expect the PS3 to "Outship"(See what I did there?) the 360. I really dont care but these numbers are wrong I have no doubt about that.

Edit: Ok dude go read my blog. Please do and even PM me in reply if you like. Or leave a comment there. It's called Pricewars you can get there through my profile. I do feel Ms does that because kid says "MOMMY MOMMY I WANT A 360 FOR XMAS BECAUSE MY SCHOOL BUDDIES HAVE EM" then the parents need to get all these extra addons like a Hard Drive or a whatever. It's not fair to the consumers but once they are already invested they are stuck. Look you may say it's consumer stupidity but even if you go to Epicbattleaxe.com they have their podcasts and one of the guys was like "I really wanted to get an elite because it has everyhting" Then one of the other guys on the podcast on a VIDEO GAME SITE said "You know it doesn't have wifi" and the guy who wanted an elite was like "Seriously? why the hell would MS do that" A GUY WITH A GAMING PODCAST DIDN'T KNOW HOW WOULD AVERAGE JOE KNOW? Seriously you can knock them if you like but most of the panel on the show are big 360 fans.

Hate and make excuses all you want but it is the way they do business and you know it. Overall I don't think my info is skewed. I feel if the guy at gamestop or where ever informed the consumers it had no hard drive, They have a monthly fee and they have no WiFi which they all get out of the box with the PS3 then... Yeah. things may be different... But whatever.

@ Below

MS Counts consoles shipped as consoles sold. Thats how they do business and keep investors happy. They wont release info on that. It would make them look a lot worse then they are... If you can find proof that it's sold and not shipped then ok but it's not.

Also this is not NPD this is VGCHATRZ! And numbers can be moved anyway you want them to be. If it was $'s and not Units you know how different it would be... it's all in how you see it. It would be nearly reversed.

Ummm first off I am not saying that it is or is not the case...so you trying to copy my line does not work. Thanks for trying though. Just out of curisoity, how would NPD get the numbers for replacements for RROD...I thought there numbers are from retail? So explain how that works....seroiusly, I am not sure how the numbers are derived, so explain that for me. Anyhow...again, from my post...I do not need the exact numbers to comment on what was originally said by dylan...so whether or not the numbers are accurate or not, 360 just needs to have sold more ps3 for this conversation.

@Jinxtar

Sony didn't advertise that you needed to pay $30-$50 for a memory card for the privilege of saving games on a PS2, while Xbox had a hard drive which allowed you to save games for free. Sony didn't advertise that the PS2 required a $40 adaptor to play online, while the Xbox had a built in ethernet port. You talk like the 360 is the first console that offers optional accessories that are included with the competitions'. It didn't hurt the PS2, it isn't hurting the 360.

Ah, yes, also recycling the ridiculous "consumers are idiots" line. What was you opinion of the average consumer when they overwhelmingly supported PS2? Was the "average joe consumer" stupid then too?

Dude a 30$ Card is a lot different from a 80+$ Hard Drive a 100$ WiFi adapter and a monthly subscription to use something that is free on every other platform... When the Xbox came out you couldn't even watch a movie without buying a remote control remember? Don't act as is Ms didn't do the same junk last gen. This gen it looks as though sony has tried to make everything be in one box while MS have decided to nickle and dime you.

Besides thats not this argument. Thats last gen... did you read my blog?

The thing about the PS2 was a little different as well. The Ps2 was an incredibly cheap DVD player when it first came out. many many many people bought it for that and that alone. Blu Ray is not the same type of Push in that way. people wanted away from rewinding big ol tapes and wanted to upgrade to smaller discs that were cooler and had options and the likes. and if they could play games as well then hey it's a bonus. Was Average joe stupid for buying a PS2? Depends on what it was for really but if the PS1 had memory cards you can probably expect the PS2 might as well...

Thats where average joe needs to think. you act as if everyone buying a Ps2 wanted it for games which was not the case at all. just like some people buy a PS3 for Bluray only. It's the only really upgradable BR player out there... Just like some people whose 360 RROD's go buy a new one while there old one is in the shop... I find more bang for buck any day on PS3 and if we add up Sony vs MS in these dumb numbers Sony outsells their number almost 2-1 and if we go buy money brought in for the PS3 alone it's probably close to 2/1 again... It's all in how you look at it. Is Average Joe dumb. Yes. Go down to your gamestop and watch the people coming in and out for a while and come back and tell me otherwise.

Consumers are idiots... Have you ever worked in retail?

And go into any game store/retailer and ask what 360's are selling, odds are that they'll tell you that the Arcade is moving most of those units.

"Unless you have proof that its actual sales and not replacements for RROD'd consoles it would be nice if you stopped the same old song and dance"

You realize that the majority of people out there still have a 3 year warranty and get their console replaced for free, right? So how in the world would that count towards sales?

Both of you above.

First of all, nobody here knows for certain what expectation SCEA had with KZ2 sales, they know the NA market much more than any of us do, and know as well, what kind of costumers ps3 owners are. Besides some crazy fanboy's fantasy about KZ2 selling 4million copies in NA, and other fanboys hopping to call out KZ2 a flop cause it didnt reach Halo numbers, reality is that KZ2 is begining to build a fanbase. Actual numbers worldwide, will be around 2million more than enough to warrant a sequel, and what matter most to Sony, the PS3 is selling very well for the price.

BTW, we already got a very nice map pack for free.

http://www.psxextreme.com/p...

"Sony Expects Killzone 2 To Match Or Surpass MGS4 Sales"

So a system that costs 200 BARELY outsells one that costs 400? THAT is whats sad.....and I can't believe how easily you believe vgchartz numbers

So a system that's suppose to be future proof, that's suppose to be Ultra reliable, has the "best AAA batteries (exclusives)... gets outsold by a faulty, unreliable piece of trash. I wouldn't brag if I were you.

Naw..naw..hell naw! Don't try and use that $200 vs $400 bull sh!t. PieceOfSh!t3 got its ass handed to it. Sony sucks and Killzone 2 flopped >:P

Yo Mart get a life dude. And Ryuk Killzone 2 has 2 million plus worldwide so far and is a great game ,if thats a flop then i want all my games to be flop you ignorant f@k.

Halo killzowned Killzone. This was even a console RTS at that, damn that's sad.

All that means is, MS can put syrup on Sh!t and 360 fans would eat it up.

RYUK: So your really crazy enough to think price doesn't play big role in sales. The truth is a lot of people just don't know value or is uneducated on the two systems.

Despite what 360 fans want to believe the PS3 is doing d@mn good. Everyone here knows that a PS3 price drop would be a disaster for MS.

Well gee, let's see here: Halo Wars has the word HALO in the title, which is a much more publicly relevant brand name than Killzone (which is both at once unknown & considered "mediocre" or "bad" by those that are aware of it, due to the first game). Halo Wars had much more advertising both on TV and with in-store displays. Halo Wars was NOT advertised as the RTS that it is. It was advertised with a bunch of irrelevant pre-rendered cutscenes. Not to mention that Halo Wars actually had its LAUNCH in March, so that includes its day 1 sales. Killzone 2's day 1 sales were in February. If you align their launch dates in America, you'll notice that they're actually selling pretty much evenly with each other.

Also, the 360 is the cheapest way to get the latest and greatest multi-platform games like Resident Evil 5. And those games are almost ALWAYS advertised with association with the 360. They show the "Jump In" 360 logo at the end of the commercial, as if to insinuate that the 360 is the only platform you can get it on. I've seen this for numerous multiplatform games.

And finally, the 360's cheapest version costs half as much as the PS3's cheapest version. The primary version of the 360 with the 60GB hard drive still costs 100 dollars less than the PS3's cheapest version, and the most expensive version of the 360 costs the same as the cheapest PS3, with the most expensive PS3 costing 300, 200, and 100 dollars more than the cheapest, middle, and most expensive 360 units respectively. So, yeah, the 360 has a HUGE price advantage there. Most people buy the 200 or 300 dollar 360's. That's between 50 and 25 percent cheaper than you can get a PS3 for. And yet the 360 is not even selling 20% more consoles than the PS3, with all of this stuff going for it.

To say the PS3 is dead is just insanity, it really is. It completely ignores reality. The PS3 has done extremely well in the face of the 360's aggressive marketing and pricing and their big brand name titles. The PS3 has been the same price for over 18 months now. And it still goes on strong month after month in the face of price drops from Microsoft. That's impressive.

Now, if the PS3 was price dropped to the same price as the 360 and the 360 outsold it by 2 to 1, THEN you can start with the doom and gloom, my friend. But in the here and now, the PS3 is twice as expensive and NOT being outsold by that much.

All that means that Sony can put shyt in your plate, sell it to you for $600, then cut that shyt into half and resell it to you for the same price and you'll still love it.

@ Juuken aka ultimultimototilobolo

Because I have the money to burn and therefore I can.

I have explained this often to PS3 fantards but they just don't seem to understand. I like games and think the only one thats really worth it on the PS3 is LittleBigPlanet. I bought a PS3 for it. But, I still dislike the choices and actions from Sony. THats why I still dislike the PS3 in general. UNDERSTAND NOW?

@ Wonder

Well I own a PS3 also and buy games for it. Its just sad that the PS3 owners in general don't buy games. I bought the PS3 in november with LBP in one pack, since then bought: Motorstorm 2, Ratchet&Clank, Uncharted, MGS4 and Killzone 2.

And again once more to those PS3 tards defending PS3's numbers, it doesn't matter at what price it is, the 360 will allways have the price advantage, and when is the PS3 catching up in sales numbers exactly? They're still on that 8 mln. gap behind the 360 and that hasn't changed in a year time. So when will it be and how much a month does it need to outsell the 360 monthly for how long to even get even?

I've asked this Juuken before also, but I've never got a real calculated answer from any PS3 tard.

Mart you sorry fvck, you have the best games this gen, and theyre only on ps3, you fvcking know it, shy away from actually talking about the games and then sprint to quote some sales figures. ps3 fvcking wins, 360's burn themselves up and have sh!t for games. lets talk about what matters, games, your just to chicken sh!t to show everyone that your a closet ps3 fanboy, just fvcking let it out already and change that queer little name of yours, you boxqueen. and i cant wait when god of war slaps his d!ck in the face all of you sad little box boys as you open wide and gratefully suck down the mayo, its getting close, strap on your diapers and get your knee pads. and for the record mart when your box's production stops five years before the ps3, it will have ample time to surpass in total sales, how about this question, why hasnt the 360's lead grown with a price cut?

Making such statements off VGChartz is why you are TheMart. Tool.

shallow and pedantic indeed.

I own both consoles too. And I also don't like Sony as a company (. For my own personal reasons) and I couldn't agree with u more. There's not one game so far that interest me. I own 5 games for the system. I own killzone and after I finished it. I sold it back to gamestop for RE5. The only game I'm looking forward to is god of war 3. That's it. The most I use the ps3 for is playing my bootleg movies. I don't own any blu-ray movies. That's why all the games I buy it for the 360 or my PC.

You have money to burn? That's your best excuse? You see, if I don't like something, I don't buy it or I sell it. I didn't like Assassin's Creed so I sold it. I didn't like Grand Theft Auto IV and I sold that back too.

I have advice for you and vega. If you don't like something, either sell it to someone who will treat it better than you two or just don't buy it at all.

Don't be foolish and waste your money. Save it for what you love the most-your 360 or your PC.