"Irrelevant. The end result is still the PS3 outselling the 360 every year."

Of course it's relevant. Seems to me that's all you care about is whether the PS3 sold more. The point is the Xbox 360's market grew while Sony's shrunk. Put two and two together and it doesn't take a genius to figure out some of them may have went to the Xbox 360 instead. I know it's rather difficult for you to praise MS at all for doing anything right but they did manage to compete with Sony way more than they did the previous generation.

"I suppose 1 out of 7 years is amazing for the 360."

That sounds mature.

"That's only because the 360 didn't stop selling altogether. If it had, then the PS3 would have surpassed it long ago."

What? The PS3 sold at a faster rate on average but at a much slower pace than the PS2 and PSOne to it's main competitors. You almost act like you don't want any competition and if there is any you want to discredit them any way possible.

"Which only makes the PS3 look better because it's still selling better at a higher price point."

Better to who? It certainly isn't to stock holders. You make it sound like it they gave them away fro free it would be good because then they would have dominated the Xbox 360 in sales like that's all you seem to care about.

"If you totally remove most of Europe then sure. The 360 does well in the U.S. and the U.K., everywhere else is dominated by the PS3."

You sure like to dramatize don't you? It's a difference of about 6 million in all of Europe. Japan, a much smaller region is about 8 million. That's where the major difference lies, not in Europe. The North American region is about a 16 million difference which is the largest region for overall sales of consoles combined. An area Sony used to dominate in, MS has never done well in Japan with the Xbox brand and likely never will.

"Everyone lost that advantage. No matter who came into this gen ahead, 3rd party exclusives still would have died."

Not really, we seen Final Fantasy been announced as an exclusive, that changed. Tekken, Virtua Fighter and so on even though the Xbox brand stinks in Japan. This generation was about parity and low and behold the PS3 was no longer dominant. Coincidence?

"The Dreamcast had a lot of problems that contributed to its own downfall. Irrelevant point is irrelevant."

You keep dismissing anything that proves you wrong. The N64 also had a headstart on the PSOne. Is that irrelevant too?

"Assumption not based in any kind of fact."

The fact you keep ignoring is the adoption rate being much slower on the PS3 as compared to the PS2 and PSOne. Not sure why you keep having difficulty understanding this other than your determination to never give competitors a fair shake or anything positive.

"The hardware sales graph doesn't take any outside factors into account. All it does is compare base numbers. A graph as to WHY would be a better argument."

Why? Simple, more competition. And without that competition that PS3 would likely have not seen so many price reductions and Sony would have been far more profitable this generation. The PS4 will also be easier to work on, finally. Competition is good.

"The only correlation that can be made, and even this is disproven, is that most tend to go with what's cheapest. This explains the Wii's success."

The PSOne wasn't the cheapest, nor was the PS2. Or are those circumstances irrelevant too? lol. What a waste of time. This is what happens trying to debate someone knee deep in bias.

-It isn't relevant. The PS3 may have sold at a slower adoption rate (which actually isn't true btw) than the PS1/PS2, but that's completely irrelevant to THIS generation where the PS3 was always outselling the 360. What does the PS1/PS2's adoption rate have to do with the 360? Nothing. In fact, going by your logic of the PS3's market share shrinking, the fact that it still consistently outsold the 360 shows that the PS3 is only less successful than the PS1/PS2 but still more successful than the 360, whereas the 360 is less successful than PS1/PS2/PS3, but more successful than the first Xbox.

"That sounds mature."

You're the one that brought up something pointless.

"What? The PS3 sold at a faster rate on average but at a much slower pace than the PS2 and PSOne to it's main competitors."

And what does that have to do with what I said? I said that the PS3 would have surpassed the 360's sales long before 7 years if the 360 had stopped selling. Exactly what does that have to do with the PS1/PS2's sale rate? Oh right, nothing. Again, the PS3 consistently outsold the 360. What does it matter that it didn't sell at the rate of a Past gen console when it DID sell better than a current one?

"Better to who? It certainly isn't to stock holders. You make it sound like it they gave them away fro free it would be good because then they would have dominated the Xbox 360 in sales like that's all you seem to care about."

First of all, slow down when you're typing. Your eagerness to fail at proving anything I've said wrong is making your typing sloppy. Secondly, stockholders care about Present sales, not Past adoption rate. If the PS3 was outselling the 360 globally every year, at a higher price point, then stockholders were happy.

"It's a difference of about 6 million in all of Europe. Japan, a much smaller region is about 8 million."

So let me get this right. The 8 million difference from the PS3 to 360 in Japan is dominance, but take away 2 million to make it a 6 million difference and that's NOT dominance? Do you even Math bro?

"The North American region is about a 16 million difference which is the largest region for overall sales of consoles combined."

And U.S.A. < World. What's your point? Do you think only the U.S. matters?

"Not really, we seen Final Fantasy been announced as an exclusive, that changed. Tekken, Virtua Fighter and so on even though the Xbox brand stinks in Japan. This generation was about parity and low and behold the PS3 was no longer dominant. Coincidence?"

Yes really. Cost of development made it infeasible for 3rd party exclusives to remain. Whether it would have been the Gamecube, or the Xbox that dominated instead of the PS2, the Wii/360/PS3 gen would have seen the end of 3rd party exclusives regardless. You're ignoring real world factors in favour of propping up the 360.

"You keep dismissing anything that proves you wrong. The N64 also had a headstart on the PSOne. Is that irrelevant too?"

Because it doesn't prove me wrong. Sega had been floundering for years. Nintendo were slow to progress to CDs. The reason for both failing were their own lack of effort. Sega did fund the Dreamcast enough to stand up to Sony's marketing and the DVD trojan horse. Nintendo thought developers would stick with cartridges and they didn't. Those are their problems. The 360 launched quickly, capitalizing on a dying gen of consoles and taking the other 2 by surprise, allowing them to amass an 8 million lead. PS3 comes out, higher price point, weak launch lineup, and STILL outsells the 360 every year. Here we see that Sony's problems contributed, but not in the drastic way you're trying to portray it. People were simply waiting. The numbers don't lie.

"The fact you keep ignoring is the adoption rate being much slower on the PS3 as compared to the PS2 and PSOne."

Again, you bring up something that has nothing to do with the quote you're replying to. You said "It was the PS3 that many fans NEVER returned to." You have no proof of that. You're still making that rookie 1:1 correlation. Look at the total number of sales last gen for the 3 consoles. 200 million. This gen, almost 250 and counting. This gen isn't even over and yet you're saying fans didn't return to PS3 with NO proof than last gen sales? Get out of here with that nonsense.

"Why? Simple, more competition. And without that competition that PS3 would likely have not seen so many price reductions and Sony would have been far more profitable this generation."

Again you miss the point. The PS3 outsold the 360 every year. It had a higher price point. The highest in fact. Competition is a factor, but not the biggest. If we see that the PS3 still outsold the 360 every year, this indicates a great degree of demand. Factor in real world factors like a higher price point and poor economy, then remove those problems for the PS3 and you'd have a situation where demand is the only deciding factor. In this instance, the PS3 would have trounced the 360. The proof is in global yearly sales.

"The PSOne wasn't the cheapest, nor was the PS2. Or are those circumstances irrelevant too? lol. What a waste of time. This is what happens trying to debate someone knee deep in bias."

I guess you skipped over the "though this has been disproven" part. You have the most narrow thinking mind I've ever seen. The PS1/PS2 weren't the cheapest, but they offered something the competition didn't. In the PS1's case, CD tech while Nintendo had cartridges and Sega were floundering. PS2? DVD tech to improve on the CD tech, a late Xbox, a defunct Sega, and an unfocused Nintendo. This gen, the pricepoint of the Wii was smack dab in the face of that sweet casual spot. Coupled with celebrity endorsement (specifically Oprah), and boom, casual success. What's so hard for you to understand?

**EDIT** BTW, this isn't about bias, you made it about bias when you refused to accept that the blog's author said "Gamer's got tired of Sony" with absolutely no authority to make that claim, which is why I questioned it, and you had to make it all about the 360.