| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (70)

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 4:55PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, he's right. Victory has always been strictly defined by those terms, but now that it's an unpopularly mainstream system, the criteria are constantly changing in a way to try to put Wii where many people think it should go: Dead Last

Each one is an analytical fad, and amusing to watch.

You "Win" through mindshare, which you gain through market share. Lots of software selling to a smaller crowd is definitely better for the publishers, but doesn't benefit the manufacturer
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 4:34PM Colonel Falafel said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
No, MY sales penis is larger!

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 4:48PM Edge of Blade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The ONLY reason to time shift those launch dates is to satisfy fanboys. How does that work? Glad you asked...

Everyone made decisions about their particular launch windows. They ALL have to live with those decisions, for better or worse. Therefore, in the HERE and NOW... the environment where publishers decide what games to green light... 360 is in the lead.

If that explaination doesn't fit you, imagine EA releasing Madden '0X for 360 and then holding out a year for the other consoles to launch so it can make the SAME Madden '0X game. THEN, imagine having a valid comparison between the two vor three versions. It just doesn't work.

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 4:55PM Catprog said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All this one does is to show that for the last 19 months the 360 is in the lead.

What we need to look at is monthly figures to determine who is in the lead not almost biannual figures.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 5:05PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Easy to say their sales suck when you make sure the 360's extra year of sales are in there. Honestly, how does this relate to the other graph?

I'm really tired or each side's PR battle. Just make me some games and shut up.

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 5:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
These comparisons are still like comparing your ____-sizes. Only now you're saying: "I'm 5.4 foot tall and youre 6.9. It's unfair. You've got to substract some inches from your length when comparing to my length"

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 5:07PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One more thing. Since everyone keeps forcing graphics down our throats, why don't them at least show us who is making the most money out of the first 2-3 years of the console's life.

Isn't that what it all boils down to?

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 5:11PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not really. Looking at it that way, the Original Xbox would have lost in a very, very severe way

Xbox lost Microsoft $6 billion dollars, but did allow the rookie console maker to top the industry Dinosaur in lifetime sales.

Looking at it your way, the 6th generation went: Sony > Nintendo > SEGA >>>>>> Microsoft, which wasn't the case

Again, victory is about mindshare, which is achieved through units sold
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 6:58PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good point

Touche :)
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 5:17PM ScottG13 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In the end, the top 3rd parties are putting their A teams on 360 and PS3 development. Wii development is alongside PS2/PSP development as far as capabilities go with some waggle tacked on. Wii 3rd parties sell, but not in the numbers top teams/budgets need. Thus, Wii has become the Wal-Mart $4.99 PC game disc lot. Tons of cheap ported garbage from PS2 or Flash games.

And Nintendo 1st party games which are usually very good.

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 6:06PM eilegz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People should stop buying shovelware in Wii to get a realistic number... of how its the real third party situation

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 7:04PM HTCEVO said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You could say that about any console. It's what people find entertaining that dictates what they buy. Not saying I buy Nintendo's shovelware, but in the same respect I see every GTA clone out there to be just as useless, but they help 360 sales. Just because I wouldn't buy it doesn't mean the software sales shouldn't be counted.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 7:39PM jorojoserojas said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey man, I know what you're saying, but people buy crappy games on all consoles - the Wii just has a larger selection of them.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 9:40PM mocax said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All these numbers don't mean anything when all my consoles are collecting dust.

I don't know what possessed me to buy these worthless electronics when I spend 99% of my time on PCs.

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 11:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel you mocax. My 360 is plugged in but hasn't seen significant play time in a little while. My Wii on the other hand hasn't been hooked up since March. But I really think that this Generation has been kind of bad on the software front in general. We'll see how things shape up in the next year+
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 11:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought the whole point was to dispute the third-party software doesn't sell on the Wii. It does; the end.

Posted: Aug 11th 2008 11:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Based on anecdotal evidence, which of course is the best form of evidence, third party Wii sales are horribly depressing. That and Microsoft has the NDP numbers and those pesky facts to back them and Sony.

So Nintendo was fudging the numbers on their third party sales and Microsoft and Sony are actually winning. This isn't really news. did anyone believe Nintendo to begin with?

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 12:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
do you even know what MS and Nintendo are saying? i doubt that. neither MS nor Nintendo were 'fudging' their numbers, they just used different timespans to get their facts. we now know that the Wii sells more 3rd party software than Sony, but not MS. thats all these things are saying...
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i know that Nintendo wasn't actually changing the numbers. they were just choosing a certain set of numbers for all three companies that presented the most favorable picture for them.

it's manipulating the presentation so readers will make assumptions if they don't look closely and not altering the content, so you are correct that "fudging" was not the best word to describe it.

However Nintendo was still attempting to lie by omitting important details.

that work better for you?
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2008 1:17AM R Planteer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yall spend so much time bitching about sales and figures and crap on joystiq, I fail to see how you even have time to play video games. Between work and college, and actually gaming, I dont even read all the comments, much less get into a debate over every topic on this site.

Seriously, some people have too much free time, Im jealous.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW