Front Toward Gamer's TheStonedSheep discuses why the PS3 is picking up steam and is now technically winning the console wars.
this is actual a typical article on n4g. At least its accurate
I find this article completely manipulative: "the Wii won’t be included because I’m certain most people reading this article will see the PS3 or 360 as far superior to the Wii, and that most Wii owners won’t even know what the console war is." So somehow, just because the Wii is not superior, it's not winning. This is delusion at its best. In console wars only the PS3 and 360 matter, why is that? 360 fanboys will tout LIVE despite Steam being so much more superior and free. Then they tout sales yet the Wii stomps them too. PS3 fanboys will tout graphics despite the PC having the best, and then tout free online when Steam has free online with superior content than LIVE. Fight about whoever has better games all you want but don't start taking objective facts of sales/profits/market share and try manipulating who "wins" when neither of you do. "the PS3 is currently winning the console war, even though the 360 has sold 4.3 million units more (probably due to the extra year of sales)." So now, winning is defined "Technically" as whoever has the most market share? Oh, but the Wii doesn't count! And the 360's sales lead doesn't count either. All I am asking from anyone that agrees with the reasons of this article is a proper argument, or at least a basic definition of "winning" because it sure as hell doesn't mean "Whoever sells the most" with all these strings attached. It's like saying Pepsi sold the most... but Coke doesn't count in the analysis. CONSOLE WARS includes ALL consoles of this gen, not whatever you can cherry-pick to support your bias. It's flamebait to say the PS3 is winning and then define winning in a manner that guarantees the PS3 fits the definition. When I asked what "Winning" meant people told me it was whoever sold the most consoles. By the very logic of N4G, Sony is not winning. This twisted pseudo-logic that it is is just flamebait and denial at its finest. First of all, what happened to sales not mattering? Second, if people care about these sales then they have to look at it from a company perspective and the companies care about profits. And who do you think made the most profits? The company that lost lots of money for each console they sold? The company that lost lots of money having to continue repairing the faulty hardware? Or the company that had none of these problems and manages to sell the most AND make the most? I can understand people saying "The PS3 is GOING to win" but saying that it is winning is an insult to basic logical reasoning.
I think the PS3 will win in the long run due to the strong brand name. The Xbox is still the newest player in the game and many people have never owned an Xbox. Unlike a Nintendo or PlayStation System. MS by all accounts I feel have won became they changed the game so much on the networking side which is the future of gaming. Some may argue the Wii with motion sensing and they could be right amusing it has the impact networking did. Anyway I'm sick as hell right now but you guys know what I mean. I can't think strait.
Alpha-Male said what I've failed to articulate for a long time. 360 and PS3 fanboys both ignore facts in order to claim that their consoles are winning. "So somehow, just because the Wii is not superior, it's not winning. This is delusion at its best. In console wars only the PS3 and 360 matter, why is that? 360 fanboys will tout LIVE despite Steam being so much more superior and free. Then they tout sales yet the Wii stomps them too. PS3 fanboys will tout graphics despite the PC having the best, and then tout free online when Steam has free online with superior content than LIVE. Fight about whoever has better games all you want but don't start taking objective facts of sales/profits/market share and try manipulating who "wins" when neither of you do." That right there is the most important thing. the fanboys are fighting for some arbitrary ranking. Even if 360 has more sales than PS3 or if PS3 has more sales than 360 by the end of whatever this is, neither console will be first and neither console will have proven to be superior in the larger scheme of things. The fanboys are like dogs fighting each other for scraps from the dinner table. Consoles are mid-level machines. They are by definition inferior to other computers. So when it comes to fighting over who has more power, the fanboys are already fighting over a lower rank. Next comes games. What games are good and what games are bad are based purely on taste. On this site, I have seen fanboys using sales and/or reviews as "evidence" that their console has the best games. And yet, whenever one fanboy says, "Hey, X game on my console is excellent, look how many copies it sold, look how high the score is," the other fanboys say, "Those scores don't matter. The reviewers are biased. A lot of idiots bought the game, so what?" All that says to me is that there are no facts that can prove that one console is better than the other, and the fanboys only use "evidence" when it is in their favor. It's all bullshit. If one guy says that Halo is great and another says that Halo is garbage, who is right and who is wrong? It's all a matter of opinion, anyway, yet these fanboys think that the more they say it, the more right they are. Who cares if by the end of the gen 360 has more sales than the PS3 or if PS3 has more sales than the 360? The fanboys start adding bullshit statements. They say is PS3 "wins" then we will get better games or if the 360 "wins" we will get better games. And both sides think that if the console they hate "wins" then gaming will be destroyed. They're just deluding themselves into thinking that they have made an important decision by purchasing and supporting one of the consoles and not the other. The real gamers are the ones who don't even have these conversations about which console is better. They don't even know who makes their games. They don't care. If the game is fun, they play it. They don't boycott publishers.
Alpha Male is right once again. And as the article said, "technically". Well technically the xbox 360 is a computer, so therefore, a pc is technically a console and has sold around a billion units. WOW. Pc wins the console race!
For a war, you have to find real opponents, and wii is only a ps2 opponent, not 360 or ps3, and the war between fanboyz is essentially concerning xbox360 (the worst since 2006) and ps3 (who have a revenge now), so, the article is not delusional, just talking about facts : ps3 sell more since the beginning, has better games, hardware, so is not stupid to say sony is winning.
I hate to nitpick but... Can you define "winning the console war", before you claim that the Wii is a participant in it? From these guys perspective, and that of many many "hardcore" gamers, the Wii is not a serious gaming option -- mostly due to its software lineup, and that's just as fair a perspective as any other. You have to take perspective into consideration *whenever* you read an opinion piece, anywhere. If there were strict rules defining what a "console war" is, then you could pick at their commentary with your argument. But there aren't, by your own admission, and so you have to give them room for their opinion, no matter how they state it. Is the iPhone "winning" the "handheld war" because it: (a) plays games, and (b) can be held in your hand? Is the PS2 "winning" the "console war" because it: (a) still sells, and (b) vastly outnumbers every other console in existance, including the Wii? If you don't include those options in your definition, you're pulling the same "choose your own battle" stunt these guys are. If you say there's no definition, then you have to give them a pass for their opinion. Well.. you don't have to. You didn't. =)
Bubbles for being one of the only intelligent people on N4G.
exclusives ps3 wins thats why ps3 fans tout ps3 graphics
I bought a 360 in the wait of my ps3. When i got the ps3 i sold the 360 to my best freind. So now we switch consols when we want to play each others games, best of two worlds, or just sitting playing together. The ps3 died twice as it could not read BD disk, and the 360 also died twice with RROD, both got back at no cost. So now i ask...What consolwar? Game on
Troy, first I appreciate you bringing that up, but you are missing the fault of the article's argument. Second, thanks for bringing it up and not hiding behind disagrees like so many do when they see me criticize something. I am going by the definition this forum gave me when I asked not too long ago. This article makes an argument based on sales, shares, etc. but excludes the Wii because it's not hardcore enough? How does that make any sense? If the article was talking about games then fine, the Wii doesn't have many hardcore games, but to take objective sales research and then twist the exceptions to make the PS3 the winner is simply cheating the system. It's clear that the PS3 is the winner not because it "wins" sales, but because the writer WANTS it to win, hence the loopholes and the strings attached. Also, there is a fundamental issue with saying Wii gamers don't matter: the fact that they don't go on forums and try to win petty wars doesn't mean they don't matter. You can't disqualify a console just because you feel that they aren't part of the war. A console war is by definition a CONSOLE war that means ALL consoles, and the Wii is a console. It's not a HARDCORE console maybe, but it's nonetheless a console that is not only relevant but on top of the industry. There is a reason why I'm asking for a definition: because people are just making it up as they go along. Sony "wins" IMO because I like their games the most. In that sense they win my favor. But that is completely subjective. This article tries to make an argument based on sales. WHEN did PS3 gamers care about that?? He disqualifies the Wii because the 360/PS3 fanboy war is so selfishly deluded to think that they are the only ones that matter-- despite both the 360 and PS3 FOLLOWING in Wii's motion war footsteps and opening more to the casual market. On top of that he claims the Wii DOESN'T have the majority marketshare. If he is arguing Sales, guess what? Sales don't matter to companies. Profits do, and Nintendo has made the most. These people are playing a game of ranking themselves, what's the point? And why the blatant lies? So again, he can't have a perspective if he is arguing sales. Sales are numbers, they are facts, they don't lie and aren't left to personal interpretation. Yes, the PS3 is a great console, but to say that it's Winning in sales is just a blatant lie. Games? Sure, that's more debatable and left to subjective opinion. He says that it's either winning in the opinion of the people, which is subjective, or numbers. He then uses the numbers and uses a poll that has little correlation to the actual argument. "The PS3 is winning, oh look at this poll, it says people liked the price drop." The logic is purposefully twisted to favor the PS3. Sorry, but the Wii "won" in terms of the N4G definition, it "won" in profits, and in terms of games that is entirely subjective but this article did NOT ever argue games. @troy below That's besides the point: This specific article is using sales but is twisting it to favor the PS3. Disqualifying the Wii based on games is understandable. Disqualifying it based on it not being taken seriously, yet arguing from sales is just a desperate excuse to make sure the PS3 is the favored outcome in his conclusion. "The PS2 still sells millions of units each year. Why not count it?" Because it didn't "win" any of those years in this gen, did it? The conclusion of the article is not "The PS3 is Winning" it's "The PS3 winning, once you ignore the Wii and the 360's first year" How is that a fair argument from sales when your ignoring sales facts?
@Alpha I understand where you're coming from, but I'm going to maintain that the definition of "console war" is completely subjective, and arguing that someone else's definition isn't the same as yours, or some "official" definition someone else told you (lol), is pointless. You can't argue away what they've included in their opinion, by substituting your own opinion. The PS2 still sells millions of units each year. Why not count it? Do you know how many LeapFrog Leapsters have been sold? What would you say if I said the LeapFrog Leapster, a fully fledged handheld btw, is probably the DS's biggest competition, in the market that the DS actually sells to? Is the PSP in your definition of the "handheld war", or is it actually the DS vs. the Leapster? How about the VSmile and the Wii?
Alpha With all do respect . You don't need to put a Wall of Text . Just say you don't agree wiht the story thats all .
I so agree with Alpha. You don't take out facts that works against you. If you want to measure a winner, you pick a yardstick and apply it to everyone. Not selectively removing facts to suit your needs. That is called B-I-A-S-E-D!!! With that said, does the console war even matter anymore? I mean it only mattered when the PS2 was dominating and the GameCube and original Xbox had so few users it's software line up was in jeopardy from third party. Now a days, none of the console manufacturers suffer from this so who freaken cares. I guess when everyone and their mother can start a little amateur blog and post it on n4g, then this is what we get!
Alpha-male, I believe that each console has won in it's own unique way. Nintendo may have screwed over a large part of it's hardcore fan base with the wii but was incredibly successful with it's family-friendly concept. Even a hardcore gamer can appreciate the intelligence of Nintendo. The Xbox went from being the "new kid" to beating the PS3 in sales, which is quite the feat for a console going up against any console Sony makes. Microsoft took control and took many exclusives from Sony and managed to make quite the name for themselves. The PS3 started off with few exclusives, a high price and almost no developers that knew how to use it to it's full potential. The comeback Sony made was incredible and has put the ps3 in a position to overtake the 360 in sales in as little as two years. It's simple, to enjoy games, buy all three consoles and appreciate them for what they're worth.
A comment so epic it has two parts: Your objectivity is appreciated here. I'm sure many will disagree, but you brought up some good points. However, you were only partially objective, taking the side of anti-"fanboy", which is just as fanboy-ish in my opinion. There are strengths and then there are weaknesses. Every single argument in the history of existence has had both, including yours. So don't act like yours has impeccable logic either. First off, the whole argument in an attempt to raise Steam on some godly pedestal is moot. Content delivery is entirely subjective. Methods matter, and each has different content. Some appeal more than others. This argument can only be seen as flame-bait as it offers no reasonable explanations as to any statistical advantage just that it's "superior." Second, sales should only matter to share holders and their related partners, however, for sake of argument, I will explain why your argument lacks consistency. Sales are entirely subjective. Not in the manner you are thinking, but by perspective alone. Sure, Sony's at the bottom of the chain... overall. However, a 4.6 million unit lead matters not to an exec who's console is selling far more than their nearest competitor (in this case the 360). Again, that can change at the drop of a hat. Sony has only been concerned with the "hardcore" crowd for some time. Hence why they viewed Microsoft as their competition. The 360 was being marketed to that very same demographic. Theirs a reason why nobody regarded the Wii. Now that Sony is ready to branch out, the casual market will emerge, thereby expanding their demographic. At that point, their competition will be both the Wii and 360, as both will be eating away at their market. Once Sony launches their advertising campaign to the casual market (read: PlayStation Move), then the PS3 will officially be competing with the Wii. For now though, your claims hold no bearing as the Wii's demographic is entirely different than the PS3's. Besides, Sony has not sold at a loss for quite a while. I think over a year now. They're even starting to turn a profit, and by outselling the 360 there is nothing to be ashamed about. Matter of fact, they are probably as happy as can be. They are about to overtake a console that has had a twelve month head start ( fifteen to eighteen months in some territories ). How on Earth could they be disappointed? As for the term winning or going to win, why's it matter? Present and future tense shouldn't matter in this case. Going by perspective, if a share holder saw that their console of choice was outperforming their closest competitor week in and week out, while, more importantly, turning a profit, the term "winning" shouldn't matter. It's almost as if you are expressing an insecurity here, rather than sharing insight. Regardless, console sales are only but a fraction of what share holders expect. When they buy stock, they are investing in more than just the PS3. Sony's accessories fit the bill when the PS3 fails to do so. Sony's game division encompasses more than just console sales. As mentioned before, peripherals bring in a lot more. Now, imagine will you, games. Yes, games!
Trroy, I think you bring up an excellent point but are still unclear about a few things. I'll just PM you instead of making another wall of text if you are interested-- I appreciate the healthy debate, bubbles for your good comments. And PSFan, you are 100% correct about that. However, note that my criticism was towards the article writer and his use of sales for justification of his conclusion. The problem I have is that people see this titles, like it because they favor their perspective, and then approve of it or generally agree with it without ever actually reading the article. Most comments in articles don't even relate to the contexts of an article, but just the title topic. By doing this people endorse false beliefs based on titles and then that opinion becomes more stubborn towards getting challenged and then we have people who, when they disagree, get blasted for disagreeing. I am not saying the PS3 is losing in any way but it is not "winning" the "Console War", especially his definition that he used. @Basch, I'll get to you :) And I'm not saying my argument or reasoning is indestructible, but it's not destructible until someone actually manages to deconstruct it, and if you are going to do that then more power to you, I am fully open to being wrong and changing my position.
Part two of an epic-ly long comment ( split apart by your fast responses... touché ): First party games like Uncharted have been selling like crazy. Where do you think all that money goes? Some, of course, to the middle man, but cents matter here when you're selling millions upon millions of copies. Microsoft has Halo, but Sony has a lot more. Uncharted 2 alone has sold close to 4 million copies, about the same as Halo 3: ODST. Uncharted 2 raked in about as much cash as ODST ever did. Matter of fact, probably more so being as ODST has had several price drops. Now that's just Uncharted 2. Imagine dozens more like it joining the ranks: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Resistance: Fall of Man, Resistance 2, Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time, inFamous, Heavenly Sword, Heavy Rain, Killzone 2, LittleBigPlanet, MotorStorm, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, Warhawk, God of War III, God of War Collection, etc. Get the picture, yet? Cents matter here when found in multiples of a million. Now mind you, this is only consoles. Sony's game division also has a portable market, but being as this is about the PS3, I won't get into it. This... this is nothing. There is so much more as far as Sony's concerned. Same can be said for Microsoft in Nintendo. Like I said, it comes down to perspective. I decided to take Sony's perspective being as you were disregarding the article and by extension Sony, being as that is what the basis of the article was founded on. I would have done likewise had it been against Microsoft or Nintendo. Perspective matters. So don't write his argument off. This article could very well have been defined as shi+ in your eyes, but the argument still stands. Maybe not the one he was proposing but one bearing the same meaning as the one you so adamantly refuse. If anything, what I dislike most is the elitist mentality you portray here. There's no need for it. You're no better than the kid next door. Just like every argument, each person has their strengths and weaknesses. No advantage is too great, and all is subjective. I am no more intelligent than anyone else here. No reason to be a dick about it. Again, you bring up some valid points, but your logic is just as fallible as the author's. Maybe, if you were to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, we would better understand your reasoning. As of now, you come across as insecure and hot-headed. N4G is a community. You're a part of it. There's no need to disregard anyone. EDIT: @Trroy Um... wow, well said, mate. I agree with everything. That's crazy. I've been typing this for probably an hour now, and didn't even notice your response 'til I posted. You said everything I meant to say more clearly and concisely. Kudos to you! ;) Also, Alpha, after reading your second comment. I agree. Your first comment sounded like Soad's, but your second took a more practical approach, but your still reaching. I admire your professionalism and convictions.
All i was trying to say with my comment was, that im ignorant to the war. In my world it do not exist.But saying that is a crime on N4G apparantly.. And while you few guy's have been writing wall's of text 25 Mil. gamers have been playing games, some of them might be sleeping;-) Anyway back to FFIX....Im so relaxed... Game on @nnotdead below I hear you, but when i look at the discussion, i se it goes nowhere. Its just different oppinions about nothing, sorry but thats just me. And just for info i am the gamer who has been arround since Pong, and follow everything and play everything.I support the gaming industri by buying games for pc and consoles, and will propably die gamming.
i wanted to get into this conversation at Alphas first post. then i got side tracked, and missed all the good debate. bubbles to Alpha, Trroy, and Basch. most of my points have already been stated so no reason to be redundant. @yess maybe cuz people wanting into this debate are more of the core gaming audience. any one can play a game. hell, my GF put in more time gaming than i did this week (Peggle), and she doesn't know or care about any aspect of the game industry.
Nice to see. I, for one, have always found the console wars ridiculous. "But Darkride66," I hear you say. "You'll the biggest PS3 defender on the planet. How could you say such a thing?" The Wii took off this gen, and while it's never been my cup of tea I've always been a big Nintendo supporter. They reached out and grabbed a market that we didn't even know really existed in these numbers with the Wii. More power to them. Then it comes down to the PS3 and the 360, of which I own both and prefer my PS3 for numerous reasons I won't go into here but it doesn't matter to me which company comes out on top. And that's the thing. How do you decide which company comes out on top, and why does it even matter? I constantly see people on these forums that love to attack one console over another for purely BS reasons and I just end up shaking my head. I find myself going toe to toe with the 360 camp more often than not because they're the ones that, in my opinion, are generally prone to burying their heads in the ground when it comes to the reality of the gaming industry. As much as I appreciate SOAD's comments here today, I'd like to use him as an example. In a forum discussing the 360's business prospects I mentioned that Microsoft had admitted that 3rd party development in the 360 was down. To me this logically says that interest from 3rd parties is down. If you're interested enough in the 360, you're developing for the 360. If that interest level decreases below the threshold where you feel motivated to develop a game, then development slows. So I pointed out that 3rd party developers are losing interest in the 360. Out comes SOAD, accusing me of being a liar. I point him to where Microsoft made those comments, but I'm still a liar because decreased development in his world doesn't mean decreased interest. Say what? If interest was still at the same level, development would still be at the same level. I often find these are the tactics used by the 360 crowd when discussing the industry. Everything is spin. Numbers are cherry picked. No one can admit what we've been seeing the past year and what the data clearly shows, that the 360 is winding down. This doesn't mean the PS3 has won. It is what it is, but what always shocks me is how taboo it is to even speak on these facts. Gamers shouldn't be attacked on these forums for discussing the truths of the industry, and one of those truths is the console cycle. The 360 started first and it'll end first. Simply discussing this reality or what comes next shouldn't make a target of a poster.
Alpha Male, you are one of the few intellectual people here on N4G. Every time you comment, you clearly explain your opinion in the most unbiased way. Too bad you get more disagrees than agrees. Oh well.
There is absolutely no reason, alpha, that you should have ANY disagrees, let alone 47 (at this point--i'm sure you'll get more). You nailed it. it blows me away that people can look at the facts, then mix in their bias, and someone come to a conclusion completely contrary to those facts. and then they convince themselves these are the new truths. it's wishful thinking at best, and desperation at worst. i can't figure out why so many ppl takes sides or feel so strongly about a CORPORATION. shouldn't it just be about the individual games? it's like politics. you have 2 major parties. and most ppl have aligned themselves with either dems or repubs. and instead of evaluating an individual based on their understanding of the law, foreign relations, their intelligence, etc..; they automatically side with the guy that is affiliated with their party. people just have a desperation to feel like they are part of a group regardless of quality or track record. I understand that, and because i know it, i don't do it. but i think most ppl don't even know they're doing it. they want so badly to not just be a member of something, but a recognized member. and they'll goto weird extremes to do so. sony and MS are both CORPORATIONS. they don't care about you, they don't care about great content beyond what it can do for them financially. all they care about is the bottom line...appeasing the stock holders and maximizing profits. and that's fine! cuz as a result, both companies compete for the best possible features, games, accessories, etc. and they constantly have to push their systems to their maximum potential to grab as much market share as they can. if you own both systems (or all 3 with the wii), you get to reap the benefits of this competition. if you choose a side and want to auto-hate on the other while blindly championing yours, you're a fanboy...plain and simple. and that goes for all other aspects. pepsi vs coke, christian vs muslim, colgate vs crest, sony vs ms, etc... if you are short on cash, however, and can only afford one system and because of that you weigh your options and reach a conclusion based on your preferences, that's different. as long as you acknowledge your choice is simply that...YOUR CHOICE. it doesn't make it the right choice for everyone, just you. i like what you say about the wii as well, but if you go back to my previous analogy, you'd understand there just isn't room for 3...it's a see-saw. you can be a sony fanboy or an ms fanboy and still have a wii (in fact, that's probably why wii continues to do well). you don't have the sides constraint with the wii that you do with the ps3 and 360. it can co-exist with both. anyway, i really liked what you had to say man, and i just wish more "gamers" could get into their heads that who's winning, who may eventually win, who's dominating does NOT matter at all unless you have major dollars invested in one of them. otherwise, it's just a headache and a time consumer to constantly be a spokesperson in article after article, forum after forum for your side. and more often than not, it makes you look like an ignorant prick more than anything else. continued...
If i were a sony fanboy, i would actually be worried that sony might win. as a matter of fact, i'm worried anyway. the implications are actually pretty big. as it was, sony dominated the market so much, that i really think they felt they could get away with a lot this generation when it began. but when wii and ms started pushing the boundaries of different territories, and sony realized they weren't gonna get the 200 million unit sales they got last gen, they had to rethink their gameplan. as a result, we have a better ps3 than what shipped. if MS manages to narrowly beat sony this gen, it would ensure another generation of strong competition, meaning better systems from both companies. that's where it looks like we're headed and that's absolutely what i'd like to see. MS and Sony duking it out til the very end, or at least til i retire from gaming (as if that would happen). my biggest concern, truthfully, is that MS and Sony might not go for the hardware and graphical leaps next gen that they did this one because they saw how successful nintendo was with rereleasing last gen hardware plus a motion controller. fine if motion is becoming more normal in gaming, but it would truly suck if that began to overshadow game development progress. it's bad enough PC graphics don't take the leaps they used to cuz developers know they'll make more money developing for console, but imagine if next generation still looks like it does now... sure there are many great looking games out and coming out, but thanks to crysis, i can already see a lot of the flaws i didn't see in previous generations...hell i even see them in crysis now. imagine how things will look in 3-5 years.
You reason with logic yet you gain more disagrees, people are zombies that follow anything. Simply put, they`re stupid.
Actually, I find Alpha's comments to be more along the side of truth than most. His basic argument, that if you define winning the console war by which company sold the most consoles, then the Wii wins is a fact. Why? It's proven true by the definition of the argument. To say, "_______ doesn't count because" is just being a fanboy. The only reason Steam, PCs, etc., was brought up was because of the first things Sony and MS fanboys' bring up: POWAH and ONLINE. The information was predisposed to keep people to understand the main point: If you define the winner of the console war by the console with the most sales (Like the article does), then the Wii is clearly the winner. Again, the main point of the argument and it cannot be disproven (screw your spell check, N4G, it's a word): If you define the winner of the console war by the most consoles sold, the Wii wins by virtue of having the most consoles sold. No, the PS2 doesn't count because it's not part of the console war and everyone knows that. If you're going to be silly, then may as well use the PS1 as well and Sony comes in first and second. Some of you got so wrapped in the sidebar that the main concept completely eluded you. Perhaps he should have made his argument more textbook style and placed his main point at the beginning of what he wrote (a thesis statement) and then supported it thereafter? Basch, isn't it funny how you call him an elitist and a d!ck when you spout about how your comment is "SO EPIC IT HAS 2 PARTS"? Get real, guy. Now, if you could only learn to read and understand his problem was with the way the writer defined who won the console war only to then disregard the console most fitting of the definition. And you did exactly what he was talking about. No one cares about all those games you listed because they weren't consoles sold. Not one of your arguments was reason to exclude the Wii from the writer's definition of who's winning the console war. If you can't find a R E A L reason as to why the Wii should not be included, your reply will just be as worthless as your first two supposed "EPIC" posts. Take your own advice: If you're calling someone out on being an arrogant elitist, don't do it yourself; it just makes you look like a hypocrite. Now, I need to go drown myself in some GoW3 because I just spent wayyyyy tooo long defending a console I don't even own anymore. @Darkride: Just a question, but if MS reduces funding for 3rd parties might that also slow development? Lack of funds wouldn't exactly mean interest is down. Not sure why it would be, just saying there are other reasons than what you stated.
Both Microsoft and Sony are making no profits whatsoever, losing billions of usd. Oh yeah, one of them are winning, all right...
For making this post-as a wii owner time and time again i have come onto N4G to see that my home console of choice (I own all 3) is left out outside because its considered not to be "A serious console" Im considered to be one of the most enthusiastic when it comes to gaming (within my circle of friends) and it sucks to be told that people like me who own a Wii "dont count". Thank you for being intelligent enough to include all corners of the argument..
The console war has always been only about the x360 and PS3. You are nitpicking. I've been following n4g for a few years now and never have I seen the Wii brought up in this war unless someone has been running out of arguements and wanted to shut someone up about sales. This thing originated from the BS the x360 fans started about the x360 winning the PS3. Wii was never in those arguements. "When I asked what "Winning" meant people told me it was whoever sold the most consoles. By the very logic of N4G, Sony is not winning." You are looking at things from your own angle and being smart about it. If I want to say that selling more (at present time) is winning (atm) then I'm just as right as you are about that. I'm just looking at things from a different angle. The sales don't matter arguement? Here let me clarify what it means to me. The earlier salesnumbers of PS3 vs x360 (when the x360 was winning big time in USA) was IRRELEVANT since we knew the PS3 would sell more once the price comes down. This was the other part of those arguements can't you remember them? We also said the reason for that arguement. What's that? You x360 fans laughed and said "waitstation and delaystation" to get over that part? OK I guess. Do you really think that the PS3 won't sell over 100 million? If you realize this will happen then what relevance does the initial salesnumbers have when there are so many OBVIOUS reasons for the slow initial sales? Price and lack of games for example. This is all old news really so I'm surprized why you don't realize these things. The x360 is standing on it's last legs and we all know this. The tech is and has been all about short term solutions. There is no 10 year plan with the x360 as there is with the PS3. There won't be a PS4 for a long time since the tech hasn't evolved that much. The PS3 has a standard HDD that more than enough makes up for the relatively slower data transfer of the BD-drive IF there will be need to transfer the data that much faster in general in a few years. Ironically time, the thing that's fuelled most of the sales talk, is the very same thing that will make the PS3 win this "war". The x360 doesn't stand a chance in winning the ultimate salesnumbers when all is said and done in 7-10 years from this point on. You can expect to see MS starting to talk about next generation of consoles right at the time when the PS3 runs over the x360 in ww sales. At the point of losing this gen even after all the aid they've gotten (headstart and the ps3 price-media-circus) they will announce the current gen over and themselves the winners over the mighty PS3 (even though the day after the PS3 passes the x360-_-). Just watch. This is how MS works. I've called you out on your comment a few times now and you keep ignoring them.
You could make the argument that Nintendo has repeadtedly said they are not competeing against Sony or Microsoft, which would exclude them from the console war. I agree with you though to say that Sony is winning is ludicrous, Though I feel they will at least get second.
PS3 might outsell the mighty Wii too when all is said and done. We have to wait 10 years for this to clarify. Anyway the Wii was never in the minds of the x360 fans. All they wanted to laugh about was the PS3. They laughed at the PS3 and it's initial salesnumbers and proclaimed that the x360 would win the PS3 in sales. This is what started the sales war. It was ALWAYS ONLY BETWEEN THE PS3 AND X360.
I'm making this post to apologize for calling Alpha-Male22 a dick and hotheaded. I was, in fact, hotheaded myself, and he didn't deserve it. He brought up some reasonable points, but I was taken back by his word usage and let it get the better of me. I can be pretty vulgar on occasion. Again, I'm sorry. Anyways, I agree with him to a certain extent. However, I still don't believe someone should be forced to acknowledge an arbitrary definition for the sake of establishing superiority. Everything is in the eye of the beholder. Perspective matters. One person's approval of console superiority won't change the fact that another may disregard the former because of target demographic. They're not understating the Wii's sales. I believe everyone here will agree it's doing some fantastic numbers, but you can't force someone to compare their product to another they didn't even compete against. Your very definition is arbitrary. That's all I'm trying to say. Again, perspective matters. @Spydr07 Actually, I acknowledged as much in my post. I believe it was in my third and fourth paragraphs of my original post. The core demographics was the reason, and I'd argue is entirely logical. Of course, I'm disregarding it, because from that perspective it makes sense. From his perspective, his argument makes sense. I don't get it. I basically said I agree with both sides. Did I not make that clear? I just got annoyed by his word usage. As for the epic-ly long comment addendum, it was intended as a joke: an afterword made after an obsessively long reply that was used to break the ice. I was making fun of myself. I wasn't serious. I think I need to work on my sarcasm a little more. It was just a bit of satire. A joke. ha ha? lol
Alpha said everything i was thinking. Nice and LOL at all the disagrees... i mean seriously wTF? Winning by normal business standards is based on sales, sales = money, money = win. People can bend and twist facts as much as they want, but the company that makes the most money is inevitably the victor. Right now, Wii or should we say nintendo is dominating on ALL fronts, console and handheld. To ignore this fact you undeniably have to be 1) a child, 2) a fanboi with raging hormones, 3) did not listen to what your commerce teacher was talking about back in school. Wether more consoles are more powerful or have better games does not make a console win, it is how many households have the console that counts. NEOGEO, JAGUAR, SEGA MEGACD, DREAMCAST, Turbografx(PC Engine), MEGADRIVE(Genesis), Gamegear were all more powerful and had better looking games in their respective timeframes, but they never beat the likes of NES, SNES, Gameboy, Playstation or Playstation 2 in the sales war. If they really did beat them, Why aren't they around making consoles today??? Until a console can surpass the Wii in active households, nintendo is still king. If people want to break it off and debate who is winning the HD Gaming WAR, then that is a different story.
i like how people love to include Wii but don't want to include PS2. PS2 is the King (console wise). love it or hate it!
IF you use sales as your main argument, at THIS POINT IN TIME the standing is 1.Wii 2.360 3.Ps3 as far as home consoles go. The PS3 was built to last, where the 360 was built as a sprinter. The PS3 is gaining and will catch the 360 unless things DRASTICALLY change. Based on sales data that we have What we can say with truth behind it: The PS3 will probably win the war (console sales wise) if things keep going the way they are. What we CAN'T say with truth behind it: The PS3 is CURRENTLY winning the console war. The rest is opinion. Some of us may feel that the PS3's momentum means it is winning since it is accelerating where the 360 (and even the wii) is stagnating. Some of us might say that in their opinion, PS3 has clearly shown it has the better game library at this point in time. And these are all fine and legitimate arguments for stating which console is winning the war. But if you go that route, you cannot use console sales data as an argument because the raw numbers state clearly that the Wii is in first for sales, the 360 is in second for sales, and the Ps3 is in third for sales. That's just how things are *AT THIS POINT IN TIME* These facts are quickly changing. And IMO the PS3 could even catch the Wii before it's done. Lots of BIG sellers still to come in the next half decade.
Alpha-Male take it you've got a Wii then? Getting a tad passionate lol. Yes most folk think its a two horse race PS3 v Xbox 360 as real console's go. The Wii in the other hand is a kids toy for bored kids at a party for a hour or so, or an old folks workout for 15 mins then stuck back in the cupboard collecting dust doesnt matter what or how well it sold its not in the same league as the other two. Just a plain fact its a second choice platform cheap and cheerful keeps kids and old folks happy.
Wii isn't that cheap, considering it being a party machine, would mean you need at least 2 - 4 controllers with the nunchuck on each. Also you need the component cable, ethernet adapter if you don't have wireless and a rechargeable batteries for each controller. In the end it costs alot more than the xbox360 and ps3 slim standard packages. Sure Wii doesn't have that many hardcore games, however... Mario Galaxy, New Super Mario Bros, Monster Hunter Tri, No more heroes, Mad world, Resident Evil 4, Zelda, Metroid, Tatsunoku vs Capcom say hi!
i agree with you. the ps3 still has a little to go to catch up with the 360 in terms of TOTAL sales, but since the ps3 is selling soo much faster than the 360 as we speak its imminent the ps3 will outsell the 360 (very very soon) ( i give it 1 year ) and they will have surpassed them. imo though the ps3 has the best games in the "console war". i mean 3 game of the years in a row?! that says enough. not to mention many MANY other games that have blessed the playstation 3. EDIT: i would also like to add the 360 had a 1 and a half year advantage, and its being caught up to.
but most of the 360 sales are re-buys
I don't care about the console war. I've always been a two-console owner with the rare exception of the Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube. Regardless, I buy consoles based on quality of games and quality of hardware. Microsoft has delivered neither. With the rare exception of Alan Wake, what game does Microsoft have that differentiates itself from the other consoles? With that said, PS3 is 'winning' in my eyes simply because of the games it has pumped out these past couple of years. The Wii has those rare gems that come out once every blue moon that you just have to play.
"Winning"? lol, what does that mean? Can someone define this? The PS3 is the best console...for ME, but that doesn't mean it "beats" the Wii or 360 in EVERY gamers eyes. 2 words: PERSONAL PREFERENCE GTA4 and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are the 2 best games this generation according to the media...how many of u agree with this? I rest my case Try to stop confusing opinion with fact people. U look less stupid =D
@deadreckon stop it you're running the console wars for me with all your logic. :P
You want the console war defined? It is business. The console that generates the largest profit, both directly through sales and indirectly through sales of games/peripherals/etc, is the leader of the console war which is... a business thing. The whole notion that console war is about the fans is funny, that ain't the console war that is just immaturity showing through. The winner of the console war will be the manufacturer who made the most money out of it, not sold the most hardware or software, it is about who had the best business. You won't find many gaming articles saying this, it is not a sensationalist as what they have been telling you it is all about which if you ask me, is irresponsible and tabloidesque reporting! So, who is actually winning the Console War? I will be absolutely honest and say I do not know. Wii is making the cash on the hardware, but you could argue either Sony or Microsoft are making the cash on the software. The only people who know for sure who is winning are the extremely small few investors who have bought enough shares within all 3 companies to be entitled to review the finances of Nintendo Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Sony Corp. And don't expect them to tell the anybody in the media how their companies are doing, they are annoyed enough as it is with the media for sensationalist reports making the markets volatile on a weakly basis. I hope some people learned something therem not about the console war, but seeing you shouldn't go into investments! LOL!
I Only Know That People Want a PS3 Now, there is No Price High and Japan + Europe always give The Advantage to Sony, The PS3 @ $250/$200 and Everything that Happened with the PS2 it'll Repeat With The PS3....
If you guys think big sells is what will win the Console Wars, then you are flat out wrong. Who ever has the the best hardware/software will win the Console War, it has nothing to do with sells. PS2 didn't win last generation because it sold more than anything else, it won because it was the best console last generation. Everyone thinks the Wii is winning the console war, when in reality it is sitting way back in 4th place. Quality will always trump Sales.
It's about money.
What console war can they fight now, if so mine has yet to activate into battle mode. My 360 and PS3 sit next to each other with no fighting whatsoever.
Haha I wish my xbox and ps3 were transformers
If they were Transformers then the PS3 would be the Autobots and the Xbox would be Decepticons. >:P
This is the most pro PS3 garbage from these blog-like sites ever! Something to do with E3 and Microsoft's game changer me thinks. Winning from last place makes all the sense in the world :/
nope technically the wii 360 ps3 are all consoles.... wii has all ready won sorry....i don't like it either but you cant ignore facts......wii has demolished the console war.
good posts by alpha and trroy, at least we have some sensible discussions here for once
Just open it and you can see all N4g's anti-Ps3 clan members.
PS3 is winning in the graphics area with games looking better every year, with new graphics Bar Set.
slow down alpha, the Wii doesn't even get the same title releases as the PS3/360. THAT's why people say it's irrelevant and a toy. It's certainly not where the focus of the dev community is. So yes people are quite right in couting out the Wii.
I completly agree with you alpha male about how people do not even read these articles, however I am glad that an article I posted finally started a healthy debate, even though it is clear now that Sheep should have explained his exclusion of the Wii and possibly defined what he meant by console war. I am glad to see that there are people here that will actually discuss things in actual english still instead of such gems as "OMG GTFO troll." I will also admit fault for not going into detail under the story description, I could have explained it a little better. But again thanks for the healthy criticism, as you can see we are a new site and, well need to get feedback like what you have been giving us to improve.
Winning? lmao!! That's why they're in third place looking up.
We are having a technical issue, it will be fixed soon. Apologies everyone.
Sorry about that, fixed it.
PS3 might not be the top selling console but for sure its winning by the games they releasing
Better to ask how MS failed to exploit and develop all of the advantages they gave the 360. How they first lost 1st place to the Wii, and now how the 360's 9 million console lead is now under 5.
No one cares. Go play games.
Dammit, why?!? Are you trying to start something? And who is approving this?! You do realize this site is over-run with fanboys and this story is like throwing a gallon of gasoline on a cigarette? You're asking for trouble.
I came in just to see the comment, I knew it was a setup.
Usually that would be enough to win a console war but thanks to the damn economy, wii gained a vast headstart by releasing a half assed console for a cheap price. Really, looking at the stats in sales, everything is backwards and its a damn shame.
PlayStation brings the best games. But they still have a bit to catch up that gap left by 360's earlier release. Let's see what E3 brings. Then we'll see if Sony will gain the lead, or if 360 can hold it's spot at #2, behind the friggin Wii of course.
There would be no console "war" if everyone would just buy them all and be happy :-)
Talk about Butthurt and reeks of Fanboyism. "Gets up and goes to get popcorn, powerade, chips, then sits back n watches."