ZOMG XBOX360 VS. PS3 VS. WII ZOMG

I get it

 

the number of people who purchased the wii is an indication of a new generation of gamers and the next generation [not the new generation as that's what the wii is] will keep shrinking if and only if nintendo is able to deliver to their new customers.

the wii proves that is isn't about the hardware. nintendo makes simple games and it sells. why is it that a company like nintendo are able to make games that appear cheap but are very attractive. why is it that games on the ds are made with such hardware limitation and no one complains about it as compared to the psp. we have come to a moment in time where graphics isn't such a big fuss any more. games from the past are still being played by millions and the graphics are very crap, yet they are still loved. remember the sound and graphics example i gave. we have come to a good enough state on graphics.

everything that is mentioned from natewlie is indicative of the hardcore audience and the direction of how the video game market will become an industry. what this means is it'll end up what she called in japan, stagnate.

how did nolan bushnell created the video game market if no such market existed? and yet we're in a state where video games already exist and making a new market for new gamers is called casuals [what hardcore gamers call casuals or in reference retard gamers]. what this girl did here is very digusting. it's disgusting because she's blaming the people. it is not the people that should be blamed but rather the developers for making games that are substandard. gamestop is a great store. it's a great store because what you see inside the store is a representation of the crap people don't want and there are a lot of crap from all three consoles.

the reason to own a wii isn't for the nintendo exclusives. remember, i told you that nintendo is a hardware and software company. what matters most for nintendo isn't the sales of software but the sales of hardware. the sales of software is nothing if hardware isn't being sold. what this means is that nintendo is forced to make great games then the third party developers as they have to sell hardware and not software. remember, nintendo will do only the best thing for themselves because it is needed to make hardware sales. hardware sales is important as it's the key for developers to push more focus on developing on your hardware.

the reason why to own a wii is for what nintendo promised and failed. it is not for nintendo exclusives of metroid, mario or zelda and whatever else nintendo. there are better alternatives of these titles on the 360/ps3 and the pc. what nintendo promised was a world where people are playing games using motion controls, where gaming is new again to new users as well as passed users and the most dreaded, dead users. the amount of people who own the wii is indicative of that statement, wanting to experience a new world of gameplay, which attracted new gamers. the other reasons to own a wii is that it simplified things. as natewlie showed with first person shooters. another reason was nintendo's idea of making gaming for everyone, not only games for gamers and mild gamers, but also for non gamers. brain age, for instance, is popularized by all people and not just old people. this is the reason to own a wii, a video game paradise for everyone.

when a game doesn't sell on one console but sell on another, you have to look at it carefully. the fact that madden sold more on the ps3/360 then the wii doesn't mean much if you just look at the numbers. one can refute back and say why is tiger pga golf is better sold on wii then the 360/ps3. you see, you have to understand not just the numbers because the numbers will only be the numbers, you have to understand why people are buying it more on one console and not the other. i can tell you why tiger pga golf sold more on wii then the 360/ps3 but can you explain why madden solf more on the 360/ps3 as opposed to the wii. this is the mentality of the hardcore and this is the mentality of the video game industry. this is the reason why the wii is being treated like so because of this mentality which she just displayed. this is a bad thing and will destroy even kill the video game market.

it is not subjective because a non gamer or one who games mildly would never game on the 360/ps3 because such software for them would never exist on those consoles because the people on those consoles are not interested in the expanded market. this is again the mentality of hardcore gamers and the industry. natewlie is constantly saying this topic is subjective, but that is according to one who plays video games. but to someone who doesn't play video games, the wii is the winner. to someone who mildly plays video games, the wii is the winner. for someone who moved away from video games, the wii is the winner. for retro gamers, the wii is the winner. there is subjectivity, but that only exists for the hardcore gamers.

it's not about money. money is easy to make. you can ask the joker that! and he'll tell you that it's easy to make money which is why he burnt half the money he got from those fools.

i was right when i said about the wii, if i told you what it is you'd never believe it [natawlie proved it] and the article i read on the internet proves it over. the hardcore is still the hardcore.

btw, the above quote is funny. put that on a pc forum full of pc gamer veterans and they will laugh. hence why loony said play a real fps because he got a good laugh. system shock had a better story then halo. halo is popular because the game connected complex fps controls to a casual market full of possible fps gamers. the end result is that halo became favored and it's the reason why you have these new gamers who says halo is better then say system shock. ask loony, there were better fps games on pc before halo and even after halo. bioshock is crap. no one wants a spiritual successor. golden eye is even more praised then halo.

 

Aw, thanks.

It is the casuals to blame, or partly to blame. It is true that casuals will not buy games as often as any other gamer would. Where people who often play games will get a new game about once a month, versus a casual gamer would not. Also a casual would not really know which game to buy in the store, so they'd probably buy something that interests them, hopefully not any sort of shovelware (since the ratio is about a million to one for the Wii). The reason for all this shovelware and why they're making so much is because it sells. Ubisoft even made a point at E3 that the fitness genre was the best selling genre.

Stuff from Microsoft and Sony are still selling well. Newer franchises like Uncharted, Gears and the like are selling great. Sony and Microsoft exclusives do well in sales and keep the companies up and running. Along with a couple of good third party stuff, it's solid. The reason why the japanese game industry is stagnate is because most of their games are already established franchises, if you read my post in that topic, you'd understand partly why (or I'd hope), here in America there's newer stuff. While Final Fantasy is on 13 and still running, we only have Halo 3 or Uncharted 2 these are somewhat newer franchises versus the millionth iteration of Street Fighter or whatever.

THIS IS WHY IT'S SUBJECTIVE. I'd consider myself a newer gamer, I started getting into video games since Animal Crossing on the Gamecube. I prefer the Xbox and PS3, while the Wii is somewhat revolutionary for gaming and is extremely successful, that doesn't mean it's the greatest console ever. For people who are newer to games maybe, but for someone who's been gaming for a while, no. One person's opinion is different from the other, this is why it's subjective. While the Wii is more successful than the others, that's a fact but that doesn't mean it's better. :\

Greed is a funny thing. Tell that to CEO's of large companies who used bail out money and used them as bonuses for everyone. Tell that to the person who gets limited to 500k a year and complains about it. People or companies with money, just want more money.

I didn't say that Halo was better than any other FPS. I prefer Half Life 2, SS2, even Doom 2 to Halo. But to say that Halo isn't a real FPS is idiotic. And for someone who've I've been arguing about this subjectivity thing sure spouts off tons of immaturity in this little paragraph.

Golden Eye gets more praise than Halo because Golden Eye introduced stuff like missions, smarter AI and put console FPS' on the map. It's also praised a lot because most people have TONS of nostalgia with the game, I've played it and it's not that special. Perfect Dark is eons ahead of Golden Eye but for some reason Golden Eye gets more praise than it (oh, and it's a spiritual successor, like anyone wanted that).

And yes, I like Halo. I like it's vehicle sections a lot and I love co-op so I played it a bit with my husband, I enjoy it's story, it's not that great but it's better than most games and the shooting is although simple, it gets the job done in the gameplay department. I find the multiplayer well balanced and I like that there's vehicles included, but I don't play it anymore. It's a good FPS, not the greatest, but good. Something like splitscreen co-op is non existent on the PC besides Left 4 Dead (via a console code).

 

Ultra you are really getting a "little bit" fanboy now.
You dont accept anything down for Wii...

And that makes your argument funny.
Becouse at 2013 you'll probably say "Wii was awful this new console of Nintendo is the perfect gaming console"

 

you have to love nintendo more then the 360/ps3 because nintendo is still around while other companies have died. sony and microsoft are still here because they have alternative profits coming in and are able to take a massive hit as compared to nintendo. but if suppose there were no additional profit gains from either microsoft or sony, they would have been dead during the ps1. look at the massive losses that microsoft took on the xbox and 360, no single company in video games would be able to manage.

i do ridicule nintendo. they truly failed this year and now sony has a chance to get the title from nintendo, some what. sometimes nintendo do things and people are extremely puzzled by it because it goes against ideas.

btw, when a user starts using the fanboy cliche, it means they're stuck in the corner and will start using these labels. you see this all the time gaming forums full of hardcore gamers. go to a 360 forum and talk about nintendo and show how wrong they are and they'll start making labels.

last time i check, dragon quest 9 in japan sold plenty. so how could this be the reason. it's a contradictory reason and it's why it should be considered invalid. i don't really know what's going on in japan because it's japan and i'm thousands of miles away. wait a minute, dragon quest 9 sold well because it's on the handheld. i forgot.

360/ps3 stuff sell because they swallow anything. all the third party companies can just make shooters for the rest of the generation and it'll still sell because that's the hardcore. hype is the motivation. realize that sales on these consoles only last as long as the hype last, after that it's downhill. look at the sales of the nintendo games, they still sell after all these years. what games on the 360/ps3 are still selling like the nintendo games? none. it tells you that the games nintendo made has quality. this just tells you that quality in games has gone down, it is not only on wii but also on 360/ps3.

why would nintendo release a new console by 2013? where and how did the hardcore come up with that number year, 2013, for nintendo releasing a new console? if you can't explain this then it is invalid to even consider it.

rofl on natewlie for blaming on the customers. rofl! you never blame the customers. it is not the customers but the industry. remember you said that software is subjective, because it's subjective, shovelware would sell because those people are at the lower tier of the chart. it would not be the fault of the customers. nintendo games sell because nintendo makes games that do not label the customers as opposed to like ea or ubisoft.

the peasant and the king. the king is the consumer and the peasant is the company. as the company, you have to make strides to entertain your king. if you're king isn't entertained, then he or she wouldn't be happy. this means the king wouldn't want your product. correlate this to video games and why there are so many used games in gamestop.

 

Yeah sorry for "fanboy". I know its desperate
But I am somewhat happy to know that you admit Nintendo screw'd up this year.

 

I don't see how Nintendo has screwed up. Nintendo has hit many targets with their latest console.
-It is the biggest selling seventh-generation console.
-It has the largest number of game downloads available in its download centre.
-It has been the fastest selling console in the United Kingdom.
-It has, of course been the first console to come up with the motion contorlloer (to the extent that it is being used).

 

You're allowed to blame the customers, why is it so taboo in your opinion that it's not partly the consumer's fault? There's something called supply and demand. If people keep buying crap, there will be more of that crap. Nintendo makes Wii Fit and Wii Sports Resort, yeah they aren't labeling their customers.

Hype is a lot of the reason why games sell, don't act as if Nintendo games don't have hype, because they do. As I said before, casuals won't go to a video game store once a month like any other gamer, this is probably why those Nintendo games sell well over a longer period of time as opposed to the Xbox or PS3. Along with the high number of hardware Nintendo sells. I would debate about the quality but Nintendo games are generally good, but Nintendo dishes out a game once every 2 years. Oh, that's great.

I swear I've seen something about the shovelware and used games but it must be the painkillers kicking in.

Nintendo is the most successful video game company this gen, but that's isn't indicative of which console is better. That just means it sold a lot.

The thing Nintendo screwed up at was keeping the people who bought an N64 and GC in the dark with this new image of gaming. Or that's what they messed up on for me. I have a Wii and I never play it, I'm waiting on some good games, I'm probably going to get Mario but after that it's left in the dark again until the next great exclusive comes out. Meanwhile on the Xbox 360 and PS3 front, there's a lot more games coming out this season and are probably going to overshadow Mario; Uncharted, Modern Warfare 2, Demon Souls, Brutal Legend, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Halo 3 ODST, and Borderlands is what the PS3/360 is offering. Compared to Nintendo, Mario Bros.

As much as I love Nintendo's exclusives, they really dropped the ball this season.

 

@Nat-I am the same. I have a Nintendo Wii, yet I haven't played it in so long that there is dust forming on top of it, and I too am waiting for some decent games.
I know understand why Ninteno screwed up. I half knew about the new ideas for their console, but was surprised beyond belief that they turned the controller into a remote!!!

 

Wii+360 for me
I don't like ps3.
I REALLY DON'T LIKE IT

 

Why? I wish some people would at least explain themselves so I don't have to ask WHY.

 

n64 and gamecube days are evidence that the hardcore have abandoned nintendo. nintendo created very powerful machines, yet it didn't provided sales. the two most powerful machine now is evidence that the hardcore lust on hardware. nintendo made them in the past and was abandoned. nintendo left that sector in reach of new customers and the hardcore goes nuts.

nintendo only faild this year as we wouldn't know about the future until next year. nintendo only delivered sequals and nothing new to the wii owners for 2009, though it's okay, but people would like to experience new worlds and adventures but no third party is willing to do so and it is therefore upto nintendo to do so. the last two years were very prominent for nintendo because during the first year, nintendo had wii sports, which offered a new concept to motion gaming, and the second year nintendo offered the balance board, which offered a new concept of using balance to play games. this year nintendo hasn't done much other then to further extend what they already offered. 2009 should have been the year where we actually see a zelda or somesort of a full single title game to use the motion controls, but we didn't. the number of wii sales for 2009 isn't so high, this explains why there hasn't been a shortage and the recent articles where reggie has said they won't be expecting shortages because demand is low due to the fallback of what the wii offered to the consumers which nintendo failed to deliver. but you never know as new super mario brothers may push sales.

you never blame the customers. loony is from england and i reside in the US. if loony was a comedian and wanted to entertain americans and used british humor and fails, it would not be the fault of american audiences but loony for not understanding the american customers that they don't understand british humor. developers makin games on the wii and not selling doesn't mean the wii gamers are to blame, but rather the developers. how did developers in the start up of the video game market managed to sell games to people who have no idea what the hell video games are? simple, the developers during the first generation simply researched on the general public on their responses to the games they made. they put them on arcade cabinets and let a bunch of strangers put money into these machines to see if they would play them. when they come back by the end of the week and the machine was full of quarters, this means the game is a success, if not then they go back and redesign the game again and retry the test again. we don't see such research now a days because developers have gotten lazy. if you put a game from all three consoles in the bar or in a public sphere and let people play, and if those people start crowding in, i can tell you that the game is successful. but which game is capable of that, not many [could be none] on the 360/ps3 and few on the wii.

btw, natewlie, nintendo isn't successful only this generation, they are successful in every generation. there is no other company that makes money as nintendo. the last two generation nintendo didn't have the console sales that they wish they had, but it doesn't mean they didn't make money. no matter what, nintendo is always making money even though they aren't the first or second console. out of all the three console company, nintendo is the only one making money, sony lost all it's ps2 money already and microsoft would have been long dead in the first years of the xbox if it wasn't for the pc market they have dominance on.

 

-Yes its cheap. I dont want to be a total sony fanboy but if Sony made Ps3's price like Wii's, Wii would be history. Same goes with 360.
-Most of theese games are crap. You know it. Nintendo knows it.
-Back to square one.
-Lets say they improved it. Its a rip off...

Also (gawd Im happy to say that--finally!!) SUBJECTIIIIIIIVE!

 

if sony's ps3 were to be cheaper then all the other consoles, it would not win. it would win only with software but again, what good of the software if no one wants it? look at last generation, what happened to all the console owners of the ps2? they certainly have not migrated to the ps3 and it isn't due to the price. the way people have been talking about the ps3 is like a brand name of a product, that is people buy it because of the name. similarly, it's like the games these days, it doesn't matter who created the game, it's what the game offers to the player [consumers]. some of the best games created thus far for this generation are games made by non famous people, like wii sports, mario kart wii or brain age.

mario galaxy is a bad game. i own it and wish i haven't bought it. i never finished it and only got upto the 3rd or 4th world. it was created by miyamoto.

kojima's metal gear solid 4 is bad. i never bothered with the game. i only played like 2 hours of it and got sick of it.

the games that are on the ps3 are games that people don't want. so even if the ps3 droped in price of the wii, i don't think it'll triumph. it would triumph not in the sphere of gaming but as a machine that people bought simply for the blu ray feature and as a matter of fact, that is the push for purchasing a ps3 in the first place, the blu ray feature. but even that is a disaster as what is the point of the bluray drive if they are offering movie downloads. the ps3 isn't a gaming machine, it is a hub for multimedia and sony is doing everything in it's power to make it so.

games on the ps3 are too complicated for the bigger market. this is another reason why even if sony did lower the price, it wouldn not help much as it's only going to attract those who are capable of playing the games and that is a small number as you can see the sales charts of wii as compared to the 360/ps3. you can't consider both ps3 and 360 sales to the wii because 360/ps3 sales are both fighting over the same consumers while the wii is going after the 360/ps3 gamers but also the bigger market. basically, sony would own most of the 360 owners but only with software and those who are using it as a bluray/multimedia purposes and that is a small number. i wouldn't worry about sony or microsofts motion controller because they have no intention of integrating it with the console, that is most of the games are still on the dual analog controller and the motion controller is a gimmick to get wii owners into buying the ps3/360. we'll see in 2010.

what i find funny about the 360/ps3 is their push for hd, yet one doesn't find the necessary equipment when it is bought. how ironic to highly support an idea and practice and don't offer the tools for it. sony and microsoft look funny by supporting hd and not to include it in the package deal. how ironic that they support it, say it's the future and is the standard, but again they force their customers to pay for these standards which they are pushing. they are milking you, as the consumer, and you love it.

 

I didn't say that they weren't successful before the Wii, I said they were the most successful this gen.

You're example is different from the thing I'm saying. It is the fault of people buying shovelware, they don't know any better, so they buy it. Like the Best buy Geek Squad thing, if you don't do research or think for yourself, you deserve to be ripped off. Developers are making shovelware because it sells, the Wii would have a lot less of shovelware if people avoided buying that crap. I'm not saying it's entirely the consumers fault, I'm saying it's partly their fault for not knowing any better.

Oh dear. My husband bought a PS3 for games, not because of blu ray (we already had a Blu Ray player). Exclusives are coming and the PS3 is probably going to do better than both the 360 and the Wii I think this Christmas because the number of exclusives on the PS3 are higher than both the Wii and Xbox 360.

You mean like cables? The 360 comes with it's own HD cables and HDMI cables are easy to find and buy, they're cheap. Also HDMI cables can be bought and they don't have to be sold by either Sony or MS.

I'm sorry Ultra but the things you've said in the last two posts are flat out ridiculous and are chalk full of subjectivity. I also don't even understand what your position is anymore.

Nintendo's the most successful this generation, yes, it doesn't mean it's better than the 360 and PS3. The 360 and PS3 are both doing relatively well and have a lot of good exclusives coming out steadily. The Wii does not. All the systems have their positives and negatives, that's why it's subjective or an opinion to think that either one is better than the other.

Also, bear eith me, I'm on painkillers.

 

what i'm trying to tell you is that there was no future for the 360/ps3 until nintendo introduced the wii.

"Our mission is to revive the gaming industry by increasing our user base, ... If we can't do that, we might as well stand back and watch the market die off.” iwata

the direction that the 360/ps3 were heading was downwards. there is no good ending, it will die eventually through the ages and will be forgotten just as how pc now a days you find people saying those were the good old pc game days. however, nintendo introduced the wii with the motion controller and gaming was back and up again due to their popularity. my constant arguement is that nintendo tried to save the video game industry but the constant bashing by the hardcores and the companies makes it very hard for that to occur.

look at what microsoft said about motion controllers, they hated it and now they say it's the future. microsoft has not changed and is indicative that the nothing will change in this industry from sony and microsoft.

i am favoring nintendo because they are trying to save a past time that i once liked and am starting to be pushed away. there are no such motives by microsoft or sony as they are simply there to find money. i used to buy lots of games but now i buy less games. it tells me that the industry has moved away and i don't know if i will care or not. anyway, have fun with video games!

 

Motion control is kind of the future, but it's only going to be once it reaches the point of VR, which isn't going to happen for a LONG TIME. Natale and Sony's Wand is going to run out of uses eventually, just like the Wii. There isn't a lot of newer ways to use the Wiimote, and some games need button commands, look at Smash Bros and to a point, Mario Galaxy, and Twilight princess, the games are still being used with buttons or mainly buttons. Good thing? YES.

Nintendo's in it for the money too, no matter what you believe. If you aren't aware, Microsoft and Sony aren't making a profit, I think MS just started making profit from hardware sales while Sony is still losing money making their PS3s. Nintendo has been making a profit since the start of the Wii, if that isn't a cash grab, I don't know what is. Along with the Wii Motion Plus (which should of been in the Wiimote SINCE THE START). I'll only buy into this motion control thing unless it's VR, even then I'd want some button inputs as there's a large degree of freedom with button inputs, with motion control you're tied to the motion you're doing. Not the same with buttons.

I'll believe Nintendo that their stuff is the future when there's physical feedback or when it gets closer to VR, if not, no way. I'll also believe that they're the future once they have the software to back it up. Because they have next to none. What's the point of having this motion control thing if there's nothing good to play it with?

Nintendo had some good ideas, yes, but they ultimately fall flat on their face. They wouldn't know it though, because the Wii and the DS print money. I find the DS more worth it than the Wii though, a lot more games on it.

Just for fun, sales last week in Japan:

 

This debate doesn't make much sense to me. I have a 360 and a Wii and am thinking about getting a PS3 since the price went down and there are many fine points in all three systems. Nintendo is a video game company first and foremost, so they focus more on consumers opinions than the other two. Microsoft has many third party developers locked into exclusive contracts and they make better games because of that exclusivity, Sony has free online and the graphics the Wii lacks. My point is the same as many posters, get all three systems or at least try all three systems, sticking with one is a sure path to disappointment, while with all three, as long as you actually like video games, this generation won't bore you.

Besides everyone knows the Wii is the best, just admit it ,you'll feel better! ;D

 

Wii or not, there was a future for both, the PS3 and the Xbox 360. It depends on how creative Sony and Microsoft get.

In fact, Sony released their sleeker, cheaper model of their PS3 out on the market which is now competitive to the 360.

Last time I checked, hundreds of thousands (if not, millions) still log on to play World of Warcraft. Which happens to be an online PC game.

Since WHEN did 'gaming' fall short on popular activities? Care to provide some factual statistical data on this?

And how is the "constant bashing by the hardcores (sic)" stopping Nintendo from progressing? From my understanding regarding the way the consumer market works, Nintendo can say "Screw you" to those guys, and those 'hardcores' will then have to put up with it. Look at how Sony responded to the complaints of PSP Go not having backwards compatibility to the original PSPs with UMD drives.

Please site a source for this. I've googled it up and have came empty-handed.

Oh, and which gaming industry corporation(s) isn't in it for the money? This has got to be the most naive statement you have ever said in your post. Newsflash, ultra! All industries are in it for the money. That includes both, gaming and non-gaming industries.

Yeah, you can totally determine whether the gaming industry is succeeding by the amount of your own video game purchases...

That's just like saying 'sex is underrated' because you haven't gotten any in 3 years.

 

do you not realize that there has been a decline in hardware sales for ps3 and the 360 when you consider population growth. it tells you that the direction these two companies were heading are in the wrong direction. when nintendo remodeled itself, they were basically trying to expand the market, and it worked. nintendo is trying to create a future for the next gamer and not simply a heritage of the existing gamer. it's like the time when nintendo first introduced the dpad, which created a new existing gamers who like the dpad over the joysticks. this generation, it's motion controls over dual analog controls. in essence, the wii is the nes of the present.

look at microsoft and sony, what did they do to expand the video game market? the answer is absolutely nothing. it was only nintendo who was able to break that berrier and expanded the market. nintendo has created a new generation of gamers that will be the future of gamers and neither sony nor microsoft even bothered with the idea of expanding the market. this tells you they don't care about video games because they have other industry which they belong to, such as microsoft in the computer industry and sony in the movie and music. nintendo is a video game company and only a video game company and this is their life. so they do their research on video games to make sure that it doesn't die because if video games die so does nintendo.

what's funny about all this is the third party companies. for some reason they don't realize that nintendo is trying to do all of them a favor but they push nintendo aside and don't even care.

if a gamer is spending less on games now as opposed to before, it tells you that the companies have done something to drive this person away. demographics is an example. if third party companies only make games for teens, then that would drive someone from buying games often as opposed to a company that makes games less demographic. this explains why some nintendo games sell very well [like super smash brothers brawl] even after years as it is non demographic as opposed to some games by third party developers such as gears of war, which is very testosterone eccentric.

microsoft lost money and don't care for it because they aren't in it to get money, they are in it because of sony and sony i don't want to explain because you'll have to do the research yourself.

i'm still in favor of the wii as nintendo is doing something to further extend the existance of video games. the other two are here just because. read that quote i posted by iwata, it tells you that nintendo did their research about the popularity of video games and they know that video games is at a decline, and this is why the wii is created to prevent that decline. but for some reason, no one believes in it.

btw, i'm doing this to enlighten everyone. everyone seems to be in favor of the 360 or ps3 and most aren't even concerned with the wii.

here are a quote from a user,
"...Even if the PS3 comes close to the 360 in overall sales, there still is a lot of people who bought it as a Blu-Ray player, especially in the early years of the system. My friends who work for Best Buy would always convince people looking for a Blu-Ray player to buy a PS3 instead. So even a high install rate won't give you a full indication of potential software sales. I only know a handfull of people who got the PS3 primarily for games, everybody else was thinking Blu-Ray. Most of my friends who are either ex-gamers or casual gamers now are planning on getting a PS3 for Blu-Ray with games being an afterthought (most of my friends are 27 to 30). Everybody who got a 360 fully intends to play games, however." [http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176416]