Rob was talking about "successes". I was talking about why the Wii's statistics aren't proportionate with the PS3's and the 360's.
If I were to try and hold up Box Office numbers to gaming statistics analagously, I would need to bring up Rob's example of a successful film in relation to at least two other contemporary films. But aside from time constraints (the fact that Box Office successes are determined within a two week to month and half long period), there's a slew of other characteristics that don't translate logically from one market to the other. What's more, the analogy's pretty ridonculous since the cost for admission between the films isn't competitive.
The more successful a console was at the start of its life cycle (which the Wii was, outselling the 360 and PS3 combined), the sharper the drop at the end.
That's not necessarily true though. I'll go so far as to call it a logical fallacy. Especially since the Wii has been commended for transcending typical gaming demographics that decided to stick with the more conventional interfaces. i.e. Wii selling better with families than with teen to twenty-something consumers.
The argument essentially claims that everyone who would buy a gaming console has bought this particular gaming console already. But we know that's not true. And that certainly can't be applied to the other consoles with their sales going at a steady pace.
