A Major Blow to Sony in Japan

[Schultz]

Well you hit the point. 360 sells good in america and europe because its target audiance is America and Europe. Since its an awesome platform if you like FPS style games which points to america. And where it doesn't do good RPG's hence lack of support. Also the buying of 360's dropped off fast after the first few weeks in japan after that game was released. Probably because wii and ps3 was released then. also Wii is outselling ps3 2:1 in japan right now! woot go Wii!

[Schultz]

In college the professers ask us not to use wikipedia as a source. Thier reason is simple because thier facts are not checked and it is not edited. A good example here from wikipedia is on Eric Bischoff on 10-23-2006 he stated on WWE Monday Night Raw that thier were many falsehoods and misquotes about him. JBL asked him like what and he replied "Like wikipedia, they have my birthdate wrong I wan't born in October 1955. I was born on May 27th 1955." I posted this statment shortly after he said that on wikipedia. It has since been removed and Eric b-day was updated.

Hate to slam you when you just have gotten back to the boards. But you have just shown 1 article which in the total amount of things mean nothing. Maybe you should read and have your professor read this.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/1...=95&tid=14

or i will just quote it here.

"Nature magazine recently conducted a head-to-head competition between Wikipedia and Britannica, having experts compare 42 science-related articles. The result was that Wikipedia had about 4 errors per article, while Britannica had about 3. However, a pair of endevouring Wikipedians dug a little deeper and discovered that the Wikipedia articles in the sample were, on average, 2.6 times longer than Britannica's - meaning Wikipedia has an error rate far less than Britannica's."

So at least with science information its only slightly worse then Britannica so you saying you can't rely on Britannica either?

[morgorath]

I'm not. From everything i've seen this generation M$ knows what they're doing. They're kicking the crap out of sony in america. Right now they seem to be banking on blue dragon to blow the doors open in japan. So far it seems like it might do just that. They've sold a lot of 360's just for that game. If they can come up with another couple good rpg's the 360 will have a decent foothold in japan.

Sony sold 466,716 PlayStation 3 units in Japan from its Nov. 11 domestic launch date to the end of December, according to a market survey released Tuesday by Japanese computer game publisher Enterbrain Inc. Nintendo sold 989,118 Wiis domestically from its Dec. 2 launch date to month's end, nearly double Sony's total. Straggling far behind Sony and Nintendo in the Enterbrain survey was Microsoft's Xbox 360, which had sold 290,467 since its Japan debut in December 2005.

That is fromhttp://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/business/n...7000c.html

Now if 360 really ever hopes of winning the Japan market they will need more than one RPG on the way. I still think the Japanese are upset at how little 99 Nights came through with what it promised.

[morgorath]

Hate to slam you when you just have gotten back to the boards. But you have just shown 1 article which in the total amount of things mean nothing. Maybe you should read and have your professor read this.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/1...=95&tid=14

or i will just quote it here.


So at least with science information its only slightly worse then Britannica so you saying you can't rely on Britannica either?

No offense taken, but first I love Wikipedia. I like to read it over Britannica. But the big differance between them is simple if thier is an error in Britannica thier is an editor to make a formal compaint to. With Wikipedia there is no editor and while you can correct the information there is no way of stopping someone from changing it. That is why professors ask us not to use them as a source.

[gubi-gubi]

No offense taken, but first I love Wikipedia. I like to read it over Britannica. But the big differance between them is simple if thier is an error in Britannica thier is an editor to make a formal compaint to. With Wikipedia there is no editor and while you can correct the information there is no way of stopping someone from changing it. That is why professors ask us not to use them as a source.

That's common sense as you don't know who wrote it. You can't quote it in an essay and write 'unknown, wikipedia'. What you can do is take the information and google it and take it from there and find some real sources. Britannica hardly has any pop culture information compared to wikipedia either.

[Schultz]

Actually there is. You can make complaints to the Wikipedia Foundation. Or you can make the changes yourself. Thats the power of it. Also if people keep changing it Wikipedia Foundation can lock it down so edits can't be changed etc etc. There is a non-profit organization behind Wikipedia that does control it. It's not full fledge free for all that people think. But i will agree with gubi kinda of hard to put it as a reference on a paper but its leads you into knowing what exactly to search for and find official references for those.