If you say they are STILL competing then I guess used Xbox and GC hardware is competing with current gen hardware...
They were competing in the beginning of this gen but it was completely different than say the PS2 vs Xbox 1. It was clear to consumers that the 360 was the new "thing." Theres a reason the big three race to release their console first.
Ford F150 2007, 2008, 2009....
I am not going to give proof. AM I wrong to say that most of the 360 demographics consist of hardcore and casualcore?
No they were talking about FF for a while same with making the GTA exclusive DLC, and Sony losing GTA time exclusive. Things like this are not the sign of an underdog but an aggresive predator. If a company is big on marketing (MS definitely adverties way more than Nintendo and probabaly more than Sony esp in the beginning of this gen) its a big sign they are not an underdog.
The Xbox was an underdog. I already said that. It doesnt mean the Xbox 360 was an underdog though. If the 360 came into this gen with no advertising and Sony still had its grip on most of third parties, you probably would be right. Thats just not what happened though. Its hard marking the most successful computer company's product as an underdog. There were people who thought that Sony was going to win again but there were many who already knew that was BS. 360 was released before its real competition and it was a powerhouse of marketing, third party support, and some big time first paty support. MS worked hard to achieve this success but it was not the "little guy."
Wait wait wait. You are comparing a dead console without an active userbase and ecosystem (like the gamecube) with the ps2 in 2005 and 2006? See, here's the problem - you think "this-gen" "next-gen" "that-gen" are relevant terms to the consumer. They are not. What matters is if a console is "alive", active userbase (buying games) and ecosystem (games being made for it, support and push from manufacturer, etc). The consumer wants something to play games with - that's why all consoles compete against each other (as long as they are active); and the data supports it. According to Nielsen, less than 10% of the market is active (buys games for) more than one console.
In a nutshell, saying "the ps2 competed against the X360" in 2005 and 2006" is not the same that saying the gamecube competes against the X360 right now". You are good at twisting words, but that isn't enough to pass.
Quote: I am not going to give proof. AM I wrong to say that most of the 360 demographics consist of hardcore and casualcore?
So you mean you can bring over supposed facts without backing them up? No, it is you who have the burden of proof to defend that what you say has a solid foundation. Otherwise you are pulling it out of your arse - and by the looks of your strong opposition to bring proof, it only enforces what was only a suspicion; that you do not have any kind of demographic nor marketing data, instead what you are trying to pass off as a fact it's only an uninformed opinion. Yours.
Finally, from your last two paragraphs it's clear you do have a problem about the content of the word "underdog". Straight from the dictionary: a person who is expected to lose in a contest or conflict. What defines an underdorg is not how it behaves while the conflict is developing, but what was the expected result before it. And the X360 was not expected to take over the PS3, this is why it was an underdog - a condition it shares with the Wii, because for the most part the industry expected the playstation 3 to continue the streak. Even publishers and developers who are actually betting with their money and their future were investing expecting the ps3 to win.
You can keep trying to twist words in hopes of a sophistic victory, but it won't happen. Because when it comes down to it, you are wrong.