In an attempt to bypass all this minutia and contrarian whining I am going to say this, maybe some people thought that’s what was going to happen but that just shows they were wrong. I know many people like gaming journalist, analyst, and just plain people already expected a new console king. If being an underdog is “a person who is expected to lose in a contest or conflict” then what decides the 360 as being an underdog is not you saying it was… If anyone has not provided proof it’s you, because you claim some people said it was going to fail then it gets this title? Not only does this just invalidate everything you say but being an underdog is more than what people expect. Rocky was an underdog because people thought he was going to lose to Apollo but he was also a southpaw and he was small, and he was a small time fighter. Obviously Rocky is the epitome of an underdog so he is a great example. Not only is it BS to claim that the “general consensus” thought that the PS3 was the winner but it’s also ludicrous to say that the 360 has the characteristics of an underdog (again: MS puts big budget on R&A, marketing like crazy, promoting big third and first party games, making back stage deals).
Again your claim falls flat on its own arse.
Also I’m not providing proof for something as general and obvious as the 360 demographic… Not only is it not that relevant to this argument but I don’t think you even disagree with me… What is wrong about my statement, it’s pretty obvious that the biggest force on the 360 is the casual core and the hardcore gamer. If you want to get into a diluted fanboy argument about that then let me know, otherwise drop it because I’m not putting in all that work for something insignificant to what we are talking about.