Do you think they should just try to make a comeback next gen then? It's always an fundamental question, that is, "how much impact does losing marketshare have on the brand?"

Sometimes going at a loss is important over the long run. Sony and MS remember played loss-leaders last gen, because marketshare was important for them.

@bold. But I just told you that the PS3 won because of its exclusives among other things, so I would actually agree with you. But you don't want to go there because it would lessen your point about brand power, which is a difficult one to maintain.

Do you think they should just try to make a comeback next gen then? It's always an fundamental question, that is, "how much impact does losing marketshare have on the brand?"

Sometimes going at a loss is important over the long run. Sony and MS remember played loss-leaders last gen, because marketshare was important for them.

@bold. But I just told you that the PS3 won because of its exclusives among other things, so I would actually agree with you. But you don't want to go there because it would lessen your point about brand power, which is a difficult one to maintain.

They won't need kinect. Microsoft has more money than Sony and Microsoft combined. They can advertise and buy their way in. If they make a big minecraft game that is exclusive to xbox one and probably pc. That alone will push more units than kinect would've. Microsoft can afford to expand while Sony and Nintendo can't. Remember, Microsoft bought Gears and Minecraft this gen alone, they can buy other big name software ip. Don't be suprise in the next year or so you hear Microsoft buying bestheda games, respawn entertainment, NFL license to make madden exclusively or more. They don't care so much about losing or making a profit on the xbox they just want windows in people's living room and stop Sony from taking over. They will do what it takes.

We'll leave it at that becaue you're moving goalposts all over the shop. You asked indirectly why the XB1 can't do the same as the PS3 and I gave you an answer. You're now changing it to a debate about the PS3.

The XB1 won't catch up to the PS4 because Playstation is a bigger brand. The reason the PS3 was able to catch the 360 is because it wasn't losing in every region, the gap wasn't as big and Playstation is a bigger brand.

Here's a question for you: Do you think the XB1 can catch the PS4 and if so, why or how?

At the end of the PS2 era, the PS brand was at its highest and xbox only sold 20-some million units, so it makes sense that, despite having equal game offerings and a horrible price, the PS was competitive in some regions at the very beginning, especially Japan and Europe. Let alone the fact that the 360 had the RRoD .

Over time though, it is unreasonable to say that the PS3 stayed competitive throughout the gen thanks to brand name alone. Unless you think that Sony offered exclusives and improved the price out of kindness and it was all unnecessary after all.

You make a fair point, we see those kinds of fluctuations in the numbers and it makes sense to assume that kind of pattern, flocking in and out. However those seem to apply much more to Nintendo since Nintendo gamers typically play Nintendo exclusives. With PS2 gamers, many were attracted to the multiplats, and it got even more multiplat-centric during the 360 era with mega multiplats such as Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Rock Band and Batman.

Since most games played on PS and Xbox are multiplats, as evidenced by the numbers, it would be fair to say that some PS2 owners were attracted to xbox by virtue of xbox live, some different exclusives and a competitive price (not one reason in particular but a mix). What would've been another landslide victory by Sony turned into a war of attrition between the two giants because the brand alone wasn't able to give Sony the victory given the recent blunders at the time.

So instead of concluding that PS fans left during the 360 era, it's my reasoning that many opted instead for the 360.