Can anyone explain to me wtf " passive aggresivnes " is ?
No PdH here, but if u are an agrresor, dont u kinda push forward, etc ?

Passive aggressiveness is indirect aggressiveness or provocation. Its not done outwardly. Microsoft did this towards sony immediately after Spencer congratulated them (the second time) and then saying the new Xbox has a new way of competing without getting involved in a console war.

Well I mean yeah when you not only twist words but ommit the actual argument as well, that tends to happen... But don't worry I will give you the step by step as to what just happended:

- You were talking about passive aggresive attacks by Microsoft despite what Phil says. I responded directly to and contested that.  

- Instead of responding to that, you proceed to ask a question about hardware and exclusives of Xbox and what they are free to do. As if I said mentioned anything about freedom regarding hardware when I was very clearly talking about Phil's communication in comparison to Microsoft's.

- You proceed to somehow confuse yourself.

- Then you recommit to your original argument as if it was never contested and quote Sony as if it were evidence of something?

The general gist of your confusion is willfull ignorance. As in you willfully removed both the key information and most of the argument, and were confused by the argument you yourself replaced it with. Now if you actually go back and not do that, maybe your confusion will fade.

Im not confused at all. I think you're reading into what I am saying further than you should. I considered it a passive aggressive attack as a whole, since it actions by the company represent the company. One person says one thing and another person says another. At the end of the day Sony was right to call them out on their passive aggressive behavior when they were trying to bring about good faith in the spirit of competition. Despite that though, I still think Phil will continue to congratulate Sony and the only exclusive Microsoft has that could possibly wow if done right (for now) is Crackdown. Lets hope they dont moneyhat another third party game, because like the 360 gen eventually they will run out of luck and have no one to give them high profile titles in the latter years. Last gen they were winning as well and still managed to have a slight drought in the last two years.

If im confused, so is Sony. They respond to PR as is.

Yeah Nintendo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlCRE9kDVg

Were crazy many ads back then even offered crash a job at pizza hut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLdQczq3NMM

Yeah I'm gonna stop you right there at the bolded...

"I dunno how to weigh the pros and cons of this argument" <- You being confused with an argument.

"They have enough free reign to create a upgraded Xbox that is not needed but cannot make better exclusives." <- The argument you are confused by. Conviently the argument I never made, but you replaced it with your own.

So we can confirm, through your words and arguments alone, you confused yourself. Based on that, it is not me, who read to deeply, but you not reading at all.

As for most of what you said after, I don't have to respond to that... because I already did. You simply chose to change it for your argument. Which, again by your own words, you don't know how to weigh.

As for the Sony thing, no they are not confused. They knew exactly what they were doing. Only you are confused and that is by your own admittance. 

That's not necessarily true, in some cases competition brings inovation down to the lowest common denominator. As an example, pretty much when Sony had playstation as the undisputed top dog they did try and push the envelope with a $600 console, introducing new tech like bluray, internal hard drive by default, wifi, sd card reader, cell architecture, etc...

They had their teeth kicked in by MS who undercut them from the beggining with a ton of missing features (no bluray drive, no wifi, etc) and a lower price point.

Also having paid online was something that probably would not exist if it wasn't for that "competition".

The fact that no one dares push the envelope on pricepoint on the console space also means we'll time and time again be gaming on underpowered machines for years.

so yeah... competition is not always that good

I think it is you who is twisting my words. When I said I dont know how to weigh the pros and cons of the argument I was referring to, it was in context to the sentence which came before that, which was clearly about their priorities with a second console (Since there is no need for one) vs exclusives. I was admitting that I cannot ultimatley get into Microsoft head to understand their logic when they are supposedly trying to prop up their PC market. It just makes no sense at all.

I said, if Microsoft can develop a second console...it is telling about how much free reign they have within the division. Microsoft is fighting a petty battle over graphics, to distract from their glaring issues, which are exclusives. But again...the only thing I admitted I was confused about was their priorities.

Weird he didn't congratulate them on Gravity Rush 2 or Last Guardian.

Proof Phil doesn't care about anything that's original and which doesn't have guns and swords? Pretty telling if u ask me.