What does this have to do with the 360 being an underdog coming into this generation?  They made strategic investments to push their product forward, but none of your points were even known before/at the 360's beginning. They are more recent developments.  Nintendo was the true underdog of this generation though; remember the rumours that Nintendo wasn't even going to make hardware anymore during the gloomy Gamecube days?? 

Anyways, to go back on-topic.... It's good to see a lot of software being moved.  I think the Orange Box could break-through because I believe it's only $20 most places (got mine for $10 on boxing day, talk about a deal). 

How come they weren't? Any reason why they were not? Of course they were competing. And still are, as the ps2 is still available.

By the way, carmakers don't release products annually. Usually a single model is sold several years - you know, they are expensive to develop. They may occasionally rebadge them to make them look fresh tho. It's spec

Wah? now you are talking demographics and targets? back it with demographic data or bust.

The Final Fantasy decision was taken 2-3 years into the product cycle? it's got nothing to do with being the underdog, it's about how the market evolved.

What? So if a company splurges on marketing it isn't an underdog? Then NONE of the console makers were underdogs.

Microsoft stepped in with the 360 after a total financial disaster (the original xbox) that failed to capture a significant amount of marketshare and went on sale against the biggest seller: the playstation 2. That's an underdog. That's why everyone assumed Sony would win. That's why games like Final Fantasy, Assassins Creed and others started as ps3 exclusives.

nice , lost odyssey hopefully will reach 1 million by summer. :)

It's slowly moving indeed... but still moves!

 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 Sony, 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. 

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. 

@Bitmap Frogs

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.

Because you don't have any. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and knowing the demographics of a consumer product like the X360 is an extraordinary claim. Tell me, coonana... in your deliberations about the X360 userbase, did you consider the age distribution? the education distribution? the ethnic bias? income level? Tell us, coonana.. what do you know about the X360 demographic. It should be easy for you, isn't it so general and obvious?

Final Fantasy XIII, announced as ps3 exclusive, no longer? Assassins Creed, announced as ps3 exclusive, no longer? The barrage of announcements for the ps3 in 2005 and 2006 that never happened? It's not "some people" who said the 360 and the Wii were the underdogs, it was the very people that decide what games become a reality and which games don't. Publishers, developers... people who's own decisions are tied to the future of the products they create - they bet on the ps3. 

Until, of course... 599 US Dollars.

Again, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH ME ON ITS DEMOGRAPHIC? If you dont I dont feel like finding the necessary evidence. If it was something pivitol to the discussion I would understand your complaint, but seeing as you are simply doing this to divert unanswered points i have brought up I will not.

What do you mean they never happened? Part of the reaason Sony fell was because MS got these to at the very least be multiplatform or even exclusive alot of these deals went down before, during, and after launch. They obviously did not bet on the PS3 because most of these games went to 360...with better framerates. Look alot of reasons attributed to Sony losing console king (MS major effort to penetrate the market with its NON underdog tendencies, Sony making a crapload of mistakes, 599 price tag and so on) not one of them gives us reason to think that it was 360 as an underdog, but as a major entity that is hard to compete with.

Again you still dont even acknowledge half the things I say and have not said one thing that I cannot refute completely about the 360 being an underdog.