| Mummelmann said: MS have accomplished what they set out to do this gen; beat Sony. There is no logical reason for them not to make another console. Does the author of the article forget that if you use the simple formula of; operating loss = no go for next generation means that Sony wouldn't make one either? |
Actually, MS's goal for this gen was to be the market leader and turn an overall profit. Remember, at the beginning, they didn't think that the Wii would pose any kind of significant threat. When it became clear that they would end up a distant, unprofitable second place, they started trying to focus on beating the PS3, even though it's not really a decisive victory.
But in the broad scheme of things, Microsoft really hasn't gained any ground. As I said above, they are a distant second place, which is exactly where they were last gen, and on top of that, for all of the consoles and accessories they've sold, for all the Xbox Live subscriptions, and for all of the software that's been moved on their platform, they've still made no money. The Xbox 360 is ahead of the Xbox, but after selling only 24 million units last gen, it had nowhere to go but up, so of course it was going to sell more unless MS made some 1990's Sega-style gaffes. I've seen the usual suspects go on and on about how the 360 is selling so damn well, which is a notion that is so ludicrous that the only evidence that they can produce to support it is the fact that it has a lead over the worst-selling system of the generation.
That being said, MSFT will most certainly release a console next generation, but I don't see them releasing another one after that. The market has rejected Sony's(and MSFT's) plans for an all-in-one media center, so there really is no reason for the Xbox 360 to exist and keep eating away at MSFT's profits. It would have actually been more cost-effective for MSFT to just buy a Gamecube for 20 million people in Nov. 2001.
Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3
