| misterd said: THE WAR BETWEEN SONY AND MS IS NOT ABOUT THIS GENERATION! That's the point that no one here is addressing. All informed gamers know that Sony got in this business in order to eventually introduce a unified home entertainment system. Each new console model has taken another step in that direction. MS got into video games because they refused to cede this market to Sony. Neither one saw video games as a the ultimate goal, but as a trojan horse which they could use to conquer the living room. All this - the PS1, PS2, XBox, 360 and PS3, are just a preamble for the war to come. Unless Song or MS drop out of the market altogether, the outcome will not be known for at least another 2 generations, probably more. So all this bullshit about who's profitable RIGHT NOW, who sold more games LAST GENERATION, is absolutely irrelevant. |
I agree that the console competition between MS and Sony isn't just about making money on the console market, but also involves both companies wanting a bigger media presence in the living room.
However, I also believe profitability is a factor when we're talking about losses in the billions of dollars. MS, for good or bad, is in a much better position to win under these circumstances than Sony. They have an enormous war chest (> $100 b), they've shown themselves willing to lose large sums over the short term to win in the long term (such as the browser war), and their investors are conditioned for long-term thinking (MS fought paying dividends for a long time because they want their investors to think about long-term stock value instead of short-term returns).
Sony really can't afford to bleed red for as long as MS...
