Why is MS dead, I dont get it

[Final-Fan]

Gamer1211 said:

Final-Fan said:

Gamer1211 said:
1. Many PS3 fanboys claim that Blu Ray will be the deciding factor in the console war. Go to gamespot and u will see what I am talking about.

2. Umm if you goto Forums and gaming you will see that there are 3 threads talking about the 360 being dead. Moreso, If you goto Gamespot or IGN you will at least 10 so please dont advise me to post about something that is clearly widespread throughout the gaming community.

3. Yes the PS3 has sold the 360 3 out of 4 months this year. I never disagreed or stated anything disputing that and as such I am unsure what you point was.

4. Widget example was to simply prove a point. Based on the types of threads that are posted its not a good assumption to believe that everyone can understand logic when it comes to consoles. Spelling something out to me would be much more effective then posting my opinion.

5. Propaganda? If you could please direct me to your source that discredits or proves that anything I posted is false or does not have fact to back it up.

1.  Are we on the gamespot forums?  No.  In fact we frequesntly laugh at the ignorance rampant there, which would include talk of the 360 being "dead".

2.  I didn't see them on the first 3 pages.  Please point them out, I admit I skimmed but the closest I saw was a troll thread on Page 2 about GTAIV making 360s brick; the poster got banned and everyone laughed at the article.

4.  The widget example was not even remotely on point.  How was it a useful analogy for the 360 vs. PS3?  Just because the 360 managed to claw its way to profit a little bit faster doesn't mean it didn't employ the same strategy of losing money on the hardware to make it up on software and later in the gen.[*]  I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough.

[edit:  In short, you say you did the widget example to prove a point but I don't know what you think you were proving.  It's pretty obvious to all that it's better to make money per unit rather than lose money per unit.  You don't need an example to show that and it's NOT what you needed to prove to support your argument.  As it stands your widget example is such a gross oversimplification of the strategy MS and Sony both employed that it loses all relevance to the discussion.

[*There is also another point to consider:  Sony also was employing the same strategy with respect to Blu-ray inside the PS3 at the same time as it was doing so with respect to the PS3 generally.  So it has even more to potentially gain from that (successful) strategy.]

5.  Propaganda doesn't have to be false.  I will address this point more fully when I get home from work.

1. No not on gamespot forums true but as this is my first post here most would assume that gamers would share the same mentalities as there counterparts at other sites. I do not believe that my point in regards to Blu-Ray was unwarrented by any means in the realm of PS3 fanboy's mentalities about the format victory.

2. Here are some links for you from this site. I also did note that at gamespot and IGN there are many more but I will keep my search to this site for you:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=23439
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=18817&start=100
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24893 - Posted on this thread...
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24915 - Posted on this thread...
Sorry this site isnt immune to it my friend.

4. The widget example was to illistrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit. If you couldn't get that out of that then I feel for you sir. It was not meant to be a statistical analysis detailing anything but more so a general picture to MS's new model based on the related podcast in the orginal post. Please listen to the podcast first and you will understand why I put it in this thread in the first place.

5. Propoganda: "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid."

I am not influencing anyone or providing false or impartial information. I have reference all points in the above thread and as such, if you can find links to disprove or falisfy what I have posted that power to you. If not, I encourage you to reconsider the wording that you are using or continue to look for something that can outweight what I have posted on here. Given I have used 2 references directly from Microsoft but the information used is further backed in the podcast which again I encourage you to listen to.

Lastly, your comment "I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough." Well if you need more claification or you cannot understand something ensure you let me no.

1.  Well, in that case you assumed wrong.  I guess it's a natural mistake to make; no harm done.

2.  I never said that there wasn't ANYONE who had EVER said such things on these forums.  But let's take a look at those:  A.  "Is the 360 in trouble?"  "In trouble"=/=dead.  B.  "Its over for the 360"  I'll give you this one, though I'll point out that pretty much everyone agreed that it's not over, then the debate turned to whether the 360 was being beaten by PS3 which is very different from whether it is dead.  C.  I'm not impressed by you digging up a single post in a thread to match your claim, but I AM impressed that it apparently didn't even say "360" in that post!  I searched the text of that page and did not find one instance of "360" that talked about it being dead or dying, although there were several about the 360 AND PS3 being doomed.  D.  I see a lot of talk about games and sales, and vague sales predictions.  Some of these predictions were rosy for the PS3 and some (less) were gloomy for the 360, but I didn't spot any "360 dead/doomed" posts.  If you equate "going to be 3rd place" with "is dead", well then, yeah.

4.  I have better ways to spend my time than listening to Pachter.  (How long is the podcast anyway?)  Your widget example gives a lesson of "small scale but at a profit beats large scale at a loss."  Well that's nice, but what are you comparing?  You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360."  What was the point of all that?

I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.  I'm glad I was wrong there, but now I have to ask why you spent so much time talking about the original Xbox when the subject at hand should be the 360 or other current-gen systems and situations.

5.  That's an OK description of propaganda.  But I am very surprised that you deny trying to influence anyone.  Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"?  That's known as "influencing", my friend.

But there's one important thing about propaganda:  "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis..."

Propaganda is often just a completely one-sided presentation of the facts -- all "pro" and no "con".  In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox.  Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc.  Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy.

As for having to refute your sources, quite frankly I actually don't, as I have not said that any of them were lying.  But when one of your sources is a Microsoft press release that doesn't have any relevant information at all, I just have to laugh.  You know what?  I'll go ahead and take a quick stab at the rest of your sources.  (I have no objection at this time to the Blu-ray one.)

Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360?  That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all.

Why did your source for "Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for" NOT HAVE INFO ON DEV COSTS?!  (None, that is, beyond a generic $15m throwaway line.)  Maybe I just overlooked it somehow, but it doesn't matter since it used the infamous iSuppli graph.  Instant credibility loss.

Why do your sources for "Look at which console has the higher attach rate" NOT HAVE THE PS3 ATTACH RATE?!  I believe you that it's higher, but come on, you have to give 360 AND PS3 sources for evidence of which is higher.  And here's a hint:  sources dating back to the PS3 launch won't cut it.

Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?!  SERIOUSLY.  Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything?  It also says that the PS3 might launch in spring 2006 at a cheaper price than the 360, and look how that turned out.

Overall, I would rate your OP as particularly low-quality propaganda.  You knew that you needed to have links called "sources", but you didn't seem to understand that the "sources" have to back up what your claims.

Consider this an official request for clarification on the above questions.  And also one more:  Am I just completely blind?  Did my eyes just glaze over and refuse to see that your sources actually had all the information you were telling us?  I find that hard to believe, but then I find it hard to believe that you'd cite so many sites that DON'T.  I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, and this would be a doozy.