In defense of Microsoft: A response to DMeisterJ

[Final-Fan]

starcraft said:

Final-Fan said:
I see starcraft's main argument as a complete failure of logic.

The PS2 had the vast majority of last gen's sales, so most of the millions the 360 will sell beyond the original Xbox are taken from that audience. We agree on that much. (Most of the userbase growth is going to Nintendo, as the dominant/casual console, just like in all gens.)

But what does that have to do with whether the 360 is getting (or going to get) its ass kicked by the PS3? If the 360 steals some of the PS2's audience away from the PS3, but the PS3 still inherits way more than that amount, the PS3 is still beating the 360.

It reminds me of the common urge to "throw good money after bad" when sunk costs are involved. Obviously this is a very different situation but it reminds me of that.

As for the final portion of the OP, I don't think the profitability of MS (or Sony) was in DMeisterJ's mind when he made that thread. The question was whether this was the end of the 360's hardware sales dominance in NA, and therefore a sign of things to come. I doubt that "beginning of the end" was meant to equate to "beginning to die" like so many people presumed. I saw it as merely what one person described as the "point of no return" -- a high water mark from which the 360 will recede and eventually fade away. (...While the PS3 still has a brighter future ahead, of course, in his analysis.)

Maybe not. Maybe DMeisterJ meant the more dramatic interpretation after all. But either way he was talking about the future of 360 HW sales, not SW sales, unless he redacted parts of the OP.

Dealing with the bolded parts in order.

1. This is because you seem to have missed the conclusion I am drawing. Read on.

2. If we assume that the Xbox 360 will die after it reaches Xbox numbers, then it is indeed past it's prime. However as I stated, the majority of the PS2's business was done at the $199 mark. As the Xbox 360 has demonstrated a capacity to pick up PS2 gamers, it is even more likely to continue to do so at lower price points. At no point did I suggest that the PS3 wouldn't outsell the Xbox 360 eventually, only that it wouldn't mean the death of the Xbox 360 and that the 'victory' would be inconsequential.

3. Actually, "good money after bad" would only apply if Microsoft WEREN'T making a profit now, which they are.

4. DMeisterJ DID edit his thread's OP. None of the bolded parts (red or black) were in there originally. I quoted one of his earlier posts to show that he never specified that his thread was about HW until he was called on software and profits.

2. I guess I did incorrectly argue "PS3 vs. 360" instead of "360?"; however, (A) I think that your OP had serious overtones of that itself from which I took my cue; and (B) I don't think you've adequately made your case that the 360 is going to avoid entering a period of decline by tapping the current PS2 userbase. The 360 is not the PS2 and price cuts didn't help the Gamecube or Xbox as much as you expect them to help the 360.

3. Did you not read the next sentence? Let me repeat it: "Obviously this is a very different situation but it reminds me of that." I was suggesting that it seemed to me, offhand, that there was a similar mentality involved, or at least an apparently similar one.

4. "Redact ... to obscure or remove (text) from a document ..." When I say that he did not "redact" any part of his OP, that means that he did not remove or alter any incriminating material talking about (for instance) SW sales. AFAIK the original portion of the OP is unaltered; his notes above it are merely a (large) annotation. If you look carefully at that OP, even without the big flashy warnings it's clear that, although he uses GTA (SW) as a milestone, the subject of his question is HW. The numbers he cites are HW. The numbers he talks about are HW. Why would it now follow that the numbers he is asking a question about would not be HW?

I said "if you look carefully", and it's painfully clear that very few took the time to do so with DMeisterJ's question on a very touchy subject -- exactly the kind of situation that calls for careful reading. Next time check your dictionary if you don't know the definition of a word.

Finally, as for the post you quoted, is he now not allowed to respond to other people who talk about SW? In fact, his initial response to the post in question talked about HW instead of SW, suggesting that DMeisterJ was concentrating his attention on HW discussion to the point that he didn't even notice that someone else had brought SW into it!

DMeisterJ's OP talked about HW. Not SW. SW got dragged into the fray by other people and DMeisterJ simply failed to jump on them like a rabid badger to keep the thread on topic ... until it became obvious that there were many people misinterpreting the OP, at which point he clarified, and re-clarified, and bolded and underlined etc. Shame on him?