In defense of Microsoft: A response to DMeisterJ

[starcraft]

Final-Fan said:

starcraft said:

 

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 I think 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 there 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 prior to publication or release" When I say that he did not "redact" any part of his OP, that means that he did not remove any incriminating material talking about (for instance) SW sales. AFAIK the original portion of the OP is unaltered. 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?

2.  I don't need to show that the Xbox 360 won't enter a decline because it will tap the PS2 userbase.  All I need to show to prove my point is that it can do it beyond the present, and it is.  It's sales are up year over year.  Unless your suggesting that will change next week?

4.  Of course he is allowed to respond to people that talk about software, am I not allowed to respond to his response?  I didn't say that all of his statements were established in the OP of his thread did I?

Read the third line of my OP:

 "But it culminated in DMeisterJ's thread"