Seems more like you do not understand MS's strategy and have zero knowledge about how they used to conquer market segments they initially had no presence in in the past decades. MS probably knows that it is too late to catch Nintendo. Do you really think MS doesn't know this?
Don't worry, I know pretty well how MS failed in conquering market segments in the past decades. I know pretty well why the only markets they succeeded in conquering are those where they didn't have to compete, and that they failed in every single one of the ones where they had to compete.
If you still believe that MS is not stupid enough to still try to go after Nintendo, waiting to find an unfair strategy to stall them in the meantime, then you are the one with zero knowledge about them.
- Viva Pinata sold decently, and gives 360 owners the choice to play something else than a shooter.
Oh yes it sold decently, but not through normal sales, as it was basically given for free in bundles to inflate its numbers. Classic!
And yes, this one single choice of game in its genre for 3 2.5 years is really great and enticing to get the console for these games.
Blue Dragon was there to give the console momentum, a foot in the door. It failed miserably.
- Read my post above. If done right, it could add to the current success of the 360. You fail to recognize that one of MS's particular strengths is to adapt successful products of its competitors, improve them, and sell them under a new name.
You're right, I fail to see that, as I never saw MS do whatyou describe. I've yet to see them improve any of their competitor products. Perhaps you thought "adapt to the MS way". Unfortunately, most of the time, it isn't improving. In the OS space, where they have their monopoly, it used to work, giving theman unfair advantage and no need to compete. Unfortunately, that's also why they failed in all the other markets.
- It doesn't matter how many losses a product has generated in the past, as long as it is profitable in the present and the future. Grillboys often (intentionally) forget that.
Except that none of their product with such losses are profitable in the present or the future.
But I guess being in denial makes you think a profitable FY is enough to make the XBox brand a profitable venture.
MS is next to Nintendo a big winner in this generation, while Sony is the big loser. By the end of this generation, MS will have doubled its installed hardware base compared to the previous generation, while Sony's will have halved.
Is that an epic failure?
With billions of dollars in the hole? When the goal was to gain momentum and you end up with none?
When you wanted a good brand, and end up with a diluted one?
Yes, that's an epic failure, in my view.
