CGI-Quality said:
What you say has a lot of thought put into it, but it doesn't actually defeat the bottom line. No matter how you slice it, Microsoft's advantages over Sony had a profound impact on how they approached the PS4. You can surf for every excuse in the book, or proclaim what would have been different had Sony done A instead of B. Fact is, those things happened and most of it (the key variables that caused the PS3 [and Sony] so much grief) were Sony's own fault. Microsoft (and Nintendo) capitalized on their missteps - forcing them to rethink their business. That is where he had a point. |
Except it wasnt the point.
I qoute:
"The lack of domination Sony was used to with the PS3 surely helped themake a much better console with PS4. Turns out competition is good."
Asserting, without the "good competition" the PS3 successor wouldnt be as good as what we have now. As a matter of fact "helped themake a MUCH BETTER CONSOLE".
I proclaim? It is you and LudicrousSpeed who proclaim what we got now is much better than what could have been if it wasnt for MS (and enter Nintendo - whoops.. where did they come from all over sudden) without providing a sound base to your claims. Nothing official or substantial logic and reasoning. I repeat myself: elaborate.
I on the other do provide at least logical, comprehensible arguments, not based on looking into a crystal ball, but on what Sony actually did the preceeding three generations, from the moment they entered the business.
flashfire926 said:
AlfredoTurkey said:
I don't think you can compare a console from 2013-17 and a console from the early 90's without adjusting for the size of the industry. Selling 40 million units in 1993 would be like selling 150 million or something now.
so selling over 40 million consoles is a failure.....
whatever you say man.
Yes, it is. As always, it has to be put into relation. MS planned to sell 200 mio. And this wide gap between vision and realtity makes it a fail.
Hunting Season is done...







