CartBlanche said:
So your definition of competitive is being at 50%? Let me put it another way. In a race where there are 100 competitors you are saying that the person who comes 50th is putting the person who comes 1st under pressure and is a serious contender in that race?? Meaning they 50th person could have someone won the race?? I think our definitions of competitiveness differ. Now if Xbox One sales were within 1% of PS4 sales, then I'd 100% agree with you, but in which reality is 50% competitive?? Is this some kind of new "alternative facts"/Trump definition of competitive? By definition competitive means you actually have a shot at taking the number 1 spot. As mentioned above, if you are within 1-5% of the leader. Short of Sony folding as a company this year, how will Microsoft reach the number 1 spot this console gen? I'm open to any suggestion you have on how they could do that. Bizarrely your username signature doesn't even predict MS coming anywhere close to Sony by the end of this year. Last gen, Microsoft allowed Sony to snatch victory, but at the end of the gen, there was only 1 or 2 million consoles difference. That was Microsoft being competitive. This gen, they are soooooo far behind I personally can't see it happening and on top of that they aren't currently doing anything that would somehow change their long term fortunes. |
You have a strange definition of being competitive. So Nintendo which sold 12 million consoles against 20m+ PS4s is not competitive as well it seems. In my opinion being competitive means that your rivals pay attention to what you do and don't act like you are no threat to them. Right now for me it doesn't look like Sony ignores Xbox so they are being competitive. Not being competitive is something like every console manufacturer was during PS2 era
