"Now some might argue that retailers won't want to take inventory they don't want this time of year. But Microsoft has a nice trump card to play here. They simply say, "Well, we have a big consumer product launch of Windows Vista and Office 2007 coming up on January 30. Those who don't take XBox 360s might have some trouble getting inventory of those products." And given that those products are pretty much guaranteed to sell in the millions of units for the year at price points of hundreds of dollars, most retailers will just take the XBoxes and call it a day."

Remember Gateway's and other companies' antitrust cases against Microsoft which sadly got bought-off by M$?

If the allegation is true I think Microsoft should receive some serious penalties for abusing their PC monopoly!

I strongly doubt any 'tieing' between Xbox shipments and software: mostly just because I don't think Microsoft is that integrated (i.e. the console business and sales team is totally different from the PC software side)... not to mention the idea of any retailer not getting exactly as much software as they order just doesn't happen (i.e. there's *always* enough Vista, Office, etc. to go around when all you have to do is press more discs).

Rather I suspect MS is doing deals with retailers: look at all the ad hoc 360 sales that happen at various retailers all the time, that MS has to be paying for in the end. These pack-in deals are also worked out with retailers.   

It's very dubious when they state that they will have 10m units sold 1 year after release and then move it to the end of 2006....we are nearly 4 months into 2007 and they still haven't made the 10m mark. 

Interesting thread to pop late into.

It really makes me consider exactly where my 'favour' lies.

I don't understand though why people find it so un-heard of that a company is trying to make money from selling games.  Games sell because they are fun, that is why the industry is so massive, because it is fun, a companies motivation to make money is by providing fun.  People wouldn't pay all the money for it that they do if they didn't enjoy it and find it fun.  It's abserd to think it a bad thing that companies want to make money.

Our entire lives are controlled by money, companies, people, they don't do most things unless it involves making money (or spending the money they've earned). Whatever job your working or whatever schooling you've acheived is for the sole purpose of making money.

The difference that I see between the three companies AT THE MOMENT in the industry is the way in which they attempt to generate customers.  Microsoft and Sony individually use 'dirty' tactics (viral marketing, lies, propganda etc) where as Nintendo currently uses the 'you make the decision' tactic which is working for them, especially in the information and 'blogging' age that we live in ('everyone can play').

None of these tactics are 'wrong' I just don't think Sony have evolved with the information age like they could have, they could be doing MUCH better.  Viral marketing and paying people to post on forums may have worked in the beginning of this technology when they were covered in positive press, but the 'un-believable' posts are rediculous.

As for saying companies don't belong in markets because of the things that they do, that's a fair opinion but it ultimately comes down to the consumer and if there are enough 'blind' consumers for companies to make money by being dirty cunts then let them keep working that way.

Also in the Sony / Microsoft and Nintendo situation, Sony and Microsoft have alternate agenda's behind pushing their consoles (Sony makes a FUCK LOAD of money if BR is the successful HD format).  Nintendo as I see it don't have alternate agenda's other than making money by making games that suit the broadest number of people.

I didn't talk about Microsoft much, I don't want to sound like a 'fanboy' but I generally dislike Microsoft's way of operation, this is why I have never purchased a MS operating system and doubt that I ever will.

@OriGin:

"this is why I have never purchased a MS operating system and doubt that I ever will"

I see... piracy FTW!!!

Actually I should re-phrase, i'll never WILLINGLY buy a Microsoft operating system (it came with the pc), I have XP from when I purchased my first computer myself 3 or 4 years ago and have bummed off the back of that operating system since.

N c'mon I made more relevant points that that didn't I?

I agree with you in one thing ;Sony doesnt fully understand all the viral-marketing and internet campaigns and "hype " .They still relieve on some old tactics to seem cool ,parties ,giftsgiving ,TV ads ,ads at soccer matchs ,etc .In the meantime MS has a 3.2billion viral marketing campaign going and hundreds if not thousands of people all around the internet spiting their own ideas and marketing .For the people as us who surf daily the internet and see all the bad rumours about Sony and how any mistake or negative opinion about Sony is elevated as a guilty judgement by the associated press and specially the forums and blogs ,it seems MS is totally owning Sony in the "new-gen PR " model .Still ,thats an impression more than anything ,as the people who reads this kind of webpages and the ones that read the forums are very few ,and not all of those wii be convinced to jump ship because some people perceived as fanboys shout "Sony liars! or SOny suck!" .In the battle to get good PR no company is succeding except maybe Nintendo ,and more due to a biasement of many redactors and wishes from about everybody that the Wii doesnt transform into the grave of Nintendo home consoles .Both the image of Sony and MS is suffering badly ,but more the Sony one .If MS has failed to gain some positive press (at least outside some very close US press ) ,its FUD campaign has managed to harm Sony image in a great way .

This might be true, but by bringing up this argument you may no longer deny MS the right to engage in the video gaming industry because they might as well dominate the market someday and build up a tradition. Sony = MS, that's what I was saying.

And concerning Sega, this is getting off-topic, but you sound as if you had never even possessed a Sega console. This is like I was saying "Nintendo didn't contribute anything besides Mario, a crappy monochrome handheld and an innovative motion sensor for an outdated home console" and considering it the truth. Never mind. And I don't think MS is the new Sega, of course they're not accepted in Japan at the moment, but they have so much money that they are able to buy their popularity among the consumers step by step and still be the richest company in the world.

Some unknown motion-control-based game is not comparable to an established brand (Sega).

If it had not been for the PSX, games would most likely have been released on the Saturn (yes, I know that Sega made the wrong choice with the quad-based GPU and that it was generally more difficult to handle than the PSX). But let's forget that statement about MS and Sony not belonging to the video game market - I know it cannot be backed by rational arguments

My point was Sony = MS, just on a different scale.