I mostly agree except some parts which seem a tiny bit far-fetched like MS not wanting HDD to win more than BR. But I mostly agree. I'd add that I expect MS to launch two versions of the console. One digital only (like psp go), and one with BR. Either this gen (at launch or within the gen with remodels) or the next.

I don't think they wanted HDD to win (sorry if that was how it came across).  They wanted to stall a winner and at least prevent quick adoption of a new standard.  They also very much wanted to stall BR.  MS knew they were commited to DVD, they wanted DVD to remain dominant for as long as possible and potentially for a move towards digital vs physical as DVD dominance wanned.  What MS did was simply, they through their weight (but not all of it) behind was was looking like the loser for just long enough to prolong the competition.  This was very good for MS - it meant a lot of people would be unsure about buying a PS3 because they might end up with a dead format.

This isn't really a conspiracy theory - it was widely discussed at the time and seems almost certain to have been their strategy from what I've read.

Can someone explains this line of thinking to me? MS hasn't taken any Sony IPs. If this referencing third party titles, which I'm sure it is, then it's not true. Third party titles are the property of their publisher, not Sony.

Can someone explains this line of thinking to me? MS hasn't taken any Sony IPs. If this referencing third party titles, which I'm sure it is, then it's not true. Third party titles are the property of their publisher, not Sony.

Online performance is not Microsoft's only strength, and in fact, Microsoft are the ones who made it a must-have for consoles. That's one huge thing in favor of Microsoft and wanting to remove it is simply for the sake of cherry picking.

1. No, they wanted to be more visible for consumers, rather than just being for enterprise customers. VG247 ran a few pieces on how the Xbox came to be last year, you should read them.

2. Yes, clearly wanting your device on the market for as long as possible and making as much money from it as possible is something only Sony wants.

3. Huh? The 360? The 360 Slim? Which one are you referring to?

I don't see any 360 model that looks like this:

 or this for that matter: 

 I honestly don't see how Microsoft copied the PS2 with any of those designs...

4. DVD was the most sensible format at the time, which is why they chose it. I won't talk about HDDVD, as I have no idea what reasoning Microsoft had behind it, but the fact that Sony has had to allow installs to the harddrives of the PS3 tells you that bluray wasn't quite ready for primetime.

5. It's called being first to market, and like with #2, it's not something Sony started doing.

6. Seeing as how development costs started to skyrocket with this generation, wouldn't it be likely that developers also wanted to have their games on the 360? Especially seeing as how Microsoft went out of their way to make piece of hardware that was easy to develop for.

I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't learned lessons from what Sony has been doing, but it all comes back to the sentence "Microsoft always ends up following Sony's lead" still being blatantly wrong. You won't accept online gaming as an area where Microsoft are leading, and you think Microsoft is following Sony in everything they do, which is clearly wrong.

@ happydolphin

It's a matter of principle, as S.T.A.G.E. is clearly trying to make Sony look superior to Microsoft by spreading misinformation.

What they mean is that, by means of money-hatting, assisted marketing and general courting with 3rd-party devs, MS largely took from Sony their ability to foster exclusive 3rd party content on their platform, which was the norm for two gens before this one.

That's exactly how Sony got their third party content in the first place.