Well if you think about it a game console is essentially a PC isn't it? Except it is dedicated to one very specific task, to game. You have a processor, you have a graphics chip, sound ship, hard drive/flash memory, network card. All the things that are evident in a game console are in a PC. So it only makes sense that Microsoft would make a PC branded a game console for the living room.

Let's face it tablets are the future. And the average person doesn't really have a need for a traditional desktop PC anymore or a Laptop. So Microsoft is trying to give the best of both worlds with the Surface. People like the portability and the sleek, slim design of a tablet but they want the functionality of a PC. The Surface is trying to be both a tablet and PC. Is it overpriced? Maybe not considering it offers more than other tablets like the iPad. It could be a success or it could fail, we'll see time will tell...

I feel the same way he does. Microsoft gives me an eerie feeling that doesnt rub me the right way concerning gaming. They make a great entertainment hub but they dont focus on games enough and as the years go by their consoles will become more like a cable box than their competition. Everyone knows Microsoft will take the entertainment bit overboard.

Why do people think that the big games won't take advantage of extra performance if say the PS4 or Xb3 are say twice as powerful as the other? If you're creating COD MW4 or GTA 6 or Elder Scrolls 6 which are massive franchises with expected sales in the region of over $500M you've got at least $100M to burn so why not make the game look like you spent the money on it? I would predict that for the games which actually matter that any performance difference would be obvious to the end user.

Well Microsoft has invested more into gaming than Sony has I can guarantee you that. You could say the same about the Sony. Sony is more focused on pushing DVD players and Blu Ray players than they were in making really awesome, fun games for the PS3 and PS2, and that has hurt the industry. Let's face it, game consoles aren't just about the games anymore. If a game console is to succeed is has to do more than games.

I think that there will be a graphical difference between a powerful console and a more... modest system, but the difference will be in the line of high end PCs and PS360 - and not like PS360 graphics to Wii's... Question is if it'll be enough to make the game actually better.

High end PCs represent a tiny proportion of the PC market. Besides this, high end PCs don't have money thrown down by console manufacturers for extra content as we've seen in this generation. If say 2/5ths of your market has a significant performance advantage and your game is a 10M+ selling franchise then it is entirely plausible for developers to take advantage of that performance. The thing is these 10M+ games are the ones which matter so having the 'best' version is certainly a good notch to have in ones belt as a console manufacturer.

Microsoft has been publishing games for quite a while. The only actual Microsoft game I can remember playing for PC was Flight Simulator, so that kind of isnt enough to signify them as any sort of asset to anything but PC gaming (if you call that an asset at all). Sony is a hardware company, so DVD's and Blu Ray players have proven their worth and value. Both of them gave something to gaming that it needed, Sony with hardware and multimedia capabiltiies and Microsoft with online, but Microsoft has always wanted to monopolize every multimedia device on the planet until everyone is saying Microsoft and no one else. Sony was focused on pushing Blu Ray because they and the Blu Ray association agreed that Blu Ray must survive and they put it into the PS3 and through that and time Blu Ray has proved its value and a larger GB Blu Ray disc next gen will be the way Sony will take (and possibly Microsoft as well). Sony never hurt the industry, Sonys existence expanded it from a 90 million console selling industry (between Nintendo and Sega) to over 250 million + console users. Microsoft only disected Sonys fanbase by created a console that in games provided a similar experience and that was their selling point with the 360. If a game console is to succeed to must have games as a primary objective and multimedia must come second. 

The Xbox was created by a team of very passionate gamers, Seamus Blackley, Kevin Bachus, Ted Hase, and Otto Berkes. So i'm not really sure where you are getting this Microsoft doesn't put games first bullshit. Blu Ray players have been slow to catch on even today so I wouldn't say they have proven their worth yet. Blu Rays are still more expensive than DVDs to produce and game developers haven't really taken much advantage of the extra storage space as far as I can tell. DVDs still have plenty of space for most games and if a programmer needs extra space for extra content they can simply offer DLCs. Microsoft's goal with Xbox was to put a dent in PS2 sales because the PS2 at the time of its launch was a big threat to PC game sales and the PC in general. I don't think they intended to monopolize anything, they knew what they were getting themselves into and that it was going to be hard taking on Sony. Ever since the launch of the PS2 it seemed that fun, casual games were put on the backburner. And you have to take into account the number of people who bought the PS2 solely for the DVD player. You know the biggest hit on the PS2 when it launched was Matrix? Think about it, why didn't the PS3 fly off store shelves like the PS2 did? Because the PS3 was more evolutionary than revolutionary. The DVD player was a big thing back in early 00s, and when the PS3 launched with the Blu Ray player people were like meh I don't really need that, i'm perfectly happy with my DVD player. And the PS3 launch games were very lackluster, and boring. That is why PS3 has struggled to catch on this gen, the hype over the DVD player is over and now Sony has to go back to relying on making good games again because the Blu Ray players alone will not sell them this time in big numbers like PS2 did with DVD. Do you understand? Now you tell me who puts Multimedia first...

Yet Nintendo outsells all other games when it comes to 10m+ sales (except for CoD, etc).  The better hardware doesn't always equate to more sales.  Take Blizzard for example, they never push the PC too much because they want as many sales as possible.  They offer a decent product that will run on almost all "recently" new machines.  Pushing graphics to the maximum (Crysis, whatever game you want to put here) will never result in as many sales as you could if you take a decent game concept and make it playable on almost all semi recent machines.  I don't disagree with anything you have to say but I wanted to expand on it.

Yes, of course a high profile franchise will use the power of the stronger console - just like PCs have better graphics than PS360. But that doesn't make it a better game. It makes it prettier. And that's what I was trying to say; developers are going to make the games on of the consoles look as good as possible if they can, just like the PC. But that doesn't mean the game will use the full power of the console. Will the game have better physics? No. Will it have better AI? no. Will it look better? Yes. Does that mean a better game? No.Battlefield 3 looks better on PC, but is it a better game than the versions on PS360? THAT'S what I'm talking about.