Oh, and just to explain my reading comprehension to you dinnie, let me interpret the selection for you.

P1:
Sony didn't really gain anything from an early announcement, because by the time sales are important, consumers will already have all the information they need to make an informed decision. An additional 3 months of media coverage does nothing but earn Sony 'good will', however, in doing so they sacrifice quite a bit. E3 will be 6 months before a console release, and Sony has given MS even more time than that to counter the ps4 offering. So it's a risk reward scenario where the reward is negligible and the risk is high.

P2: Taking this action is either brilliant or blunder. They give their opponent time to counter. They give their opponent better ability to differentiate and tighten their marketing strategy. This is a business analysis. The battle will be over a long time, not a few months.

So yes, dinnie, it's very negative on the sony side, yet cannot even come to a decision whether it was a good or bad decision.

Something tells MS was caught off guard with the quick PS4 announcement, as well as all the positive buzz that has come with it. If MS missteps on their HW announcement, they have pretty much handed Sony the US and UK. With all the rumors that surround the NeXbox, Kinect required to work and a less powerful system to keep costs down for shipping Kinect in every box, I think MS is having a hard time figuring out how to sell it. On one hand, they want casuals to know that this is going to be their system of choice, as they are focusing quite a bit on them from the get go. On the other, they don't want to come across as TOO casual, otherwise they will lose the core gamers to Sony.

Sony was wise to go first, excluding Nintendo, of course. They showed what next gen should/will look like for a powerful console. If MS can't at least match those visuals, they are going to be in trouble.

I disagree.  The "game" content may not necessarily be the content you want, but Microsoft has been developing content all along.

That being said, Sony began this generation lauding the media capabilities of the PS3 over the Xbox 360.  Microsoft began this generation with a strong footing on games and game content.  Despite the story some people would like to put forward, Microsoft hasn't let up on that.  The difference is that Sony has made up for lost ground in the games and games content.  Where as Microsoft has made up the difference, and then some, in the media capabilities of Xbox LIVE. 

The "Services" that Microsoft has developed during this generation are movie(film) rental/purchase (Video Marketplace > Zune Marketplace > Xbox Movies), TV Show purchasing (same services), music purchasing (originally as videos only via Video Marketplace > Zune Marketplace > Xbox Music), game download (Xbox Live Indie Games & Games on Demand), and communication (integration with Windows Messenger, Party Chat, & Video Kinect).  Those are the services that Microsoft offers.  The last one was added in 2010. 

Have they made software applications available for other services, yes.  They have made software applications available for other third-party services to develop and expand their media capabilities. Sony has done similar, but scaled back when their funds dried up. 

Both companies have made up where they were deficient at the beginning of this generation.  Sure, it looks like Microsoft may be behind Sony in terms of games and game content but that's because they started out way ahead of Sony at the beginning of this generation.  Hell, Microsoft ended the previous generation leagues ahead of Sony.  So kudos to Sony for catching up with the Original Xbox capabilities.  Microsoft has made up and surpassed Sony's media capabilities through the media services available on Xbox LIVE.

Sony is a media company, as well as a software company, as well as a hardware company, yet Sony has done nothing on the scale of what Microsoft did with Halo 4.  Microsoft created a live-action Halo series prior to the release of Halo 4, released the game Halo 4, created a massive amount of content for Halo 4, as well as an animated episode for each of the DLC packages.  Huh.  Go figure.

He doesn't implicitely say it, no.  However, if you read what he says he gives you his conclusion.

"For Sony to show their hand with over 9 months for a respond from their competition is either brilliant or blunder." (rhetorical statement)

Implied answer to rhetorical statement:

"They allow their competition to make changes and tweeks to counter their stragety."

 Blunder.

"They give their competition a chance to tighten their message to analize information from Sony reveal and better market their device."

Blunder

Now the conclusion...

"I am not looking at this situation like a gamer or consumer, I am looking at the situation like a business analyst developing my message with plenty of time to address weakness or strengths based on getting knowledge early.  The race for Consumer money is not going to be decided in the short months between Sony and MS reveal.  This will be a long battle just like it was last gen."

Why is what I pointed out the conclusion, the culmination of what is being said?  Because this all goes back to the statements made in the original paragraph.  That's how a conclusion works.  You make statements in your thesis statement, you support it, then you draw a conclusion reinforcing your original statment.

"For Sony to show their hand with over 9 months for a respond from their competition is either brilliant or blunder." does not support the previous paragraph, therefore it is not a conclusion. 

Also, you never introduce new material into a conclusion.  I'm in no way suggesting that the OP made a good closing paragraph, just that you are incorrect in your assessment of the paragraph itself.  The conclusion is, as I have said it is, the conclusion because it is supported by the thesis and support statements. 

What kind of excuse is that? So it only looks like sony is putting out more games every single year because ms had a headstart? Sony is caught up and more, which says that in 6 years, sony put out more games than ms in 7. That's not an illusion.

MS ended last gen leagues ahead??? Sony first party titles dwarfed the xbox first party, both in quality and quantity.

PS: Halo is a massively popular series. If you're saying that Sony, being a huge multimedia conglomerate has yet to show even an ounce of strength compared to MS, I have no argument, as MS' marketing and merchandising ability wasn't something I was arguing in the first place. I'm not sure how that counters "ms is less focused on game software" though, as it really has nothing to do with it, since comic books and tv shows are not games.

I'm not talking about the savvy consumer, the core gaming diehard who knows what they are buying and is up to date on all the info. I'm talking the general public, the bulk of the consumer base that these products are going to sell to. Not everyone watched the PS4 event and there are still plenty of people who don't know it happened or what any of it means that might be looking to buy the console when it comes out. Advertisement is really important.

It seems you aren't really thinking this through or looking at how product launches work. You even suggest that having the PS4 on shelves shortly after the unveil would have been a good thing? Sega did that route with the Saturn and it blew up in their faces. Retailers were pissed, consumers had no idea the thing existed. The fact that the console is launching the same year as the reveal is a short time period itself. The Wii U announced at E3 2011 and launched Nov 2012. Now the consumer landscape has changed and our culture's speed of communication is much faster so a long wait for launch might be a bad thing now but there still needs to be time to get the word out, gather public demand, produce the units to meet demand, and distribute them timely.

There is also a lot more info they can release on the PS4 that they just didn't have the time for at their unveil. The lone spotlight is really important for marketing reasons. That's not saying MS releasing closer to launch won't give them momentum but it is less time to market and less game announcements able to mention the next xbox.

All I care about is that you completely agree that he's saying blunder over and over and yet basically says "but who knows".

Was the measurment quanity or quality or sales?  I forget what it is today. 

The stick by which I am measuring is in the totality of what was or is being offered that is different.  The online service, the depth and breadth of games available both online and offline, and the availability of DLC.  In this respect, I see the PS3 and the Xbox 360 as equals.

If we want to measure the quanity of games, then the Wii circa 2009 has the PS3 beat by a landslide.  There were more low-selling games available for the Wii by this stage of the game than Sony has first-party published the entire generation.  Does Sony publish a lot of first-party games, sure.  Are they all winners?  No.  Does Sony end up losing money on them?  Possibly debatable now with PS+, since they can be used to garner subscriptions, but immediately some of them lose money.

Microsoft backed away from first-party games with the original Xbox in an effort to obtain greater support from both EA and Activision.  In fact, in order to get EA to develop for Xbox LIVE, Microsoft was forced to divest itself of it's first-party sports titles.  EA didn't want first-party competition from Microsoft like it had with Sony and Nintendo.  Subsequently, Microsoft relies more on third-parties to create games.  

In terms of first-party content, there is actually still a lot of first-party content coming from Microsoft.  Again, maybe not what you're interested in, but that content comes in the form of Xbox Arcade games, Kinect Games, as well as AAA retail games. 

The point about Halo 4 was that Microsoft, a software company, does more to create a total entertainment package for its gamers than Sony, a media company, software, and hardware company does.  It's about doing their core customers a solid by delievering more than just a game, more than just DLC, there's actually a deeper story given to advance the game, DLC, and future games.

For a 29 year old the fact that you fail to understand a rhetorical statement is surprises me.  I'm certain you're not on MENSA's speed dial. (Note:  That was a rhetorical statement.  YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER IT NOR DO I!)

I don't consider that sentence rhetorical. He's using the whole post to say Sony sacrificed a lot to announce early, yet has no idea himself whether that's good or bad, yet deems himself a business analyst (albeit one who has not done a whole lot of research into console launches)

Also, fyi, by definition it wasn't a rhetorical statement as a rhetorical statement is one intended to make a point, whereas he doesn't.

 : ( womp womp