too much wrong with this thread. Here are my corrections..

1) XBOX brand is very strong
2) Nintendo can't compete in the clone war, but dominates profits
3) HD clones are tied, the difference is half a percent.

yadayada bull bull bull

This op leaves out that sony lost all of it's ps1/ps2 profit in a 3 in a row strike out.  Since psp, ps3, and psv; sony has only $1 billion profit remaining from the 5th & 6th gen.  When the author says there's nothing to 'discuss' I assume he doesn't want to talk about sony.  

#1 there is no "microsoft gaming division". There is the E&D division, where they also put tons of losses from other products.
#2 what something does or does not sell compared to its predecessor is irrelevant in terms of profit. The GCN, as your article references and confirms, was profitable even though it finished "last".
#3 there is no indication that the Xbone will sell less than the 360.

I read what was posted in the OP and idk, just doesn't make much sense to me. Authors puts way too much emphasis on sales. Nintendo has competed for generations selling less hardware because they are profitable. Sony has competed for generations losing money upfront on hardware but making it back later. The PS3 was a disaster for them profit wise, market share wise, pretty much in every regard. But are we to believe they had a better generation than MS simply because they pushed 1 million more consoles? Please.

#1 You do realize that their entertainment divison is mostly composed of xbox ?

#2. So microsoft can keep making more failures and go out of the video game business ? (They can't just keep taking losses after losses y'know.) BTW the GCN was an awful console and the mass market responded accordingly by not buying the console. 

#3. Oh but their absolutely is such as the xbone outpricing themselves in this economy. LOL

Sales are sales and they tell what the mass market wants and the mass market points to nintendo this generation and most most probably playstation for next generation. BTW nintendo kept afloat by monopolizing the handheld market. We all know that sony wasn't good at this generation but will microsoft be better at next generation ? 

The funny thing is that these "analysts" seem to think MS is somehow new to the gaming market. They have been into the game far longer than the existence of the XBox brand but are now establishing XBox as more than just a console. I buy XBox games and music on my smartphone, computer and 360, meaning they have quite effectively set up an infrastructure consisting of three different platforms. While I am sure they would like to be the console sales leader, I do believe they are looking at this in a MUCH broader picture than most of us believe.

People for example look at XBLA as a way for MS to extort money from their gamers just for getting access to things like Netflix. I am quite sure MS sees XBLA as a way to change how we pay to play and to create an aura of exclusivity around their product, something that has been successful.

That being said, MS gas made a number of mistakes, mainly in the way they have dismissed Europe, not establishing XBLA in the same strong way as in the US and also not investing in exclusive games (besides some awesome XBLA ones). But as a whole, I believe they a more future proof model to work with than Sony or Nintendo.

And Windows Phone as well as Skype.
Windows Phone hasn't exactly been a run-away success.
Didn't Microsoft waste millions/billions on a facebook phone at one point? Aka. The Kin? That's included.

@Bolded:  Even you have to admit that is pure conjecture without any real base in fact.  No one knows how well the X1 will perform because the console is not on the market.  Many conditions can change the state of the gaming and general public.  Price is key in the beginning but creating compelling features that attract more than the hardcore will always be something that keep these systems selling past your first adopters.  Trying to base the success of both consoles on presales is not basing your opinion on anything more than the first blush and intial reaction.  Both systems will be in the race for the long haul.

The PS does not look like it has the market until the PS4 actually hit the market.  You talk about price but remember that the 360 sold for much less than the PS3 in Europe but the PS3 still outsold it.  Price is only part of the equation.  Who really knows if MS is able to sell the features of Kinect and the services they are building behind it where it does become a AAA selling device.  Today I do not see it but I also see the pontential there.  Execution will be the key and MS ability to sell its features.

off topic but I love the kin twom.  The only smartphone on verizon that doesn't require a data plan.  I love that phone.

Microsoft got lucky last generation with the PS3 getting a terrible start. But the PS3 ended up selling more than the 360 console wise by the end.

With a likely better start then the Xbox One the PS4 may end up dominating the Xbox One by the time the next generation comes to a general close.

Agree for the most part, Nintendo "wins" where it counts. Sony and MS meanwhile hemorrhage money in their gaming divisions (aside from Sony in from about 1996-2005 when they had a near monopoly in the games industry).

And before you go discrediting Malstrom as some Nintendo fanboy, he is in fact far from it. If anything, he is a retro/PC fanboy, and is probably far more critical of Nintendo than almost anyone I've heard or read, fan or journalist, and that is saying a lot..

Aaaaaaaa even worse!

There is no Xbox Division now.  There is Entertainment & Devices that they hide their losses in from other hardware products so we haven't been able to tell exactly how their gaming division has performed for a while now. Though I suspect it's probably profitable right now with something like WinPhone or whatever making the losses.