This thread should be in the Gamin Discussion area. Its a thread concussively to do with Microsoft vs Sony vs Nintendo. There is no need for this to be in the Microsoft only forums.

Exactly.

Ive requested a lock and relocate. Ill comment when its in the correct forum. I wont fill Microsoft forums up with vs threads.

What's it called now? Have they changed what's included in it at all? 

The contents in the division has been changed a few times I think in the past 10 years. It used to contain (and partly still does) highly profitable sections like Mac Software and Peripherals (even that desk pointing thingie was profitable), and stuff that wasn't profitable at some point. Google around and you can see what currently is inside the division. It is a myth that the division was/is highly profitable due to XBox360. There is a reason why some investors/shareholders have been trying to get rid of "the XBox division" for years. Since we will never see the actual breakdown inside the division year by year, any profitability discussuion is pretty much pointless (needless to say, the blue bar diagram does NOT include the additional $1b rrod loss so there is creativity involved in any diagrams).

Well if Nintendo can compete like Malstrom is saying lets see those 300,000 servers from them.

Lets see them get EA to give Wii U 50% of its development resources to compete against XB1/PS4/PC.

Lets see Wii U get just as many AAA third party games as the other two,.

Lets see Nintendo's online offering that puts Microsoft's to shame.

Lets see them make Wii U the go to console for Call of Duty, Fifa, Destiny, Titanfall, Battlefield, FIFA, etc.

Lets see them force retail to give all their best shelf space to Wii U.

Lets see the 500+ million dollar advertising campaign for Wii U.

Seriously Malstrom appears to have no understanding of how things have changed (the growing importance of online, development costs forcing developers to put their AAA console games on systems with similar specs, gaming being even more closely tied to social media, etc). If he realized any of that he would be see how Microsoft is in a much better position to compete than Nintendo in console gaming.

As for mentioning the declining dedicated gaming handheld market and Microsoft not having an offering in it, does anyone here really think anyone at Microsoft Redmond is losing any sleep over it considering Vita's sales.  Does anyone here think that western third parties put the same importance in 3DS and Vita that they do in Xbox One and PS4? 

The reason Microsoft has a higher standing with western third parties can be easily seen if a person looks at EA/Activision/Take Two/etc's financial reports and see how much money they're making off Xbox 360.  Microsoft and Xbox gamers earned that standing in the industry among third parties regardless of how much it annoys Malstrom.

I think with the money hat MS can compete. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds the next few years. I think it will be a rocky start but I do think they will get it together and get the marketing machine rolling with a kinectless xbo with a subsidy making it cheaper than even a wiiu (at the price it is now $300). To think they will roll over and play dead? I believe you/that person are greatly under estimating them.

Though I can see where Sean might think this when he goes talking about handhelds that nintendo has been so successful in, and MS has none, but he is crossing the markets a little.

Microsoft sold 80 million xbox 360 till now, they make a ton of money with xbox live, they make a ton of money with game sales.

Of course the first xbox wasn't a big success it was Microsofts first console and they had to take big investments but the 360 was and is a huge success. Thats the matter of fact, what the futur will bring is only speculation.

#1 Oh really? Please, run down for all of us the exact breakdown oh what products are in this division and how much each and every one of them made/lost during this graph. Since you apparently know that. I will be on pins and needles awaiting your response.

#2 You aren't really getting it, which is strange considering you're the one who posted an article saying Nintendo actually can compete. It's about profit, not being #1 on the leaderboard. If the Xbone is profitable, that's a success. The Xbone could sell less than the 360 and still be more profitable. Again, it's all right there in the article you yourself posted. And your opinion on the quality of the GCN is entirely irrelevant. It was a profit for Nintendo. These companies are in the business of making money, not shooting to the top of VGChartz.

#3 And yet preorders for the console are higher than they were for 360. And the PS3 was even more expensive and yet it turned out ok sales wise.

Sales are nice but profits are what matters. Have you read the article you posted for this thread?

Man, Malmstrom doesn't really know what he's talking about. He has quite some good points when ONLY talking about Nintendo, but as soon as he mentions the other 2 console makers he doesn't have a clue. MS and Sony are just as capable at competing as Nintendo.