So yeah, exactly what I said in my previous post. Nothing to be dumbfounded about.

The other two read you original post the same way i did.

As for my, "Well, it makes more sense when you put it this way." post. I didn't forget it but you replied to my first post as if you were arguing with the point i made and challenging me to prove it, so I carried on since I figured if you thought it wasn't along the same line as what you were trying to convey you wouldn't have replied in that manner.

So yeah, it's all on you.

I hate when people steal things that I was going to say.

OT: What a silly thread.

The thing is, there are 4 main ways of differentiation: price, performance, innovation and convenience.

- Playstation, and some other Sony products, always try to differentiate from the competition by performance. This is an easy decision to Sony, since they are the one with most know-how about hardware manufacturing from the big 3.
This would mean, in theory, that Nintendo/MS have to choose between:
1) A weaker Hardware, at the same price point
2) A similar Hardware, at a higher price point
3) A similar hardware, sold at loss, so it can have a similar price point
While this does not seal the fate of a gen, it gives Sony a more tangible advantage. Albeit this HW advantage is only really important if it reachs the mainstream public (those who don't read Digital Foundry and don't watch IGN comparative videos).


- Nintendo, on the other hand, tries differentiation by innovation.
Innovation is a two-edged sword. If you have a hit, it doesn't really matter your competition performance edge over you, you are set to trounce it or ignore it (Iphone, DS, Wii). On the other hand, if you have a flop, you are probably stuck in an even worst situation than just being weaker.

And the thing with innovation is that is never easy to see. If it was easy, somebody else would have done that already, and it wouldn't be innovation anymore.


PS: i'm not saying this is the only variable of the industry, but towards a "default" aspect, i think that's how i see those companys.

You just came in, you have no idea what i am reffering to.

So if you understood from that post over an hour ago why did you continue to act like you didn't understand and waste both our time?

Seems silly to me.

Believe it or not, I don't have to be in a thread while you're typing to see what you've typed. I actually read the whole exchange so I absolutely know what you're referring to, shocking as it may be.

Like i said in my last post:

As for my, "Well, it makes more sense when you put it this way." post. I didn't forget it but you replied to my first post as if you were arguing with the point i made and challenging me to prove it, so I carried on since I figured if you thought it wasn't along the same line as what you were trying to convey you wouldn't have replied in that manner.

You wasted your time. It's night here and I can't sleep. I got plenty of time for this.

Judging from your posts, no you don't.

You said he was clear from the beginning. He himself admitted he wasn't, so it had nothing to do with me having poor comprehension like you suggested.

I didn't challenge you to prove anything, I simply said "each to their own" because at that point I believed we were all on the same page, then when I started getting strange replies I cleared it up and that's when you said it made sense. But then went back to before the comment like it never happened. I'm just surprised we had this whole conversion if you knew what I meant all the way back there.