I broke 3 PS1s (and many of my friends at the time had problems too). Only had one PS2 though.

Again, the consoles certainly had problems but the OP is baseless. Nothing comes close to the fail rates of the 360 consoles (until the 2008 motherboard revision).

Amen

One difference concerning the 360 failure is that you could send it back to be fixed for free.  Neither the PS1/2 or 3 could you do that and I have experienced problems from each of those consoles.  Hell, I still have my PS3 fat sitting in a closet dead because of the YOLD issue.  Each time I had to deal with one of the failures from Sony console I had to pay 150 bones to get it fixed.

The fact that Nintendo was willing to sell Rareware could be a good indication that they were already in the grave.  Lets think about this for a second.  If Rare was making games that sold where keeping the busines is a plus for Nintendo, they would never have put them on the block.

MS was dumb enough to fall for it then lol. MS job is to acquire good talent, not buy bad talent.

You said they thrive off of image. I am pointing to their financials because it paints a different picture than a company that thrives off of image. Instead of whining for me to lay off financials (since it decimates your argument), try to explain to me how they are "thriving off image". Protip: this long novel you typed below certainly didn't help illustrate your point.

I went ahead and crossed out the irrelevant, borderline rambling section of your post. Has nothing to do with MS thriving off image, or spin, or anything else in discussion. Though, I did enjoy the part where you talked about MS relying on inventions of others, then listed things like a virtual reality headset, or the 3D two players on one screen tech, as if Sony actually created these. Those have both been around a long time. LOL @ you thinking Sony invented the 3D multiplayer tech. Yikes.

The rest of the post to be honest is equally irrelevant, all you're doing here is basically saying MS uses PR and hey Nintendo and Sony do as well just its somehow different when MS does it. Toss in some Spencer nonsense and idk, it seems you actually have no idea what you're even trying to say.

I never said Sony invented those things, but yes Sony is a hardware company and are always looking for the next jump on tech. I've noticed that very few people give Sony as much credit as they deserve for those creations. Yes, the two player 3D TV? Who in the gaming industry did it before them? No one. Nintendo and Sony are always either on their game or ahead of the game with tech. Nintendo knew tablet gaming was going to be big and was the next step (therefore developed it ahead of time), but launched the Wii U after the tablet became a thing and the market became saturated with various companies investing in it.

I also never said Nintend or Sony don't use PR like Microsoft either. I said Microsoft is BETTER at it than them because even though Sony and Nintendo are better at the development/technological side of things, Microsoft thrives at image and marketing. Their visual marketing and PR are superior. Microsoft will always destroy them at those things including OS. Microsofts marketing and hype is the reason why the Kinect sold as well as it did when it did, but all good things come to an end once the market is no longer impressed. Sony did the same thing six years before with their own R&D instead of having to buy a company and still profited off of the device, but never marketed the Eyetoy properly. Sony's focus is is always 100% primarily focused on the quality of the tech since they are developing it, opposed to Microsoft which since they didn't focused on the potential and marketing potential of said Natal (Its project name). If Microsoft had made the Eyetoy, they would've out marketed Sony by leaps and bounds. Why would I say something like this? Because Microsoft does not invest in something that big without the expectation of large returns. They just don't take as many internal risks as Sony or Nintendo (even though they have the money to do it). Microsoft understands the psychology of visual marketing of an overall product better than Sony and Nintendo. Even though the both use it as well, its nowhere on par, which is why anywhere you see Microsoft marketing, OS or anything of the that ilk the design, style, psychological influence through visual presentation more often than the competition. Their cohesive unity of their product is better too, when you look at the Smart Glass, Xbox OS and Windows. Why is it that I say this? They are facing Apple who are the Kings of Visual unity and competition makes you a better  person for being involved so facing off against Sony and Nintendo is small cookies for them in the visual marketing department.

 Visual marketing is the discipline studying the relationship between an object, the context it is placed in and its relevant image. Representing a disciplinary link between economy, visual perception laws and cognitive psychology, the subject mainly applies to businesses such as fashion and design.

Well they all had bright lights and spectacle. I don't really know what "grand American marketing" is but I'm sure it's as terrible and "only applied by MS" as your "typical American greed" line of logic goes. Celebrities are used all the time at these things. Heck, even Nintendo uses Robin Williams to market Zelda. How American of them.  What about when Sony uses an American actor like Harrison Ford to market Uncharted in Japan? On your scale of typical American greed, is this like Inception, with greed within a greed?

All in all I guess you're just saying video game companies love marketing. I agree.

I never said Microsofts marketing was terrible. I'm actually complimenting it. Its funny how you ignored the fact that the main point of all the "spectacle" I spoke of was relevant to the market they were in. Americans like spectacle. Remember when I spoke about Pepsi vs Coke? Same difference. Pepsi destroys Coke in US marketing, but around the world since Coke is already more preferred it doesn't seem to matter. Same thing with Microsoft. 

Remember when I said if Microsoft has bad press they snuff it out as quickly as possible where-as Sony would take the bullet and just press on? Look how much money MS has been pouring into making sure demos have been shown on the Xbox with Dragon Age and other games so people have a view of what the game will look like on the Xbox One. Last gen, Sony accepted that they were the lesser console when it came to multiplats and there was nothing they could do to change it. Devs had made it clear. They left the story up to their exclusives which actually harnessed their power. This gen the devs have made it clear that the PS4 is well ahead of the Xbox One in raw power and potential which wasn't the case for the 360 last gen even though multiplats were easier to develop. Microsoft is still paying and fighting back with PR to talk about the cloud. Microsoft much like Apple exist on the notion of snuffing out bad press. The only bad press Apple couldn't snuff out was their lack of value as a gaming platform, but again Microsoft took away their shot to prove it when they bought Bungie while in development. You cannot snuff out facts once they become completely evident, so Microsoft is now forced to prove the value in the Xbox One since multiplats aren't first choice on that platform any longer and neither does it seem to be the case with indies as well.

Well of course. It's that typical American greed. When MS sees a great developer and buy them, any game they then go on to make is stolen and not a product of MS themselves. Any any 3rd party deal reached where MS pays funding to make a game, is also not a MS creation. Meanwhile with Sony if they see Naughty Dog releasing great games and snatch them up, well shit that's  typical American greed err i mean that's awesome portfolio building, growing their own talent and investing #4thegamer. And when they pay a company to make a game like Beyond Two Souls or The Order 1886, that's just Sony creating new IP's like no one else does.

LOL give me a break. Entertaining post, but if you have any actual logic or reasoning as to why and how MS "spins more than anyone" or "thrives off image", I'd love to hear it.

There is logic, you're just running yourself around the logic. Microsoft learned better competitive marketing from facing off against Apple. I'm sure you understand that history. If you know anything about Steve Jobs, he knew image and lifestyle must be thought of in any device you make, because that is the point of making your product different. Microsoft learned a lof about what they have today from Apple about the simplifcation of products for the common man and the psychology of layout, design and image. Sony and Nintendo are coming from a world where marketing isn't as aggressive, but because of Microsoft they've been LEARNING. Sony's OS and marketing have stepped up because of Microsoft, hasn't it? I say it has. Nintendos marketing revolves around characters so they are starting to come into their own involving overall product slowly but surely. Nintendo's marketing strategy is more akin to Disney. Microsofts marketing is more competitive for a overall competitive market involving lifestyle technology. It fits like a glove as consoles are all in one devices and that is Microsofts bread and butter. Once Sony made that the main purpose of consoles upon expanding the market in the mid 90's Microsoft took notice and wanted to partner with them. If you're not with them you're against them, especially when you're in multimedia all-in-one devices.

I never said Sony invented those things, but yes Sony is a hardware company and are always looking for the next jump on tech. I've noticed that very few people give Sony as much credit as they deserve for those creations. Yes, the two player 3D TV? Who in the gaming industry did it before them? No one. Nintendo and Sony are always either on their game or ahead of the game with tech. Nintendo knew tablet gaming was going to be big and was the next step (therefore developed it ahead of time), but launched the Wii U after the tablet became a thing and the market became saturated with various companies investing in it.

I also never said Nintend or Sony don't use PR like Microsoft either. I said Microsoft is BETTER at it than them because even though Sony and Nintendo are better at the development/technological side of things, Microsoft thrives at image and marketing. Their visual marketing and PR are superior. Microsoft will always destroy them at those things including OS. Microsofts marketing and hype is the reason why the Kinect sold as well as it did when it did, but all good things come to an end once the market is no longer impressed. Sony did the same thing six years before with their own R&D instead of having to buy a company and still profited off of the device, but never marketed the Eyetoy properly. Sony's focus is is always 100% primarily focused on the quality of the tech since they are developing it, opposed to Microsoft which since they didn't focused on the potential and marketing potential of said Natal (Its project name). If Microsoft had made the Eyetoy, they would've out marketed Sony by leaps and bounds. Why would I say something like this? Because Microsoft does not invest in something that big without the expectation of large returns. They just don't take as many internal risks as Sony or Nintendo (even though they have the money to do it). Microsoft understands the psychology of visual marketing of an overall product better than Sony and Nintendo. Even though the both use it as well, its nowhere on par, which is why anywhere you see Microsoft marketing, OS or anything of the that ilk the design, style, psychological influence through visual presentation more often than the competition. Their cohesive unity of their product is better too, when you look at the Smart Glass, Xbox OS and Windows. Why is it that I say this? They are facing Apple who are the Kings of Visual unity and competition makes you a better  person for being involved so facing off against Sony and Nintendo is small cookies for them in the visual marketing department.

I never said Microsofts marketing was terrible. I'm actually complimenting it. Its funny how you ignored the fact that the main point of all the "spectacle" I spoke of was relevant to the market they were in. Americans like spectacle. Remember when I spoke about Pepsi vs Coke? Same difference. Pepsi destroys Coke in US marketing, but around the world since Coke is already more preferred it doesn't seem to matter. Same thing with Microsoft. 

Remember when I said if Microsoft has bad press they snuff it out as quickly as possible where-as Sony would take the bullet and just press on? Look how much money MS has been pouring into making sure demos have been shown on the Xbox with Dragon Age and other games so people have a view of what the game will look like on the Xbox One. Last gen, Sony accepted that they were the lesser console when it came to multiplats and there was nothing they could do to change it. Devs had made it clear. They left the story up to their exclusives which actually harnessed their power. This gen the devs have made it clear that the PS4 is well ahead of the Xbox One in raw power and potential which wasn't the case for the 360 last gen even though multiplats were easier to develop. Microsoft is still paying and fighting back with PR to talk about the cloud. Microsoft much like Apple exist on the notion of snuffing out bad press. The only bad press Apple couldn't snuff out was their lack of value as a gaming platform, but again Microsoft took away their shot to prove it when they bought Bungie while in development. You cannot snuff out facts once they become completely evident, so Microsoft is now forced to prove the value in the Xbox One since multiplats aren't first choice on that platform any longer and neither does it seem to be the case with indies as well.

There is logic, you're just running yourself around the logic. Microsoft learned better competitive marketing from facing off against Apple. I'm sure you understand that history. If you know anything about Steve Jobs, he knew image and lifestyle must be thought of in any device you make, because that is the point of making your product different. Microsoft learned a lof about what they have today from Apple about the simplifcation of products for the common man and the psychology of layout, design and image. Sony and Nintendo are coming from a world where marketing isn't as aggressive, but because of Microsoft they've been LEARNING. Sony's OS and marketing have stepped up because of Microsoft, hasn't it? I say it has. Nintendos marketing revolves around characters so they are starting to come into their own involving overall product slowly but surely. Nintendo's marketing strategy is more akin to Disney. Microsofts marketing is more competitive for a overall competitive market involving lifestyle technology. It fits like a glove as consoles are all in one devices and that is Microsofts bread and butter. Once Sony made that the main purpose of consoles upon expanding the market in the mid 90's Microsoft took notice and wanted to partner with them. If you're not with them you're against them, especially when you're in multimedia all-in-one devices.