Buying a console for the brand is not the same as that console having the bigger brand.

Here's an example: If I buy a Ferrari for the brand, Ford is still a WAY bigger brand.

I think the real issue is that Last Gen is only one part of determining an answer for the thread's question, which most posters don't realize.

I agree that most people ignore the 360's own problems, but I think tit for tat they were overshadowed by the PS3's problems.

In its first year, the XB360, was against last gen, and MS cut off support for XB quickly (something I resent) but it worked in their favor because of how quickly they got new people to adopt the system.

Any problems it did have didn't really matter because people didn't know what to expect and MS let everyone think it was normal. They also serviced those issues well enough that it didn't hamper it much, especially with Social Media in its infacy.

By the time PS3 and Wii came, XB360 had established third party dominance and price, not to mention consumers had a whole year to adjust to issues and MS instated a warranty. Yeah MS was sued cause of their own negligence, but they purposely did this to release first this time around.

Even if it was a replacement, they still moved units.

PS3 had to deal with 2 competitors, slow game start, and being overpriced which is a lot more toxic then hardware problems for the following reasons:

*Consoles depend on price to sell, both in general and with their competitors

*Sony faced a manufacturing shortage because of their high POM

*Parents

*HW problems can and are constantly overlooked. Its a cognitive bias that I currently can't remember the name of, I think its Neglect of probability but Im not sure on that, where people will think, " Oh it can't happen to me," despite the probability being high and so taking a chance with lower price and getting a 360 as opposed to PS3, assuming their interest lies in similar libraries.

That being said PS3 tended to outsell the 360 more of the years they shared on the market, but 360, made it a grueling 10 years for it to do so.

Ultimately ROW made up the difference in that gen.

why would you buy a ford?

I cannot really say that "XB1 would be selling a lot better despite its price." because of brand, since there is no way to know how it would perform if its brand were "different" somehow. However, I can say with certainty that the way Miyamoto uses it, as the number 1 reason for all consumers being described by 1 graph of one survey is ridiculous.

And something like Brand size doesn't apply when the brand is completely irrelevant or more specifically non existant as in the case where the console is not avaliable.

Also your example isn't neccessarily applicable here because comparing brand size is pointless when they aren't even in the same tier or prestige. Ferrari is a luxury brand while ford is a utility brand.

That being said, few brand are equivalent in class, even PS vs XB while they are both console gaming brands, they are of different countries, and PS is definetly Global at this point, or at least international while Xbox is definetly still considered American. Which determines strength more than something as nebulous as scale.

On a side note: I remember being 8 and seeing a made in mexico sticker on my OG Xbox and getting pissed off it wasn't made in America lol.

It's more affordable, maintenance is cheaper and less frequent, a far smaller percentage of them have a tendency to burst into flames, reliability, etc.

While one might try to argue that those are brand associations, they are the reasons I would answer a survery for "Why did you buy a Ford?"

Meanwhile, no one can refute that Ford sold about 250,000 cars to Ferrari's 7,000, because Ford is simply a bigger brand.

Like I said previously, I think thats an oversimplification.

Ferrari is luxury and Ford is utlity. Even if you could get one or the other for the same price. A Ferrari just wouldn't be useful in certain situations.

In fact, this line of thinking has got me wondering if the question being posed even makes much sense at all. Considering reliance on brand is simply relying on the expectation of qualities that the user wants, not necissarily if they sell more. For instance, in the 90s the Sony brand of TV and electronics in general was synonymous with reliability, quality, and performance while now Sony brand TVs are seen as overpriced.

Whats important to brand strength, or really what brand strength means is that how strong is the association of desirable traits with the name alone and how valid is that association in consumer purchasing habits.

i.e if you have money to burn and you want a cool looking car, Ferrari is your brand. If you need something to get to work everyday, you are gonna buy a ford/nissan/toyata/etc.

Make sure to add "IMO" next time. You made your statement out to be a fact when thats clearly not the case.

No, get off your high horse.

Both brands are sold internationally, and are therefore both global. However, Playstation is globally more popular (and better imo) than Xbox. To make matters worse, PS4 is also more popular in America, the region Xbox typically wins.

Calm down, dude. He was giving you advice to prevent future misunderstanding, not acting high and mighty. There's absolutely no need to get hyper defensive with him.