overall, Microsoft will be successful in consoles, but I don't think they'll win unless severely drastic measures are taken.
the playstation brand has been around for far too long and it excels pretty much everywhere in Europe, where Microsoft sees milder successes.
Both will be successful though, in the long run.

i don't think so

the only way they will be first is if nintendo and sony quit

but i think by that time,google,apple and samsung would have entered the market


i think its their mentality which has left them behind,its a problem with the entire company.windows,windows phone,xbox,etc.they don't have a continuity type of culture.they are a typical American corporation culture thats its business aka money making not about the product.

i actually like it that they are not first,they don;t deserve it.

as for video games industry,they have never really put in much effort.they haven't made alot of first party games and not made an amazing console,so its them reaping as they sowed

Simple answer is no. MS was doing really well with the 360 from 2005 - 2010, but "slacked off" from then on. The momentum the company could've had going into this gen was squandered and the XBO reveal further exacerbated the situation. Not sure if MS will invest on another console, but I'm positive that it will not win next gen barring Sony and/or Nintendo royally fucking up.

Nope, Nintendo. HH + HC = bigger profits. For the short time that it was available the GBA sold like a beast, was sold at a profit and the cheap Nintendo games also sold a ton.

It's not moving goalposts. The only thing these companies care for is profit. It's litterally the only goalpost.

There's not a single company that would chose the PS3 situation over the GC. Looking at just hardware sales is pointless. You know this tachi.

I'm with Tachi, here. Nintendo definitely won last gen with the Wii. However, for the two generations prior, Sony won with the PS1 and PS2. I guess if you want to include the GB Color, GBA, and the DS, sure, Nintendo won, but it has been made clear that we're talking about consoles, not consoles + handhelds.

Sooooo... What were Nintendo's and Sony's profit margins on their respective consoles during those two generations? Clearly you must have a source with the numbers, and considering your assertion that the console that was almost hilariously outsold by its competitor was in fact more profitable, you should probably provide a source. =P

I'm obviously including HH. Nintendo has to split their resources in half to cater to both platforms. Ignoring it would be unfair.

Handhelds and consoles cater to two entirely different types of consumers. Nintendo having to split its resources is not a valid excuse. Sony was handling the PS2 and the PSP at the same time. Didn't stop the PS2 from utterly dominating and the PSP selling quite well for a non-Nintendo handheld. The PS1 was Sony's first crack at the console business while Nintendo already released the NES and SNES prior to the N64.

Edit: I'm going to stop here because this is getting way too off-topic, so this conversation should be moved somewhere else.

The PSP released near the end of the PS2's lifecycle and had much more overlap with the PS3. How did that work out for them?

Nintendo actually supports their HH, Sony doesn't. So yeah, it's a valid excuse. PSP was plagued with piracy because they didn't use cartridges. It was quite a big failure in that regard.

Because clearly the PSP directly contributed to Sony's decision to use the Cell and include a Blu-Ray drive in the PS3... -__-"