That's good, because all I do it's watch TV and Netflix on mine. At least it's getting some use, unlike my other consoles. 😜

Don't forget that aligned ps3 were always ahead of x360 and closing the Gap.

Only if their brands were equal but it's not. The price is already lower and many xbox fans argue that the xbox one's library (I disagree) is better than the PS4's but the xbox one is still losing horribly world wide. How much better does the xbox one's library need to be than the PS4's and how much lower does the price need to be lower than the PS4 to at least match the PS4 in sales?

Yet you think it can catch up?

'

I'm just going to tyoe it one more time because I'm not sure you're quite understanding. You asked why the XB1 couldn't catch up like the PS3 did. I then told you why the XB1 couldn't catch up like the PS3 did and it was because:

The PS3 wasn't losing in every territory, the gap wasn't as big and Playstation is a bigger brand.

This is an answer to why the XB1 can't catch up like the PS3 did. The XB1 is losing in every territory whilst the PS3 wasn't losing in every territory and in fact was slowly catching up. The XB1 is 11.5m (probably 12m now) behind whilst the PS3 was only 5 million behind. Because of the success of the PS1/PS2/PS3/PSP, the Playstation brand is bigger brand and as such as a bigger following, whilst the XB1 isn't anywhere near as big because it lost every generation, (two of which it lost by huge ammounts) and it didn't and hasn't had a handheld to further promote the brand.

We could get into the games but that would just end up as usual: I provide proof, you deny the proof. That's why I've stuck to the basics.

So $50 is not enough so how about $100 lower or $150 lower than the PS4? What's the right pricepoint for the xbox one?

We all know that MS does not have the studios to outproduce sony on 1st party games so it would have to rely on 3rd party exclusives which I don't see devs doing unless MS throws butt loads of money at 'em. The only other choices are to build multiple studios or try to buy studios and set them to make games which is also very expensive.

Personally, I think MS would be better off trying to keep the xbox one profitable and focus on producing games that make their fans happy over trying to beat the PS4 on marketshare.

We cannot control what other sites choose to title their articles with. What you can do as a thread creator is exercise some discretion. The examiner's title was very obviously clickbait.

In fact, you're required to exercise some due diligence. Please review forum rule number 3 - particularly these two points on thread titles:

• Need to accurately describe the subject content.
• Should not use deceptive hooks to lure people in

It would be best if you did not post further threads until you have at least perused the rules again. In the interim, I will be helpful and adjust the thread title.

Brand means a lot more than just that word. The Playstation Brand tells a story in just a few letters, it has the strength of association with huge core brands such as MGS (which made me buy a PS3 in Gen 7) and Final Fantasy as well as countless other games (Tekken, Gran Turismo) etc. 

So when we refer to Playstation after 20 year on the market, it draws on a lot of memories and relationships. Even if MGS is now a multi-platform title, most people will say "MGS, that is a PS game...I'll get it on PS4. Then the new Final Fantasy will come out and I'll pick that up".

Also you must think of the age of fans, when the first PS was released a lot of them were bought for 8 to 20+ year olds, these people are now older with jobs and kids and influence current buying trends. Xbox has not reached this point of maturity. You see this being exploited in films with Transformers and Turtles. It is tried and trusted. Just my two cent. 

No one said that it was only because it was a PS console, but that did have a lot to do with it.  PS is just that big of name WW.  No other console could have survived last gen with all the things Sony had going wrong with the PS3 at launch ($200 more than its closest competition, complicated HW, inferior multiplats for the first year or so), let alone ending up in a relatively close 2nd. 

I can see your point but if you read it carefully, it does indeed look like he's comparing it to the PS4:

'We have more gamers playing games on our platform'

Why use the possessive pronoun?

edit: I know exactly what he's done and it's a simple matter of mixing one subject with another. The emphasis is unballanced because the question is about the PS4 but just before he says 'We have more players playing on our platform' he talks about LIVE. THAT'S what he's talking about. The thread title should be:

'Phil Spencer: We have more people playing online than our competitors.'

Now the possessive pronoun makes perfect sense.

Nope, I've just realised he's talking about LIVE versus PSN. It absolutely makes no sense otherwise.