It has been brought up in another thread that after peter moore's departure things havent been as good for MS's gaming division as they should be going. Not that its bad right now but it seemed like he did alot of good things for the 360 namely getting gta4 and assasins creed to the 360. Basically i just want to read an intelligent discussion about how peter moore has affected ms for the positive or negative.

Well I think it will benefit MS having Peter Moore at EA. We've already seen the two companies grow closer since Peter Moore switched (can you say, ROCKBAND), but how much of that can be attributed to Moore I don't know.

Leadership is key but I don't see any difference between 360s strategy with peter moore and without...

And him behind EA...as much as we all hate EA, can only mean good things for microsoft.

Judging from how far Microsoft has grown as a game company since last gen, offering more variety and loosening Sony's grip on previously exclusive titles like Devil May Cry 4 and GTA IV, I'd say that Peter Moore was definitely doing a good job. Lately it seems as though the company is less focused and falling apart, facing much lower sales and stumbling upon itself. Moore had experience, seeing as he formerly worked with Sega (not that it is something to be too proud of), but with experience he had a better idea of the market. However, he was probably a good part of why MS nickle-and-dimes for nearly everything and I expect that behavior to carry over to EA. Off topic: Who replaced Moore and what are his qualifications?

MS coming out early and aggressively helped a lot. Being the first next-gen console means that they have a head start on everybody else. The next big thing was MS's emphasis on NA. They knew that they just won't win with the 2nd and 3rd world countries against the Wii, since that console is a lot cheaper so they (wisely) concentraded on NA b/c it would offer a better return for their investments. Third, MS's emphasis on the online experience has really done them well. The online gaming, w/ dlc and such has a MUCH better profit margin than shipped games, b/c they don't have to monkey around with the physical content, shipment, purchasing of discs, etc. So this means more money coming back to MS than would be if they just had a so-so effort with the online stuff.

MS has shown that even though they have made a lot of half-baked decisions with the faulty 360, and I would even say the whole HD download premise of its next console which is nothing really special or even really an improvement as its current console has downloads, that they can act aggressively and really shake things up. Their inclusion of ANOTHER console in a year or two is going to shake things up whether sony wants to beleive it or not. Since this 720 thing will be coming out 3 years later than the 360, it is going to have the best hardware in terms of performance. So even though I don't really think that MS is going to make the best choices as far as its next console, you cannot say that the 720 won't be a big factor just as any other console at the least.

@ Instant_Karma

Don Mattrick. Ex president of EA... If you look up his info on wikipedia, his qualifications are far from bad. He also seems like he kows what hes doing...

I believe the reason Peter Moore is in EA and the reason EA hired him is to have him the release of the EA console. Just a speculation. It will not benefit MS having Peter Moore in EA since EA really has a strong support with their XBOX360 line up already.

Well, so far moore has been a key person in two console launches... dreamcast and xbox.... which both didn't do good (as launches)

So, could it be EA's downfall? (to release a console)

This thread is an interesting idea but who here knows? We'd all be guessing on which decisions or actions were a direct result of Moore. Plus many things in the works currently (like the 360 motion controler) could have been started under Moore and continued, so how do we have an intelligent discussion?