Strategyking92 said: Final-Fan said: Strategyking92 said: Aj_habfan said: Strategyking92 said: Aj_habfan said: Strategyking92 said: Aj_habfan said: Here's why some people think 360 is dead: 1. It is selling the least every week worldwide since late last year, even after a $100 price cut in Europe 2. It is dead in Japan and lost it's major lead in America 3. People feel it has used up all it's big software hitters, so it's only downhill from here 4. People think it's sales peaked at Halo 3, and now people are moving on to the other consoles I'd argrue those points, not a Microsoft person saying how good of a job his team has done. 1. Actually, It's sales went up about 40% in europe, so it did help. 2. You are stupid if you think the ps3 has already beaten the 360 in america. Only right now is it ahead. (week to week, and that's not by much) 3. That's only what you think buddy, you hate the 360. 4. If a person likes the Xbox360's software, why would he get a console he might not like? BTW, welcome, I also came from gamespot. Mmm, how about you fuck off? I was posting reasons that people who say the 360 is dead use, and for him to argue those points instead of "Microsoft said we have won the core gamer!" What's your problem? Tired? And Why can't I argue them? Questions? What the hell are you talking about man? You can argue the points all you want, that's why I posted them, but don't address me in your answers like I am the one believing them. Damn, did the conversation go in a cirlce? 'cause i'm lost. Please allow me to kindly provide you with a map: [picture deleted to save space] No, i'm serious, wtf is he talking about? I have highlighted the confused parts

Really??  Okay:

1.  The OP comes in asking why people say the 360 is dead and spouting a bunch of stuff showing how awesome it is and better than PS3.
2.  Aj_habfan says, 'Here are some reasons some people think the 360 is dead:  1 2 3 4  Why don't you argue against those instead of quoting MS PR at us?'
3.  You say, 'You're completely wrong 1 2 3 4'
4.  Aj_habfan says, 'STFU I was just giving that guy some reasons to argue against'
5.  You say, 'What's your problem, can't I argue against them then?'  (Or something like that?  You're none too clear IMO on the first and last lines.)
6.  Aj_habfan says, 'WTF are you talking about?  I didn't say I believed that, go ahead and argue against them but don't talk like I believe the stuff you're arguing against.'
7.  You say, 'WTF I have no idea what just happened'
8.  I say, 'haha owned'
9.  You say, 'No seriously WTF happened'
10.  I say [endless repetition begins here]

Final-Fan said: Really??  Okay:  1.  The OP comes in asking why people say the 360 is dead and spouting a bunch of stuff showing how awesome it is and better than PS3.  2.  Aj_habfan says, 'Here are some reasons some people think the 360 is dead: 1 2 3 4  Why don't you argue against those instead of quoting MS PR at us?' 3.  You say, 'You're completely wrong 1 2 3 4' 4.  Aj_habfan says, 'STFU I was just giving that guy some reasons to argue against' 5.  You say, 'What's your problem, can't I argue against them then?'  (Or something like that?  You're none too clear IMO.) 6.  Aj_habfan says, 'WTF are you talking about?  I didn't say I believed that, go ahead and argue against them but don't talk like I believe the stuff you're arguing against.' 7.  You say, 'WTF I have no idea what just happened' 8.  I say, 'haha owned' 9.  You say, 'No seriously WTF happened' 10.  I say [endless repetition begins here]

Oh, I see where I accidentally de-railed the thread.  I won't elaborate since this could go on forever.  Thanks.

Welcome to the site.

That said, your post might've been better received (and agreed with) if you didn't come off like an MS shill.

^^^^^^^^^

yep.

LongLiveTheBeatles said: Gamer1211 said: Hi Everyone, I am from Gamespot and new here. For the life of me I can’t seem to understand why gamers convey the Xbox 360 is being “dead”. It just proves how little most gamers understand about the business behind gaming. Console sales define absolutely nothing when it comes to making money; it simply provides leverage for a console manufacturer. To illustrate take the following example. Widget A sells 100,000 units for $.50 and costs $1 to produce. Widget B sells 10,000 units for $.50 and costs $.10 to produce. Who makes more money here? Widget A: 50,000 - 100,000 = -50,000Widget B: 5000-1000=+4000 Microsoft learned its lesson through the Xbox selling a console for less then what it costs to manufacturer is a poor business model. Instead has decided to make money on every box that is sold. http://www.oxmpodcast.com/ (please listen to the latest podcast with Michael Patcher). Last gen and this gen Sony is simply trying to sell a format to attain licensing revenue through its product. The big difference is that Blu-Ray is nowhere near the position that DVD was in when PS2 launched. 85% of the Blu Ray players out are PS3’s.http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10145&Itemid=2 To quote the above link, “In 2008 about 85 percent of the Blu-ray players in the market will be found in PS3s; the dedicated consumer electronics and PC-based types of Blu-ray players won’t catch up in terms of market share until about 2013," So 6 years and Blu Ray will catch up to consumers? In 6 years time will Blu Ray even be needed? Now I am not taking a page out of Microsoft’s book here but I am pretty certain that in 6 years there won’t be a need for a disc. Hopefully this point will stop rabid fanboy’s from posting Blu-Ray will destroy the 360. Probably not, time will tell but to me there are already digital boxes out there that let you order HD movies...seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? Secondly the 360 already has the “core gaming” market so don’t you think developers would target that market? http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10041&Itemid=2 If you look at the budget to make a game: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/ Look at the larger install base: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for: http://www.film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/KurtBuschppt.pdf Look at which console has the higher attach rate: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/747/747181p1.html http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/01/28/360-attach-rate-now-7-games-per-console/ Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3. For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Cheaper-by-the-Year-8886.shtml. So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead. First of all I'd like to say welcome to the forum, but I respectfully disagree with your post. I know that at gamespot there are a lot more rabid fanboys on both sides of the fence but here most people will argue using some sort of logic. Anyway, the fact that Microsoft makes more money directly from their gaming division is true, however, Sony's strategy as a hardware developer is a bit more ingenious. I'm sure you know that Sony makes HD televisions, cameras, computers, and other products right? Well the PS3 is more or less a tool they used with blu-ray to: 1. Win the HD format war 2. Sell TV's which are products of much greater value 3. Act as a media Hub with everything else made by Sony Whatever they initially lost was made up 10 fold through peripheral sales. Not only that but the price has been reduced. I also own both systems and prefer the PS3 because of reliability and the interface. For the moment the Xbox gets most of my playtime because of games like Halo but later this year things will change. I think Blu ray will successfully take the DVD's place only because major movie studios won't want what happened to the music industry to happen to the movies, and other electronic companies won't allow Microsoft to regain a monopoly over world of consumer electronics. After all they are the main backers of digital distribution. Their stance is rather hypocritical though because once the format war ended they all of the sudden don't believe that discs are the future of the industry while they lose billions backing the HD-DVD. As for how important the profits of a corporation are to a consumer... it really means nothing to us. What does matter is who sells more consoles to determine who will get more third party games. So far, both systems have gotten a ton so everyone should be happy. (If you really are concerned about profit the RRoD costed Microsoft about 1.2 billion. Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I had to.)

Excuse me for a moment but what fucking planet are you from? MS is the main backer of digital distribution?

Ever heard of a town in California named Cupertino? Within its city limits, a company named after fruit has sold more movies and songs digitally than any other company in the world...

BTW, your post is full of fanboy fail. MS never committed to any format. They were simply trying to screw with Sony in an attempt to get digital distribution, the only way they make money from movies, to the masses. They didn't give a rat's ass about HD-DVD and that was brutally apparent when they dropped the format like a dead dog the second it appeared to be faltering.

Final-Fan said: Gamer1211 said: Final-Fan said: Gamer1211 said: 1. Many PS3 fanboys claim that Blu Ray will be the deciding factor in the console war. Go to gamespot and u will see what I am talking about. 2. Umm if you goto Forums and gaming you will see that there are 3 threads talking about the 360 being dead. Moreso, If you goto Gamespot or IGN you will at least 10 so please dont advise me to post about something that is clearly widespread throughout the gaming community. 3. Yes the PS3 has sold the 360 3 out of 4 months this year. I never disagreed or stated anything disputing that and as such I am unsure what you point was. 4. Widget example was to simply prove a point. Based on the types of threads that are posted its not a good assumption to believe that everyone can understand logic when it comes to consoles. Spelling something out to me would be much more effective then posting my opinion. 5. Propaganda? If you could please direct me to your source that discredits or proves that anything I posted is false or does not have fact to back it up. 1.  Are we on the gamespot forums?  No.  In fact we frequesntly laugh at the ignorance rampant there, which would include talk of the 360 being "dead". 2.  I didn't see them on the first 3 pages.  Please point them out, I admit I skimmed but the closest I saw was a troll thread on Page 2 about GTAIV making 360s brick; the poster got banned and everyone laughed at the article. 4.  The widget example was not even remotely on point.  How was it a useful analogy for the 360 vs. PS3?  Just because the 360 managed to claw its way to profit a little bit faster doesn't mean it didn't employ the same strategy of losing money on the hardware to make it up on software and later in the gen.[*]  I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough. [edit:  In short, you say you did the widget example to prove a point but I don't know what you think you were proving.  It's pretty obvious to all that it's better to make money per unit rather than lose money per unit.  You don't need an example to show that and it's NOT what you needed to prove to support your argument.  As it stands your widget example is such a gross oversimplification of the strategy MS and Sony both employed that it loses all relevance to the discussion. [*There is also another point to consider:  Sony also was employing the same strategy with respect to Blu-ray inside the PS3 at the same time as it was doing so with respect to the PS3 generally.  So it has even more to potentially gain from that (successful) strategy.] 5.  Propaganda doesn't have to be false.  I will address this point more fully when I get home from work. 1. No not on gamespot forums true but as this is my first post here most would assume that gamers would share the same mentalities as there counterparts at other sites. I do not believe that my point in regards to Blu-Ray was unwarrented by any means in the realm of PS3 fanboy's mentalities about the format victory. 2. Here are some links for you from this site. I also did note that at gamespot and IGN there are many more but I will keep my search to this site for you: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=23439 http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=18817&start=100 http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24893 - Posted on this thread... http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24915 - Posted on this thread... Sorry this site isnt immune to it my friend. 4. The widget example was to illistrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit. If you couldn't get that out of that then I feel for you sir. It was not meant to be a statistical analysis detailing anything but more so a general picture to MS's new model based on the related podcast in the orginal post. Please listen to the podcast first and you will understand why I put it in this thread in the first place. 5. Propoganda: "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid." I am not influencing anyone or providing false or impartial information. I have reference all points in the above thread and as such, if you can find links to disprove or falisfy what I have posted that power to you. If not, I encourage you to reconsider the wording that you are using or continue to look for something that can outweight what I have posted on here. Given I have used 2 references directly from Microsoft but the information used is further backed in the podcast which again I encourage you to listen to. Lastly, your comment "I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough." Well if you need more claification or you cannot understand something ensure you let me no. 1.  Well, in that case you assumed wrong.  I guess it's a natural mistake to make; no harm done. 2.  I never said that there wasn't ANYONE who had EVER said such things on these forums.  But let's take a look at those:  A.  "Is the 360 in trouble?"  "In trouble"=/=dead.  B.  "Its over for the 360"  I'll give you this one, though I'll point out that pretty much everyone agreed that it's not over, then the debate turned to whether the 360 was being beaten by PS3 which is very different from whether it is dead.  C.  I'm not impressed by you digging up a single post in a thread to match your claim, but I AM impressed that it apparently didn't even say "360" in that post!  I searched the text of that page and did not find one instance of "360" that talked about it being dead or dying, although there were several about the 360 AND PS3 being doomed.  D.  I see a lot of talk about games and sales, and vague sales predictions.  Some of these predictions were rosy for the PS3 and some (less) were gloomy for the 360, but I didn't spot any "360 dead/doomed" posts.  If you equate "going to be 3rd place" with "is dead", well then, yeah. 4.  I have better ways to spend my time than listening to Pachter.  (How long is the podcast anyway?)  Your widget example gives a lesson of "small scale but at a profit beats large scale at a loss."  Well that's nice, but what are you comparing?  You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360."  What was the point of all that? I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.  I'm glad I was wrong there, but now I have to ask why you spent so much time talking about the original Xbox when the subject at hand should be the 360 or other current-gen systems and situations. 5.  That's an OK description of propaganda.  But I am very surprised that you deny trying to influence anyone.  Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"?  That's known as "influencing", my friend. But there's one important thing about propaganda:  "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis..." Propaganda is often just a completely one-sided presentation of the facts -- all "pro" and no "con".  In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox.  Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc.  Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy. As for having to refute your sources, quite frankly I actually don't, as I have not said that any of them were lying.  But when one of your sources is a Microsoft press release that doesn't have any relevant information at all, I just have to laugh.  You know what?  I'll go ahead and take a quick stab at the rest of your sources.  (I have no objection at this time to the Blu-ray one.) Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360?  That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why did your source for "Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for" NOT HAVE INFO ON DEV COSTS?!  (None, that is, beyond a generic $15m throwaway line.)  Maybe I just overlooked it somehow, but it doesn't matter since it used the infamous iSuppli graph.  Instant credibility loss. Why do your sources for "Look at which console has the higher attach rate" NOT HAVE THE PS3 ATTACH RATE?!  I believe you that it's higher, but come on, you have to give 360 AND PS3 sources for evidence of which is higher.  And here's a hint:  sources dating back to the PS3 launch won't cut it. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?!  SERIOUSLY.  Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything?  It also says that the PS3 might launch in spring 2006 at a cheaper price than the 360, and look how that turned out. Overall, I would rate your OP as particularly low-quality propaganda.  You knew that you needed to have links called "sources", but you didn't seem to understand that the "sources" have to back up what your claims. Consider this an official request for clarification on the above questions.  And also one more:  Am I just completely blind?  Did my eyes just glaze over and refuse to see that your sources actually had all the information you were telling us?  I find that hard to believe, but then I find it hard to believe that you'd cite so many sites that DON'T.  I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, and this would be a doozy.

2.

 

In response one must look at the underlying point of the threads in which I posted.  I will agree the actual phrase, “the 360 is dead” may not have been said, but it is clear that the point of any post in question was in some way illogical.  Coming from Gamespot, I have grown somewhat accustom of seeing dim and brainless threads and was merely proving that VGcharts is not excluded from having their own share of console favoured thinkers.  This is not wrong by any means, one can choose what to post, but I am simply displaying that VGcharts is not an anomaly from the console war fanboyism that has taken this generation by storm.

 

4.

 

 “You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360."  What was the point of all that? “ 

 

“I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.”

 

Let me clear up what I was saying for you because it is quite clear you are having a tough time.  What I was saying in relation to my widget example was rather simple.  The XBOX 360 was produced with the business model in mind to make money on the sale of the console and NOT the sale of software.  The PS3 was produced with the business model of introducing a new format to the market and not on making profit on the sale of the hardware.  The point I made about the XBOX was to simply show how there last gen model did not provide business means to continue with the same strategy that is all.  To quote my original response, “The widget example was to illustrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit.” 

 

Hopefully this is clear enough for you now.  If not I have again included links to further backup my point. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=322340

 

To Quote:

 "The Blu-ray was such a critical part of their business model, they couldn't let it go.”

“Today, Sony's strategy to marry the Blu-ray with its next-generation video console”

 

Clear enough? I hope so!

 

5.

 

Ok so now on to what appeared to be your endless rant of my “propaganda” and how it was purely posted to influence the readers of this site.  Well plain and simple, my post was to simply state that the Xbox 360 is not dead.  Prior to reading, I encourage you to see how widespread this thought is for many PS3 gamers including some who have responded to this thread.  I will answer each of your points individually as to make this as straight forward as possible.

 

Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"? 

 

No.  The purpose of this post was to refute the claims across the internet that the 360 is not DEAD and provide evidence accordingly.  I was not trying to show that the 360 is the “best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market" as you claimed in your response.  I can understand to some extent that you could have taken that out of what I posted, but this is clearly not the case.  It is my opinion that the 360 is the best system going forward for core gaming, but this is my opinion, and was not the basis of this thread or the references that I provided.  Clearly based on the title and subject of this thread, one could have easily asserted my aim but again, I am assuming. 

 

Not the best system, but not dead is the point here.  Consumers have opinions, thoughts, likes and dislikes and who am I to try to sway them another way?  Do I really give a shit if someone likes the PS3 over the 360?  No, not in the slightest, this was merely a thread to discredit gamers who were being illogical in their reasoning, nothing more. 

 

Why is MS Dead, I don’t get it...that gives you the impression that I am claiming that it is the best system going forward for the core gaming market? 

 

In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox.   Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc.  Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy.

 

What was the point of this thread?  Was it to do a full on console comparison?  Was I trying to compare pros and cons of both the PS3 and XBOX 360?  If this was a comparison then sir you are right, I would be clearly one sided and be “uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy” as you put it, but this is not what the aim of this thread was. 

 

The aim of this thread sir was to simply refute the theory that the XBOX 360 is dead and why it is in a good position moving forward.   Take for example the following website claiming this:

 

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17494/1092/

 

So you tell me sir, how does “propaganda” work?  What is needed to appropriately deem that a phrase, message or article is in fact stemming from a theory or form of propaganda?  Do you actually even understand the foundation of the word propaganda and what it implies?  The foundation if this thread is what is called, “rebuttal” sir and does not contain all 4 of the characteristics of propaganda defined by Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model, which you are welcome to look up in Google.  Understand this, this is a RESPONSE and not some form of message that I am trying to convey to persuade or convince the gaming public.   

 

Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360?  That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all.   Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360?  That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all.  Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?!  SERIOUSLY.  Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything? 

 First and foremost I WAS NOT TRYING TO COMPARE ANYTHING!  The whole basis of your response hinders on this “comparison” theory that you have.  Was it that hard to see that I was merely refuting a widespread argument amongst PS3 owners?  I mean you say the word “comparison” or “compare” about 5 times throughout your response, if you want a full on comparison go to IGN or CNET and you will find a good one.  If you feel that my sources were biased or faulty then so be it, but do not claim that I was trying to do something that I was so clearly not.   As far as I am concerned gamers can choose to disagree or agree with what I am stating, it is my opinion backed up by sources of information.  Your right, I may have spent 10 minutes writing up my original thread and may have not looked that deeply into several details.  But in all honesty, what is the point? In the end you or any other console favoured fan doesn’t take criticism or a negative connotation to your console that well.  Your too quick to jump and say one thread, person, or comment is attacking your beloved box instead of trying to obtain and understand the intrinsic  meaning of a message.  Well I will try to dumb things down next time I guess. 

 

 

The OP: Hi Everyone, I am from Gamespot and new here. For the life of me I can’t seem to understand why gamers convey the Xbox 360 is being “dead”. It just proves how little most gamers understand about the business behind gaming. Console sales define absolutely nothing when it comes to making money; it simply provides leverage for a console manufacturer. To illustrate take the following example. Widget A sells 100,000 units for $.50 and costs $1 to produce. Widget B sells 10,000 units for $.50 and costs $.10 to produce. Who makes more money here? Widget A: 50,000 - 100,000 = -50,000Widget B: 5000-1000=+4000 Microsoft learned its lesson through the Xbox selling a console for less then what it costs to manufacturer is a poor business model. Instead has decided to make money on every box that is sold. http://www.oxmpodcast.com/ (please listen to the latest podcast with Michael Patcher). Last gen and this gen Sony is simply trying to sell a format to attain licensing revenue through its product. The big difference is that Blu-Ray is nowhere near the position that DVD was in when PS2 launched. 85% of the Blu Ray players out are PS3’s.http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10145&Itemid=2 To quote the above link, “In 2008 about 85 percent of the Blu-ray players in the market will be found in PS3s; the dedicated consumer electronics and PC-based types of Blu-ray players won’t catch up in terms of market share until about 2013," So 6 years and Blu Ray will catch up to consumers? In 6 years time will Blu Ray even be needed? Now I am not taking a page out of Microsoft’s book here but I am pretty certain that in 6 years there won’t be a need for a disc. Hopefully this point will stop rabid fanboy’s from posting Blu-Ray will destroy the 360. Probably not, time will tell but to me there are already digital boxes out there that let you order HD movies...seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? Secondly the 360 already has the “core gaming” market so don’t you think developers would target that market? http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10041&Itemid=2 If you look at the budget to make a game: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/ Look at the larger install base: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for: http://www.film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/KurtBuschppt.pdf Look at which console has the higher attach rate: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/747/747181p1.html http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/01/28/360-attach-rate-now-7-games-per-console/ Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3. For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Cheaper-by-the-Year-8886.shtml. So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead.

(Reinserted OP for easy reference.)

Gamer1211 said: Final-Fan said: Gamer1211 said: Final-Fan said: 2.  I didn't see them on the first 3 pages.  Please point them out, I admit I skimmed but the closest I saw was a troll thread on Page 2 about GTAIV making 360s brick; the poster got banned and everyone laughed at the article. 4.  The widget example was not even remotely on point.  How was it a useful analogy for the 360 vs. PS3?  Just because the 360 managed to claw its way to profit a little bit faster doesn't mean it didn't employ the same strategy of losing money on the hardware to make it up on software and later in the gen.[*]  I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough. [edit:  In short, you say you did the widget example to prove a point but I don't know what you think you were proving.  It's pretty obvious to all that it's better to make money per unit rather than lose money per unit.  You don't need an example to show that and it's NOT what you needed to prove to support your argument.  As it stands your widget example is such a gross oversimplification of the strategy MS and Sony both employed that it loses all relevance to the discussion. [*There is also another point to consider:  Sony also was employing the same strategy with respect to Blu-ray inside the PS3 at the same time as it was doing so with respect to the PS3 generally.  So it has even more to potentially gain from that (successful) strategy.] 5.  Propaganda doesn't have to be false.  I will address this point more fully when I get home from work. 2.  Here are some links for you from this site.  I also did note that at gamespot and IGN there are many more but I will keep my search to this site for you: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=23439 http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=18817&start=100 http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24893 - Posted on this thread... http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=24915 - Posted on this thread... Sorry this site isnt immune to it my friend. 4.  The widget example was to illistrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit.  If you couldn't get that out of that then I feel for you sir.  It was not meant to be a statistical analysis detailing anything but more so a general picture to MS's new model based on the related podcast in the orginal post.  Please listen to the podcast first and you will understand why I put it in this thread in the first place. 5.  Propoganda:  "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid." I am not influencing anyone or providing false or impartial information.  I have reference all points in the above thread and as such, if you can find links to disprove or falisfy what I have posted that power to you.  If not, I encourage you to reconsider the wording that you are using or continue to look for something that can outweight what I have posted on here.  Given I have used 2 references directly from Microsoft but the information used is further backed in the podcast which again I encourage you to listen to. Lastly, your comment "I agree that spelling out one's argumentation is a good thing; I don't think you did it enough."  Well if you need more claification or you cannot understand something ensure you let me no. 2.  I never said that there wasn't ANYONE who had EVER said such things on these forums.  But let's take a look at those:  A.  "Is the 360 in trouble?"  "In trouble"=/=dead.  B.  "Its over for the 360"  I'll give you this one, though I'll point out that pretty much everyone agreed that it's not over, then the debate turned to whether the 360 was being beaten by PS3 which is very different from whether it is dead.  C.  I'm not impressed by you digging up a single post in a thread to match your claim, but I AM impressed that it apparently didn't even say "360" in that post!  I searched the text of that page and did not find one instance of "360" that talked about it being dead or dying, although there were several about the 360 AND PS3 being doomed.  D.   I see a lot of talk about games and sales, and vague sales predictions.  Some of these predictions were rosy for the PS3 and some (less) were gloomy for the 360, but I didn't spot any "360 dead/doomed" posts.  If you equate "going to be 3rd place" with "is dead", well then, yeah. 4.  I have better ways to spend my time than listening to Pachter.  (How long is the podcast anyway?)  Your widget example gives a lesson of "small scale but at a profit beats large scale at a loss."  Well that's nice, but what are you comparing?  You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360."  What was the point of all that? I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.  I'm glad I was wrong there, but now I have to ask why you spent so much time talking about the original Xbox when the subject at hand should be the 360 or other current-gen systems and situations. 5.  That's an OK description of propaganda.  But I am very surprised that you deny trying to influence anyone.  Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"?  That's known as "influencing", my friend. But there's one important thing about propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis..." Propaganda is often just a completely one-sided presentation of the facts -- all "pro" and no "con".  In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox.  Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc.  Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy. As for having to refute your sources, quite frankly I actually don't, as I have not said that any of them were lying.  But when one of your sources is a Microsoft press release that doesn't have any relevant information at all, I just have to laugh.  You know what? I'll go ahead and take a quick stab at the rest of your sources.  (I have no objection at this time to the Blu-ray one.) Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360?  That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why did your source for "Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for" NOT HAVE INFO ON DEV COSTS?!  (None, that is, beyond a generic $15m throwaway line.)  Maybe I just overlooked it somehow, but it doesn't matter since it used the infamous iSuppli graph.  Instant credibility loss. Why do your sources for "Look at which console has the higher attach rate" NOT HAVE THE PS3 ATTACH RATE?!  I believe you that it's higher, but come on, you have to give 360 AND PS3 sources for evidence of which is higher.  And here's a hint:  sources dating back to the PS3 launch won't cut it. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?!  SERIOUSLY.  Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything?  It also says that the PS3 might launch in spring 2006 at a cheaper price than the 360, and look how that turned out. Overall, I would rate your OP as particularly low-quality propaganda.  You knew that you needed to have links called "sources", but you didn't seem to understand that the "sources" have to back up what your claims. Consider this an official request for clarification on the above questions.  And also one more:  Am I just completely blind?  Did my eyes just glaze over and refuse to see that your sources actually had all the information you were telling us?  I find that hard to believe, but then I find it hard to believe that you'd cite so many sites that DON'T.  I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes, and this would be a doozy. 2. In response one must look at the underlying point of the threads in which I posted. I will agree the actual phrase, “the 360 is dead” may not have been said, but it is clear that the point of any post in question was in some way illogical. Coming from Gamespot, I have grown somewhat accustom of seeing dim and brainless threads and was merely proving that VGcharts is not excluded from having their own share of console favoured thinkers. This is not wrong by any means, one can choose what to post, but I am simply displaying that VGcharts is not an anomaly from the console war fanboyism that has taken this generation by storm. 4. “You say you're talking about the original Xbox, but I don't quite get why you spent that much time on it just to say "well MS is doing better on the 360." What was the point of all that? “ “I thought you were trying to imply that the 360 was on a "profit" model while the PS3 was on a "loss" model, which would have been pretty misrepresentative of the facts.” Let me clear up what I was saying for you because it is quite clear you are having a tough time. What I was saying in relation to my widget example was rather simple. The XBOX 360 was produced with the business model in mind to make money on the sale of the console and NOT the sale of software. The PS3 was produced with the business model of introducing a new format to the market and not on making profit on the sale of the hardware. The point I made about the XBOX was to simply show how there last gen model did not provide business means to continue with the same strategy that is all. To quote my original response, “The widget example was to illustrate how last gen with the XBOX, MS was not worried about making a profit on their console and why it is better to sell something at a profit.” Hopefully this is clear enough for you now. If not I have again included links to further backup my point. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=322340 To Quote: "The Blu-ray was such a critical part of their business model, they couldn't let it go.” “Today, Sony's strategy to marry the Blu-ray with its next-generation video console” Clear enough? I hope so! 5. Ok so now on to what appeared to be your endless rant of my “propaganda” and how it was purely posted to influence the readers of this site. Well plain and simple, my post was to simply state that the Xbox 360 is not dead. Prior to reading, I encourage you to see how widespread this thought is for many PS3 gamers including some who have responded to this thread. I will answer each of your points individually as to make this as straight forward as possible. Isn't the entire purpose of your post to convince people who think the 360 is dead (who actually turn out not to really exist in this forum) that it is in fact the best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market"? No. The purpose of this post was to refute the claims across the internet that the 360 is not DEAD and provide evidence accordingly. I was not trying to show that the 360 is the “best system "going forward" for "the 'core gaming' market" as you claimed in your response. I can understand to some extent that you could have taken that out of what I posted, but this is clearly not the case. It is my opinion that the 360 is the best system going forward for core gaming, but this is my opinion, and was not the basis of this thread or the references that I provided. Clearly based on the title and subject of this thread, one could have easily asserted my aim but again, I am assuming. Not the best system, but not dead is the point here. Consumers have opinions, thoughts, likes and dislikes and who am I to try to sway them another way? Do I really give a shit if someone likes the PS3 over the 360? No, not in the slightest, this was merely a thread to discredit gamers who were being illogical in their reasoning, nothing more. Why is MS Dead, I don’t get it...that gives you the impression that I am claiming that it is the best system going forward for the core gaming market? In the case of your OP, it has 360 "pros", PS3 "cons", and an inexplicable little paragraph rambling about widgets and the original Xbox. Not one word about RRoD -- not even to say that it's better now; no mention that PSN is free -- not even to say "but XBL is better!"; etc. etc. Textbook propaganda, uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy. What was the point of this thread? Was it to do a full on console comparison? Was I trying to compare pros and cons of both the PS3 and XBOX 360? If this was a comparison then sir you are right, I would be clearly one sided and be “uplifting the ally and denouncing the enemy” as you put it, but this is not what the aim of this thread was. The aim of this thread sir was to simply refute the theory that the XBOX 360 is dead and why it is in a good position moving forward. Take for example the following website claiming this: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17494/1092/ So you tell me sir, how does “propaganda” work? What is needed to appropriately deem that a phrase, message or article is in fact stemming from a theory or form of propaganda? Do you actually even understand the foundation of the word propaganda and what it implies? The foundation if this thread is what is called, “rebuttal” sir and does not contain all 4 of the characteristics of propaganda defined by Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model, which you are welcome to look up in Google. Understand this, this is a RESPONSE and not some form of message that I am trying to convey to persuade or convince the gaming public. Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why do you have a source on what the average PS3 game budget is and not the 360? That by nature doesn't support any comparison at all. Why does your "source" for the 360's ability to drop in price date to BEFORE THE FUCKING LAUNCH OF THE XBOX 360?!?! SERIOUSLY. Are you citing 'we'd like to drop prices year by year' as some kind of proof of ... anything? First and foremost I WAS NOT TRYING TO COMPARE ANYTHING! The whole basis of your response hinders on this “comparison” theory that you have. Was it that hard to see that I was merely refuting a widespread argument amongst PS3 owners? I mean you say the word “comparison” or “compare” about 5 times throughout your response, if you want a full on comparison go to IGN or CNET and you will find a good one. If you feel that my sources were biased or faulty then so be it, but do not claim that I was trying to do something that I was so clearly not. As far as I am concerned gamers can choose to disagree or agree with what I am stating, it is my opinion backed up by sources of information. Your right, I may have spent 10 minutes writing up my original thread and may have not looked that deeply into several details. But in all honesty, what is the point? In the end you or any other console favoured fan doesn’t take criticism or a negative connotation to your console that well. Your too quick to jump and say one thread, person, or comment is attacking your beloved box instead of trying to obtain and understand the intrinsic meaning of a message. Well I will try to dumb things down next time I guess.

(deleted point 1 responses as a small reduction in the massive size)

2.  I never claimed nor meant to claim that there are NO brainless fanboys on these forums nor NO idiotic anti-360 sentiments in the forum's posts.  But you are PROJECTING what the gamespot morons think onto our morons, and a lot of that is not true.  They don't believe a lot of the stuff you think they do, or if they do they know better than to try to sell it here.  OK?

4.  Then I was RIGHT before?  Why did your last counterpoint talk about the "original XBOX" and NOT the 360 vs. the PS3 in that case?  Anyway, although I'd truly like to know the answer to that it's in the past, so whatever.  It's ridiculous to claim that the 360 is meant to profit on hardware and the PS3 is not.  Both companies started out losing huge amounts on hardware initially (true, Sony's loss was bigger, but that's a difference of degree not kind), and have subsequently given tremendous efforts to becoming profitable while continuing to prioritize sales above hardware profitability.  Just because the 360 has now achieved its goal and the PS3 has not yet done so does not mean that these two companies have pursued fundamentally different strategies here; they have not.  Sony just had a two-for-one deal in the PS3 and Blu-ray.  The PS3 will be sold at a profit and if in the end the HW for PS3 this gen is in the red overall that was NOT the plan.  You may believe differently but you have not given substantial support to your case yet.

Apparently you think I'm stupid or something because I feel pretty condescended to in your remarks on this one; but actually I correctly interpreted your example as talking about the 360 vs. PS3 and immediately criticized it as both hopelessly oversimplified and factually incorrect; it was only when YOU did not address this at all but instead rambled on about the original Xbox in your counterpoint that I became confused.  (Original response:  "[...] How was it a useful analogy for the 360 vs. PS3?  Just because the 360 managed to claw its way to profit a little bit faster doesn't mean it didn't employ the same strategy of losing money on the hardware to make it up on software and later in the gen[*note*]. [...] As it stands your widget example is such a gross oversimplification of the strategy MS and Sony both employed that it loses all relevance to the discussion.")

[*note:  By this I meant that both companies intended to also make money on HW later in the gen.  I thought that would be clear but I'm sorry if it was not.]

5.  OK, I may have gotten a bit carried away with calling you out on not describing these aspects of 360 vs. PS3.  It's true that you did not set out to do a complete comparison.  However, the explicit purpose of your OP was to persuade people that the 360 is not dead AND to persuade them that the 360 is in fact in a better position than the PS3.  Seeing you flatly deny that is a little comical.  What is the point of a rebuttal if not to convince that some other assertion was incorrect?

If you look at the budget to make a game [...] Look at the larger install base [...] Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for [...] Look at which console has the higher attach rate [...] Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3.

For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. [...] So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead.

This, the second half of your OP, is clearly arguing not merely that the 360 isn't DEAD, but that it "has the edge" and "will always be one step ahead of the PS3".

Again, it's true that you didn't set out to do a full comparison, so I was wrong to call you out on not having 360 cons when all you (supposedly) wanted was to show areas where the 360 wasn't as BAD as people were claiming, but clearly you exceeded the scope of that project.

As for the fact that your post doesn't exhibit all FIVE characterstics (sez Wikipedia) of that propaganda model, quite frankly I found it hilarious that you were claiming that nothing was propaganda unless it matched a model (apparently, from the brief Internet research session you prescribed) meant to analyze the ability of governments (or other powerful groups) to influence or control the populace through influencing or controlling the media.  (And BTW I see nothing in there that says propaganda has to be providing factually false information; just misleading.)

Look up the definition of "propaganda" in your W3NID; since you went far beyond rebuttal of false anti-360 arguments into saying that the 360 was obviously superior to the PS3 if people would just listen to the facts which you so kindly enumerated -- and since your facts were supported by sompletely bogus sourcing -- I think it's fair to call your OP a blatantly partisan effort to portray the 360 as a superior alternative to the PS3: therefore "propaganda" as well as "comparison".  "Larger install base" Larger than what?  The PS3.  You're comparing the two systems.  "Cheaper to develop" Comparison "Higher attach rate" Comparison All you DO in the final part of your OP is compare the 360 to the PS3, and now the more I think about it the funnier it gets that you completely deny doing it.  Even if the goal wasn't to compare the two systems, you clearly engaged in comparison in pursuit of your actual goal and therefore a critique of your post may well criticize those comparisons. Which mine did.

Oh, and now you say that it's not important that none of your sources were actually sources for anything?  Why did you even give us the links?  If not to back up your points, it must have been to give the ILLUSION of having backed up your points.  Or perhaps you did it for no reason at all.  So you're either (A) wrong (B) lying [edit:  well, deceiving] or (C) crazy.  The last section of your OP was a recitation of supposed facts and if you can't back any of it up then it's all worthless as either proof or disproof of anything at all besides your own opinion.  (BTW some of those items ARE factually correct -- and some not; but you failed to provide ANY real evidence.)

Please DON'T "dumb things down" any more than you already have.  These aren't the gamestop forums you're so familiar with, after all.  I don't want to chase you away from VG Chartz but I WILL call bullshit when I see it.

P.S.  For the record, I'm not even that much of a PS3 fan.  I do like the PS3, but I think I've actually played the 360 more, even after I had them both.  I do rag on it for having totally unacceptable hardware faults but that doesn't enter into this.

Addendum:
Both companies started out losing huge amounts on hardware initially (true, Sony's loss was bigger but that's a difference of degree not kind) and subsequently have given tremendous efforts to becoming profitable while continuing to prioritize sales above hardware profitability.

While it's true that the PS3 has cut its price more than the 360 despite being more in the red to begin with, the 360 has had its own "special" problems eating massive amounts of cash, and has also had to focus some of its HW revision efforts on that while Sony was able to concentrate purely on cost-cutting (much to the howls of backwards-compatability lovers such as myself).

I'm not saying it necessarily cancels out to even, and it's true that MS seems to now be reluctant to put itself directly in the red on HW anymore, but I think that the situations are pretty damn close -- more than close enough that saying that MS and Sony are pursuing fundamentally different strategies is just not correct, IMO. Certainly it's close enough that a compelling argument to the contrary would have to be presented, which has not happened.

rocketpig said: LongLiveTheBeatles said: Gamer1211 said: Hi Everyone, I am from Gamespot and new here. For the life of me I can’t seem to understand why gamers convey the Xbox 360 is being “dead”. It just proves how little most gamers understand about the business behind gaming. Console sales define absolutely nothing when it comes to making money; it simply provides leverage for a console manufacturer. To illustrate take the following example. Widget A sells 100,000 units for $.50 and costs $1 to produce. Widget B sells 10,000 units for $.50 and costs $.10 to produce. Who makes more money here? Widget A: 50,000 - 100,000 = -50,000Widget B: 5000-1000=+4000 Microsoft learned its lesson through the Xbox selling a console for less then what it costs to manufacturer is a poor business model. Instead has decided to make money on every box that is sold. http://www.oxmpodcast.com/ (please listen to the latest podcast with Michael Patcher). Last gen and this gen Sony is simply trying to sell a format to attain licensing revenue through its product. The big difference is that Blu-Ray is nowhere near the position that DVD was in when PS2 launched. 85% of the Blu Ray players out are PS3’s.http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10145&Itemid=2 To quote the above link, “In 2008 about 85 percent of the Blu-ray players in the market will be found in PS3s; the dedicated consumer electronics and PC-based types of Blu-ray players won’t catch up in terms of market share until about 2013," So 6 years and Blu Ray will catch up to consumers? In 6 years time will Blu Ray even be needed? Now I am not taking a page out of Microsoft’s book here but I am pretty certain that in 6 years there won’t be a need for a disc. Hopefully this point will stop rabid fanboy’s from posting Blu-Ray will destroy the 360. Probably not, time will tell but to me there are already digital boxes out there that let you order HD movies...seems pretty obvious doesn’t it? Secondly the 360 already has the “core gaming” market so don’t you think developers would target that market? http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10041&Itemid=2 If you look at the budget to make a game: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/29/cost-of-next-gen-game-production-is-a-burden-on-developers/ Look at the larger install base: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars Look at which platform is cheaper to develop for: http://www.film.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/KurtBuschppt.pdf Look at which console has the higher attach rate: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/747/747181p1.html http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/01/28/360-attach-rate-now-7-games-per-console/ Do you not think that developers would select 360 as their top choice for exclusive games? I am sorry but to me it’s pretty black and white. I suspect someone will come on here saying something like Microsoft is evil and such. The bottom line is regardless of sales, at the end of the day the 360 will always be one step ahead of the PS3. For those of you who still aren’t convinced, the 360 also has the reactive benefit of dropping its price against its competition. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Cheaper-by-the-Year-8886.shtml. So I will leave it at that and try reply to anything that I see as factual. If you take it for what it is, it’s not easy to dispute. I have both consoles but facts don’t lie, going forward it’s obvious to me which platform has the edge here and is clearly not dead. First of all I'd like to say welcome to the forum, but I respectfully disagree with your post. I know that at gamespot there are a lot more rabid fanboys on both sides of the fence but here most people will argue using some sort of logic. Anyway, the fact that Microsoft makes more money directly from their gaming division is true, however, Sony's strategy as a hardware developer is a bit more ingenious. I'm sure you know that Sony makes HD televisions, cameras, computers, and other products right? Well the PS3 is more or less a tool they used with blu-ray to: 1. Win the HD format war 2. Sell TV's which are products of much greater value 3. Act as a media Hub with everything else made by Sony Whatever they initially lost was made up 10 fold through peripheral sales. Not only that but the price has been reduced. I also own both systems and prefer the PS3 because of reliability and the interface. For the moment the Xbox gets most of my playtime because of games like Halo but later this year things will change. I think Blu ray will successfully take the DVD's place only because major movie studios won't want what happened to the music industry to happen to the movies, and other electronic companies won't allow Microsoft to regain a monopoly over world of consumer electronics. After all they are the main backers of digital distribution. Their stance is rather hypocritical though because once the format war ended they all of the sudden don't believe that discs are the future of the industry while they lose billions backing the HD-DVD. As for how important the profits of a corporation are to a consumer... it really means nothing to us. What does matter is who sells more consoles to determine who will get more third party games. So far, both systems have gotten a ton so everyone should be happy. (If you really are concerned about profit the RRoD costed Microsoft about 1.2 billion. Sorry, I don't mean to beat a dead horse but I had to.) Excuse me for a moment but what fucking planet are you from? MS is the main backer of digital distribution? Ever heard of a town in California named Cupertino? Within its city limits, a company named after fruit has sold more movies and songs digitally than any other company in the world... BTW, your post is full of fanboy fail. MS never committed to any format. They were simply trying to screw with Sony in an attempt to get digital distribution, the only way they make money from movies, to the masses. They didn't give a rat's ass about HD-DVD and that was brutally apparent when they dropped the format like a dead dog the second it appeared to be faltering.

Yes they one of them. I say this because if you do a quick google search you will find a ton of other articles just like the one below. I suppose the the thing that may have pissed you off is the fact that I said they are the main backers. And you are right that crown goes to Apple. Microsoft still believes and invests heavily in digital distribution. Look at the epic fail that is the Zune Marketplace.

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/News-130647.aspx 

As for your second comment, define committing,  because I'm pretty sure that investing a few billion on the HD DVD is committing. Microsoft dropped the HD DVD with a slew of other companies when WB gave up on it. At that point it was just to cut back on losses. Until then, unless they are once again hypocrites, supported and believed in the HD DVD. The plan to undermine Sony is a hypothesis coming from your head. The companies aren't really at war as some of us would like to think. A few Billion to any company is nothing to throw around especially when you don't even see direct returns from the investment.

Next time you disagree with someone, calmly present your case. Don't cuss the person out. I'd expect better from a mod. (no offense)

MS spent billions on HD-DVD? Since when? They offered a $200 plug-in player and little else. MS made very little money from the format (some codecs only, I believe) so why would they spend that kind of cash to support it? Their strategy was always to push digital distribution and HD-DVD was simply another way to try to thwart Sony's efforts with Blu-ray, undermining the HD optical format as a whole. What other explanation could there be? MS isn't going to throw huge piles of cash at something they make little money from and something that never has the potential to be a large money-maker for the company.

As for "one of the main backers of digital distribution", I agree. But that's not what you said in your OP. MS is still miles behind Apple in that regard, though as far as movies go, no one has taken a commanding lead.