ok i will attempt to clarify and simplify the main points of starcrafts article and why he is correct, anything in bold is starcrafts writing

But it culminated in DMeisterJ's thread where he vehemenently declared that GTAIV, far from helping the Xbox 360, is the standard we will look back on and associate with the console's death.
This is the topic the artical looks at (the begining of the consles death as shown by the lower 360 GTA4 sales in comparison to the ps3s)

(and now the defence against the topic)
For weeks now, Sony fans have been highlighting the close association GTA has with the Playstation brand,
The GTA series has become very closly linked to the PS brand, microsoft was able to dip into that last gen with a couple million sales but this gen it is dipping further into the market once owned by the play station. As the showing of gta3 on x box was significantly lower then ps2s because of a much later release date this generation will show that when both consoles are side by side microsoft will steal a significant amount of would be ps3 purchasers over to their 360. (or 360 purchasers will see no need to buy a ps3)

What star craft then goes on to point out is that there is a limit to the amout of people who will buy a video game console. now in the last gen there was 120 mill (roughly) on ps2, 22 mill on xbox and 20 mill on gc meaning that the market existed of 162 million consoles that entered homes. We live in a confined world, we dont sell consoles into outerspace so this generation there is a limit to the amount of consoles that will be baught and each company is fighting for a piece of this pie. As the market share changes it is a very safe asumption to make is that users of one console are now purchasing another.

there may be nintendo fans buying 360s and microsoft fans buying wii and sony fans buying 360s but what is evident is that in this market there is a shift away from sony to nintendo and ms, giving this shift a definate number though might be a little tight because no one really knows whos shifting from where or coming into gaming.

Starcraft then goes on to outline the cards ms still has to play and these are realistic cards.

now in relation to the articles topic starcraft makes very valid claims, the 360 is in fact eating into the ps3s gta market with the simultanious launch of the new game on both systems and that it is not on deaths row because not only is it doing better then the original xbox it still has alot of amunition left to fight out this generations consolse war

thats a non objective look at the content and structure of starcrafts post, keeping it in the context of the artical. Maybe some bits were a little dificult to understand but if you think you know enough to comment on the artical then you should have known enough to read it how it was suposed to be read; being able to understand what starcraft might have had dificultly putting across.

Slimebeast said: 6. So Sony messed up pricing and marketing? Yeah, I know too that Sony sucks. Yet no matter how you spin things MS and XBOX will most likely use the early gen advantage in next gen. Yes, the PS3 is catching up the X360 currently, but fact is that the X360 has sold 18.7 million consoles and the PS3 only 12.4 million. So what do you say to that? Epic fail for the PS3. My argument was about MS catching up generation for generation, and that's something no one can deny. Yes, MS hasn't been as good as Sony as promoting the "hipness" factor of Xbox compared to PS (and probably have less cost for advertising than Sony). But apparently MS have a different strategy. To let the games talk for themselves.

 Advertising dollars MS spends far more - I believe the figure was around $0.5 billion spent on the Xbox 1 when it launched. That was considered ridiculous at the time.  Then there's the developers they've paid off for content. Besides possible back room deals we don't see developers like Insomniac getting anything from Sony - same with MGS4. They've chosen the hardware which most suits their games. Then there's Free Radical's Haze, doesn't it seems strange that a game which was originally going to be multiplatform was later confirmed as PS3 exclusive? 

Sony fanboys probably have nothing to do but to hang around forums, while X360 fans are busy gaming.

 Then again you're devoting plenty of your time to this thread. 

 

Final-Fan said: I think we're getting close to where we can both stand up from the table and say, "meh, close enough". Here's the thing that still stands out to me: "See this is the thing, you haven't pointed out an instance where I have defined this thread as pertaining solely to DMeisterJ's OP. I quite agree that DMeisterJ was responding to what he apparently (I say apparently because he didn't specify that the thread was about HW until AFTER SW came up) saw as a tangent. But he did respond nonetheless and as such his comments are included in this thread, which is a broad response to his thread as a whole. I understand what you are getting at, it just seems that your determined to believe that this thread was always solely grounded in a response to DMeisterJ's OP, which it wasn't." What gave me that idea was the subtitle "A response to DMeisterJ" and you saying that "he vehemenently declared that GTAIV, far from helping the Xbox 360, is the standard we will look back on and associate with the console's death." This clearly refers to the OP even if he put it in the form of a question. He did not advance that line of questioning at all (that I remember) in subsequent posts, only adding a couple of remarks to things like the unrelated SW post and a shit-ton of clarifications aimed at people refusing to properly read the OP. If you had made the subtitle "A response to thread 25845" (or something equivalent but better-sounding) then it would make sense to include responses to things other than the OP and on-topic discussion descending from it (in this case basically none IIRC). Probably one of my biggest hangups is this: "DMeisterJ attempted to change his thread to specify that it referred only to hardware ..." Now, does this mean that you do not believe he initially meant the OP to mean this and he tried to restrict it later? Or simply that he was trying to clarify the original meaning, which had always been HW, but was not being responded to as such? "I think the problem we have here is that you think I am saying more with this thread than I actually am. I was pointing out what is obvious to you and me, but as evidenced by the length of this thread, isn't obvious to many people. You have simply assumed that I am insinuating something I am not." Perhaps. I do recall making a post about people not accepting that the 360 was getting PS2 owners.

The thing is, I went on to qualify the subtitle by discussing DMeisterJ's comments throughout the thread.  I also specified in the OP that I was talking about the entire thread.  At the end of the day, you can reasonably argue that I didn't specify specifically in the thread title that anything in the thread was up for debate.  But at the same time, I can reasonably argue that I did specify that I was responding to all of DmeisterJ's comments in the thread.

As for the bolded part?  Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure DMeisterJ got caught up in the anti-MS sentiment and made a sweeping criticism of the console in general.  I think he then restricted it to hardware after getting hammered on software.

But he knows I love him so its ok.

 

 

SnowWhitesDrug said: thats a non objective look at the content and structure of starcrafts post, keeping it in the context of the artical. Maybe some bits were a little dificult to understand but if you think you know enough to comment on the artical then you should have known enough to read it how it was suposed to be read; being able to understand what starcraft might have had dificultly putting across.

Awesome thanks!!!

 

 

What the hell? This still isn't over. Someone please do another topic. an INTERESTING and NEW one. Starcraft do make another one please.

iron_megalith said: What the hell? This still isn't over. Someone please do another topic. an INTERESTING and NEW one. Starcraft do make another one please.

Matter of time mate.

 

starcraft said: Final-Fan said: Probably one of my biggest hangups is this: "DMeisterJ attempted to change his thread to specify that it referred only to hardware ..." Now, does this mean that you do not believe he initially meant the OP to mean this and he tried to restrict it later? Or simply that he was trying to clarify the original meaning, which had always been HW, but was not being responded to as such?  As for the bolded part? Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure DMeisterJ got caught up in the anti-MS sentiment and made a sweeping criticism of the console in general. I think he then restricted it to hardware after getting hammered on software. But he knows I love him so its ok.

So then you are saying that there were SW-related things in his OP which have now been deleted?  What were they?  Why did you not mention this before when we discussed this? 

Final-Fan said: starcraft said: Final-Fan said: Probably one of my biggest hangups is this: "DMeisterJ attempted to change his thread to specify that it referred only to hardware ..." Now, does this mean that you do not believe he initially meant the OP to mean this and he tried to restrict it later? Or simply that he was trying to clarify the original meaning, which had always been HW, but was not being responded to as such? As for the bolded part? Call me a cynic, but I'm pretty sure DMeisterJ got caught up in the anti-MS sentiment and made a sweeping criticism of the console in general. I think he then restricted it to hardware after getting hammered on software. But he knows I love him so its ok. So then you are saying that there were SW-related things in his OP which have now been deleted? What were they? Why did you not mention this before when we discussed this?

Er, I just had a quick scan over my OP and posts, but I couldn't see (and have no recollection of) myself saying he had software in his OP?

What I have said is that the OP implied the Xbox 360 was dying in general and it was only AFTER getting beaten down on SW that DMeisterJ changed it to specify HW.

 

starcraft said: Final-Fan said: What gave me that idea was the subtitle "A response to DMeisterJ" and you saying that "he vehemenently declared that GTAIV, far from helping the Xbox 360, is the standard we will look back on and associate with the console's death." This clearly refers to the OP even if he put it in the form of a question. He did not advance that line of questioning at all (that I remember) in subsequent posts, only adding a couple of remarks to things like the unrelated SW post and a shit-ton of clarifications aimed at people refusing to properly read the OP. If you had made the subtitle "A response to thread 25845" (or something equivalent but better-sounding) then it would make sense to include responses to things other than the OP and on-topic discussion descending from it (in this case basically none IIRC).  The thing is, I went on to qualify the subtitle by discussing DMeisterJ's comments throughout the thread. I also specified in the OP that I was talking about the entire thread. At the end of the day, you can reasonably argue that I didn't specify specifically in the thread title that anything in the thread was up for debate. But at the same time, I can reasonably argue that I did specify that I was responding to all of DmeisterJ's comments in the thread.

OK, but that part of your OP ("DMeisterJ attempted to change his thread to specify that it referred only to hardware (which as I have shown, is clearly not beginning to end) but not before qualifying software discussion with this comment: / "Ahh... / "360's last stand, software. / "What's next? Revenue? LULZ") seemed to me to be implying that that comment related to the discussion topic of the OP.  I guess I was wrong.  Sorry.