Well, that's wrong. Without the Sony brand, the PS3 would have been a disaster. Why do you think it's selling so well in others? Is that based upon its brand, in some capacity?

Anyway, my assertion was that Microsoft is focused on building the Xbox brand, I didn't mention if that was a sound strategy or not. It's undeniable that MS is focused on brand building with the Xbox. However, we can disagree on how important brand is, which we do.

You'd be surprised how quickly your brand goes down the toilet when you try to sell it for 599$.

Anyway, brand certainly isn't everything. However, early adopters next gen won't automatically assume that FFIV is a PS4 exclusive. Brand is like a starting point, from which you build. You maintain hype and brand from previous generations, but that doesn't mean that you still don't stand on your current merit. That is why coasting is such a horrible idea. Nintendo never coasts. They make missteps, yes, and they have successes, but consistantly reworking their brand and strategy to fit the market.

To be fair, Sony is trying to reshape its brand in a first party image, and give it mascots, along the lines of Nintendo. This is especially apparent with LBP. However, due to the lack of efficiency in return on investment, and cost to compete, Sony has really dropped the ball when it comes to 3rd parties this gen. Their brand is no long associated with Final Fantasy, Tekken, DMC, or Grand Theft Auto. This is directly attributed to Microsofts strategy.

Next generation, the Xbox will be in a stronger potential position than they were when the 360 launched, in all territories. The Playstation will be in a worse position than they were when the PS3 launched. Now, while the outcome of the console war is large and in part due to mistakes and successes performed at the very inception of the products, brand is very important for early adopters, and while it doesn't play a huge role comparitively, would you buy a Atari Huxron 4000 machine next generation? Or a playstation 4? You'd buy a Playstation 4, because it has the word Playstation in it. That's a brand.

See, you don't understand the basic concept here. Mistakes happen. Overall strategy remains the same. Microsoft's strategy involves spending large amounts of money to increase its brand. Look at the original Xbox. They didn't spend money on it to make money. They did it to introduce themselves into a marketplace, for the longterm.

They didn't "buy" the strategy. Nobody on a street corner was like, "Hey Microsoft, I got a strategy over here 10 bucks. Beat Sony." No, they formulated a strategy, and the strategy was to spend hellified cheese on the Xbox and the Xbox 360, to please customers and increase brand recognition and marketshare. Yeah, they bought brand recognition and marketshare. Their plan worked well.

Ask yourself this. If Microsoft hadn't made the monumental mistake of RRoD this generation, would it still be doomed to 3rd place? If it fixes that issue next gen, will Sony still be able to coast into second?

http://vgchartz.com/ehweekly.php it

it got 48K

aha ur points make sense and i admit brand name can be helpfull , very helpfull actually but i still think it's not everything

LOL youre telling everyone how people buy consoles?? In EU people buy:

PS3 = because of brand recognition

360 = because of superior library and lower price

Sorry but you have no credibility after buying Orange Box for the PS3 instead of the 360.

LOL youre telling everyone how people buy consoles?? In EU people buy:

PS3 = because of brand recognition

360 = because of superior library and lower price

Sorry but you have no credibility after buying Orange Box for the PS3 instead of the 360.

 Sorry but look at the game rankings. OB on PS3 is still a great title. Also there are other reasonss why someone would buy one game over the other. One of them could be TF2 and a friend who was buying the game who he wanted to play with

You have no credibility after making that idiotic statement that you just made just to try and discredit someone else.