I don't think microsoft damaged the ps brand at all.

It was sony that damaged the PS brand.
Everyone knows that.

 what? that was the best one they ever had.... im a lot happyer i got it then even though it cost me a couplle of bucks more...

PS:

Yep, absolutely. I think there's 0% chance of Sony pricing their console $200 more expensive and allowing their competitors to get a 1 year head start next gen though.

I generally think this is the last generation that I bought all the consoles on launch. Why? Four letters: RROD.

I fail to see what the OP is getting at. I think the best thing to happen to Nintendo is the "tarnishing" of the PS brand...but I fail to see how MS has capitalized on this at all (in comparison to Nintendo). They managed to snatch some exclusives and make some go multiplat - fair enough - but it is Nintendo that is truly reaping the benifits here.

The PS brand remains strong and could make a comeback for all we know. Don't forget that Nintendo is dominating right now after N64 and Cube being under 20% market share.

I know some don't want to listen to this but...

There is no such thing as brand loyalty in video games. Never has been, never will be. Innovation, and intelligence is, and always will be, at the forefront of what sells a machine.

No console has ever won, or done remarkably well on brand name alone. Atari and Sega sit on the ash heap of console history thanks to incredible blunders. Not because Atari's and Segas weren't well know, or had tons money invested in them, but they made major mistakes at critical times.

Likewise, we've seen major marketshare reorganizations in a matter of a few years - something well outside most other industries, which proves that brand recognition means nothing.

Was the Playstation brand well-known before it sold it's first 100-million unit console?
Was Nintendo the must-have brand of the 90s? If so, why'd it fall off the face of the earth with the N64 and GC, only to see a massive turnaround with the Wii?
How did Microsoft, despite the worst start in history, manage to build a much larger marketshare in Japan?

What it comes down to are the good, and bad decisions that a console maker, and that console maker alone do.

In Sony's case, they hung themselves the moment they subscribed to some sort of power PC-esque machine, and decided to cease the PS3 to be a games-first device. Every analyst said that the specs on the PS3 would be immensely high for Sony, and even as a loss leader, would cost a lot.

Most consoles on the ash heap of history - even by good manufacturers - have suffered from the same major issues:

#1. Price (Saturn, PS3, NeoGeo, 3DO)
#2. Software Titles (Lack of major titles)
#3. Difficulty in programming (Saturn, PS3)

Brand names, at best, may get you 10 million hardware units sold. But is that remotely important in a world where top-dog sees 100 million hardware units sold? You can never rest on your laurels, which Sony did, and has been burned for it. They'll be seen as the company that blew it:

1980s Loser: Atari. Winner: Nintendo.
1990s Loser: Nintendo/Sega. Winner: Sony
2000s Loser: Sony. Winner: Nintendo

Now, who will be up next?

 Sony has only been losing 3 years out of 9...

Sorry just a bit of a correction there

Sony lost more money in said 3 years to leave them in the red for the entire decade, and has gone from being the dominant #1 unqestionable console, to struggling to find footing as #3. I consider that being the loser. Especially given the gains that Nintendo and MS have made in Sony's implosion.

You don't buy multi-platform games? Do you buy many games at all then?

I agree xbox didnt tarnish anything I personally feel the playstation brand has been tarnished you may not agree with that but you have to admit it has taken at least a hit