PS3 passes 360: M$ wins the generation
Recent reports suggest that the PS3 has passed the Xbox 360 in sales. On N4G we've seen articles saying that it really doesn't matter, and we've seen users disagree. This blog is meant to explain all of these articles that all have titles along the lines of "PS3 passes Xbox, so what?"
Back in 2005, it was common on the internet to see the fanboys of the day raving about how the Xbox 360 would be the next Dreamcast and be absolutely crushed by the PS3, which had no confirmed release date but was obviously in the works. At the time, SONY's PS2 had outsold Microsoft's Xbox almost 6-1. The PS2 was far and away the winner of the 6th generation of console wars and the Xbox, mostly know for 'Halo', had been crushed. These ideas that the PS3 would obliterate the Xbox 360 weren't too far fetched, as the end of the generation saw increases in PS2 sales, furthering its lead.
In 2006, when the Xbox 360 had sold 10 million units, it was hailed as a success, but it still seemed clear that while it may survive, the PS3 would still dominate.
When the PS3 was released, it failed to attract the attention SONY was hoping for. It would take years for most of the PS2 install base to move to the PS3; some never would. For the first few years of its existence the PS3 was a triple threat in the worst kind of way. Its games were lackluster (in comparison to the greats on the PS2), its price ($600) was a huge turn off for most consumers, and it was evident SONY had no idea online gaming would play such a large part of the seventh generation, as the PS3 had come ill-prepared. It would take years for ever the most basic online features to be implemented. At this point, PSN didn't have the online features of the Xbox (original, not 360), and the online atmosphere would be silent and lonely. All these issues contributed to poor start for the Playstation 3. Solid in comparison to the Xbox 360, but pathetic for a console that sold over 100 million units for the last two generations.
Around 2008 was when the PS3 finally started to get some decent games and the PS2 owners began to migrate. At this time, the PS3 had pulled ahead of the Xbox 360 in monthly sales and was closing the original 10 million gap. It was clear then that the PS3 would eventually outsell the Xbox 360. The more exciting story was the David and Goliath like tale of the underdog Xbox doing nearly as well as the once mighty Playstation brand.
When I had heard in September of 2012 that the PS3 had outsold the Xbox 360, I thought "Finally". That turned out to be false, but I reacted the same way to the most recent report.
Of course the PS3 would outsell the Xbox 360. The gaming world has known this for over 4 years, it was no secret. And at the rate things are going, it looks as if the PS3 will lead over the 360 for the rest of the generation.
If you're looking for a pissing contest, then the PS3 outsold the Xbox 360. Fact. However, if you're looking beyond simple sales data, you'll see that Microsoft, with the help of Nintendo, have effectively dismantled the mighty Playstation empire and made a Playstation console about equal to its competitors. The same console that killed the last two generations with over 100 million consoles sold, at times outselling the competition 6-1.
Sony will look back at this generation with shame. They lost approximately 50% of their market share. Microsoft on the other hand tripled their market share and have established themselves among the console maker elites. Microsoft is not Sega. The PS3 is not the PS2.
While Sony may have cracked a smile after outselling the competition they should have crushed 7 years after the fact, you can bet that they will be looking to put this generation behind them as quickly as possible. At Sony HQ, one can only imagine that the plan for the PS4 is "what we did with the PS3 didn't work, we need to change it". No longer will SONY enter a generation with the arrogant attitude of an overkill winner. Hopefully this experience has humbled them.
Microsoft meanwhile, who tripled their sales (and counting) from generation to generation will be celebrating the huge success of the Xbox 360 and how they can repeat their performance and triple the sales of the 720.
That doesn't sound like a loser to me.
If this is how Sony looks like after winning a war, I'd really hate to see how they'd look like after losing one.
Sony had the worse performance this generation than they've ever done. They've let themselves down, they know it.
They allowed Microsoft to get near parity, and given that Microsoft have been making a profit from the hardware at a lot earlier stage, and have significant amounts of recurring revenue from Xbox Live subscriptions - I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had pulled more profit this gen.
Obviously Sony made the strategic decision to back Blu-Ray with the PS3 - that delay cost them market share in the US and EU, but on the other hand won the format war. Maybe that was a price worth paying?
Either way, just to say - "outsell it", and to equate that to victory is incredibly naive.
Their main competitor, Sony, stumbled out the gate and had an utterly disastrous launch. There were many reports of the PS3 being a complete and utter failure thanks to a ridiculously high price point and lack of games, with the gaming media hailing Sony's latest as being ready to die before it even got started (how many "final nail in the PS3's coffin articles were there?!). Microsoft secured major third-party exclusives via DLC, and also releases of formerly Sony exclusive games to add to the year head start that they had on the PS3.
What's happened now? Microsoft has ended yet another console generation in last place. They came out the gate swinging with a huge advantage, millions upon millions of dollars invested into securing timed exclusive content and it still wasn't enough to beat Sony at their weakest after the utterly disastrous launch that the PS3 had.
All that's happened this console generation is that Nintendo and Sony swapped places, with the Wii surprising everyone by sweeping a landslide victory. Microsoft unfortunately, despite their absolute best efforts, have failed to really make any notable progress to be honest. When you take into account the huge losses that they have suffered while attempting to secure third party timed exclusive DLC, or the billions they lost thanks to the red ring incident, or the insane r&d costs of Kinect, they're really not winners at all.
Microsoft's strategy has been to keep pumping more and more money into the Xbox in an attempt to buy themselves to victory, and so far it's not working. Perhaps their luck will change with the next Xbox, but so far their first two consoles have been stuck in last place two console generations in a row.
In what other generation did MS finish last? Did a report surface recently that shows the Gamecube finished ahead of the Xbox? You keep spouting the same lies over and over in a desperate attempt to make the Xbox brand look bad.
How can you accuse others of twisting the facts when you don't even know the facts yourself?
http://n4g.com/news/1154889...
Comment 1.3
"When you take into account the huge losses that they have suffered while attempting to secure third party timed exclusive DLC"
What about the huge losses Sony suffered while attempting to win a format war?
" Microsoft unfortunately, despite their absolute best efforts, have failed to really make any notable progress"
So, 25 million to 75 million (and counting) isn't progress. I guess going from 150 million to 75 million (and counting) is progress though, right?
1. money will be thrown at developers in the beginning of the console's cycle to gain temporary exclusives for the NexBox
2. MS will continue to persuade American consumers (cuz they are easier to persuade) that xbox live is the greatest thing in the world. xbox live price hikes another 10 bucks to 79.99, of course content would be added
3. dance central 5 or whatever number its at will be released with kinect2 and kinect2 wll be shoved down the throats of people - this formula actually works
4. dlc of games like call of duty, fallout, skyrim amongst others will be timed exclusives to the NexBox.
5. they will try to maintain the price 50-100 dollars cheaper than the ps4
6. out-advertise Sony, TVs as well as Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Gamestop will put/show NexBox on front of their weekly ads with more incentives to buy NexBox over PS4
- all of these is what makes the Xbox360 so great and it will make the NexBox successfull as well
As hardcore gamers, we NEED both to be successful otherwise major publishers like Ubisoft for instance, would other have focused their attention on the casual friendly Wii, rather than developing for two consoles which would have had nearly the same install base. Competition is good, since it encouraged Sony to come up with great features like PS Plus, and focus on their exclusives line up. There is a place for the big three next gen, every one caters to a specific audience, and the more variety, the more options gamers have, and hence the better.
Both "parties" need to stop twisting this situation into something else, just to justify their pathetic fanboyism.
"Competition is good, since it encouraged Sony to come up with great features like PS Plus". I agree. I think Xbox Live and the recent addition, PS+, will make both M$ and SONY work really hard for us gamers by trying to offer the better service/network. THIS is why I'm excited for next gen; I could care less about hardware specs. This kind of competition is good and IMO will one day be looked upon as something that defined the generation.
Specifically, whether SONY can take a big step forward with PSN, and whether M$ can match, or exceed, PS+.
And to those below: I'm really not interested in petty fanboy denial. This blog was simply meant to explain WHY there are so many articles asking: "Does it even matter?"
Hint: the answer isn't because the media is out to get SONY ;)
But us "fanboys" in "denial" are making reasonable arguments to ridiculous reasoning. This is an area for healthy debate so don't poo poo our thoughts of your blog as "fanboy denial" because it isn't. What you wrote makes very little sense as I explained below
who knew superman fanboy tears tasted so good..
The media flamed Sony this entire generation of consoles and yet, Sony still came out on top, effectively mooting the time it took to write all those articles.
Media is crying now. Their "tears" taste better than any fanboy tears. In fact, I think we as people or "gamers" should unite against hypocritical media outlets who use our preferences in gaming as a means to pit one us against each other so they may garner hits and revenue, which go hand-in-hand.
Where is the integrity?
Are you kidding me. I remember back then the general consensus was the PS3 is an awful machine with no games and this stupid thing called Blu Ray. Very few publications were being fair. I remember gametrailers doing graphical comparison videos on multiplatform games having (I can't remember what is was) feature off which made it look much worse.
The never was this feeling that Sony would dominate.
"At Sony HQ, one can only imagine that the plan for the PS4 is "what we did with the PS3 didn't work, we need to change it"."
This I disagree with because it has worked despite very negative thoughts from publications saying otherwise. Sony knows they will never be able to replicate the PS2 figures with two other strong competition in the market. Microsoft did well here (same with Nintendo) but I also don't see how this relates to the blog's title "PS3 passes 360: M$ wins the generation". They didn't and nor did Sony (in a tradition sense Nintendo did that).
Comparing previous generation sales to current is good but it isn't a good indication of success or who is the most successful. Last generation and this generation there is a big difference (mainly with competition). It is remarkable that that many systems are sold at all (thanks to people buying multiple systems than just one). A success of a console is how they do this generation alone and they all have done done surprisingly well
So Micrsoft sells 24 million Xboxs but manage to triple the sales for the 360 doesn't mean it "won". It is a success comparing it to its previous version but that doesn't mean it "won". I could sell one grape to a duck last year but sell 3 grapes to a duck with a new type of grape this year. It doesn't mean I won the food selling market if there is this guy selling oranges who manages to sell 8 oranges (even if he sold 6 the previous year) this year. I am more successful than my previous attempt but I didn't sell the most
Every new generation is ANYONES to win.
EVERYONE starts from zero with a new generation.
Having such a successful console like PS2 actually worked against Sony because it meant they had a longer lifespan and werent in a hurry to rush the next one out.
M$ were and did, and even though RRoD was a disaster, probably the least reliable electronic product in history, it didnt hurt their overall sales, in fact in help them with replacement sale.
Releasing a year later than Xbox is probably the only thing that really hurt them in the end, even more than the thousand other things people complained about.
And finally history has taught us that no one dominates three generations in a row.
They had all that going against them, not to mention fanboys hating on them just because they were successful and the gaming medias apparent bias, and yet I still think they put out the best console this gen. Maybe not from a stockholders point of view but from a gamers, and that all I really care about.
You can talk about losing a market share but selling two 3rds of 150m consoles give or take when last gen was over is not a huge difference from one 3rd of 270m+ that will be sold this gen.
Bottom line is Sony got a smaller piece of the pie this time, but the pie was alot bigger and everyone got a share. Plus they are pretty much the only ones still putting the gamers first, not the casuals. I'm glad someone is.
I think that is more so of the last generations (including this one). The next generation isn't exactly starting from scratch as now we have trophies and achievements and account subscriptions which help and hinder a sale next generation
I agree with everything else but I think next generation is less about everyone starting from zero as there are factors in keeping with the current platform choice so switching maybe a harder sell
This blog post is so...contradictory. On the one hand you say "see? See how the PS3 is lagging behind the PS2? EVERYONE said it would be the winner!" Um, no. After the first year, "everyone" said it would be a loser, and by "everyone" I mean all the journalists and armchair analysts. To be honest, the PS3 isn't really lagging behind the PS2. It's on track to sell at least 120 million if the console lasts 10 years. There's no point in comparing this gen and last gen, because the Xbox. Dreamcast, and the Gamecube sold SO POORLY compared to the PS2. This gen, each gaming company (Sony, Ninty, M$) have each carved out their own market. Bravo to all three. But that doesn't make Microsoft a huge success. They've cut massive corners (killing studios, killing exclusives, constant hardware downgrades to make price cuts) in order to stay viable. The 360 of 2006-2010 is a completely different console compared to the 360 of today. Any gamer will tell you that.
But then you flip-flop and say "360 is such a success! It tripled the Xbox's sales! And I bet the 720 will triple the sales again!" Didn't you just rag on the PS3 because it failed to do that compared to the PS2? I'll see you in five years and I expect you to call the 720 a failure when it doesn't manage to do that, okay?
USA is a 360 nation.
Also funny reading all the SDF members post about sales mattering now. The whole time 360 was ahead of sales, sales didn't matter. It was about exclusives and game ratings. Now that it shipped more, now sales are starting to matter. LOL.. talk about goal post.
Then the numbers began to come in and PS3 owners got wise and said "huh. Wait a minute. It looks like the gap between the PS3 and 360 is getting SMALLER. What? Why is that? Oh, it's because every year the PS3 sells more worldwide, that's why".
And yet these same number-crunchers were told that worldwide numbers don't matter, year-on-year numbers don't matter. Nope. Only the total number sold matters. That's ALL that matters (because it was obvious that the PS3 was slowly catching up to 360, but it still hadn't yet surpassed it).
And now that the PS3 has surpassed the 360 worldwide, we have yet another case of backpedaling: "Welllll....PS3 will never overtake the 360 in the USA, right? USA! USA! USA is all that matters!"
Announcing MS as victor because they sold more than they did last gen is equally asinine, for the reasons already stated in the comments above.
Stop the Microsoft is sure to win and the rubbish that being ahead doesn't matter because if it was reversed you wouldn't be making excuses and would be rubbing the fact that Microsoft sold more in our faces.It DOES matter.That is one million more potential customers for next gen that Microsoft may not have and even worse that Sony has a killer line up this year that will attract even more people. Microsoft can't 'win' anything until they dominate a gen an they haven't done that at all.Nintendo dominated and Sony was the chain on their leg that stopped them from moving forward.If they were as great as people claim they were they wouldn't have had to struggle to get ahead by the slightest margin like they are now. They would have sailed past everyone and be sitting on the throne.But they aren't no matter how you try to spin it using last gen, targeting specific countries or trying to use Sony's decent to justify Microsoft's inability to completely dominate no matter how hard they try.
PS3 fanboy: "PS3 has sold more worldwide every year. The 360 is only ahead because of the 1+ year headstart"
360 fanboy: "Who cares?"
PS3 fanboy: "Well, it means the PS3 is selling faster than the 360"
360 fanboy: "Who cares? The 360 is still ahead in total worldwide sales. That's all that matters"
PS3 fanboy: "But the PS3 is selling faster, which means..."
360 fanboy: "Who cares? The 360 still has higher total sales."
xbox360 fanboy: "who cares?! MS won this gen"
ps3 fanboy: "but the lowest selling ps console still manage to beat xbox at it prime ...yet again for 3 gen straight.."
xbox360fanboy: "who cares?!NPD tell us that xbox beat ps3 for 24 month straight"
ps3fanboy: "ps3 won Worldwide sales which matters most ....and you are happy that xbox won the USA ?!"
xbox360 fanboy: "usa is teh most important thing and teh number 1 ..NPD tell us USA=World"
ps3 fanboy : "?!0_0?!"
Umm, source? PS3 passed the 360 by Sony and MS' own numbers by 200K, which MS made back on Black Friday. So, where is this notion that it was false if they were numbers that have to be legally truthful?
Related video
But there are more Ps3 owners out there. More fans. THAT is what is going to be remembered fondly by gamers; owning a Ps3. Not the associated business stuff. They won't care what business "won", they will care about which system "Won" in terms of entertaining gamers. That's what we should care about NOW.
If you enjoy playing the same thing very year with a new lick of paint (COd, Forza, GoW and Halo) then fair enough. Your argument is invalid so get lost. How exactly does it won if it lost in sales? It doesn't. You're an opinionated fanboy.
Based on games, PS3 wins easily.
ps3 is the No1 hd console with a game library second to NONE -try to spin that
just look @ 2013 ps3 lineup compared to xbox LMAO!
Sony is the ONLY company who hasnt SOLD OUT TO THE CASUALS!
didnt nintendo lose marketshare going from n64 to gamecube? LOL they shouldve been DEAD LAST this gen by ur logic
gotta love damage control from xbox fans, you know its bad when now their talking about marketshare LOL
Next gen starts when Sony says so!!!
So while the 360 made a pretty good comeback, if anyone is watching sales then saying "whatever" to the PS3 making a similar-sized comeback is a fanboy response.
Of course, from my angle, as long as all the quality gaming platforms get decent enough install bases to support a quality games library, we all win. We also want a good spread of devices, so that there's decent levels of competition (as both MS and Sony had to make changes over the course of this gen to keep up with each other, which benefits us gamers :)).
If you look beyond sales data, you'd see that PS3 is still doing extremely well given the circumstances.
The PS3 is often compared to the PS2 to measure it's success. People always talk up the strength of the PS2 as it's reason for succeeding but what is so often overlooked is just how pathetic their competition was. If Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft actually put up a fight, the way Sony did when they entered the market, or the way the 360 did this generation, the PS2 wouldn't have reached 150 million. Sega had a year to themselves and blew it. Microsoft offered up too little, too late. And Nintendo was being Nintendo... releasing what they wanted to sell, not necessarily what gamers wanted to buy.
The fact is, the PS2 achieved it's success because of a combination of Sony's own efforts, simple luck getting a killer app like GTA3 so early on, and their competitors failing to put up a decent fight.
Sony has nothing to be ashamed of, just because the PS3 didn't achieve the same success as the PS2. Nobody has beaten the PS2. Nobody will any time soon. Not even the PS1, which sits in second place in all-time sales at around 100 million sold... just two thirds of what the PS2 did.
If anything, Sony should be pretty pleased with the fact that they managed to launch a system with all the shortcomings mentioned, against a competitor that did everything they could to take away basically every major third party game that defined the PS2, and still come out where they did.
Look at it... they've outsold the 360 consistently. If they haven't outsold the 360 in lifetime sales, they will soon. They have six more years to sell somewhere between 20 and 30 million units to beat the PS1 in lifetime sales, and depending on how Wii sales go, they may end up first place this generation, which would make the PS3 the second best selling console of all time.
Market share might not look like it did last generation, but so what? Market share is relative to a changing market. In terms of sales, Sony is still doing incredibly well. Do you think Nintendo felt disappointed because their handheld marketshare went from basically 100% pre-PSP to what it was as the PSP reached 70 million? I doubt it.
Not measuring up to the PS2 is nothing to be bothered by for anyone who has reasonable expectations and an understanding of why the PS2 was able to do what it did. It launched under absolute ideal circumstances. PS3 didn't. No other console has.
Microsoft did great. No doubt about that. But it doesn't instantly mean Microsoft won and Sony lost. People need to stop comparing the PS3 to the PS2, as if the PS2 is a reasonable goal. Compare the PS3 to literally any other console. That provides a much more reasonable picture of what a console can realistically expect to achieve.
So yeah, cherry pick facts all you want.
MS and Nintendo has a lot to be proud of for how they handled this generation and managed to become real competitors to Sony, something they haven't had in a very long time.
As to who won this whole generation by your logic...that would go to Nintendo, which went from 21.7 million GameCubes sold to 97 million Wii's sold as of 9/2012. Almost an increase of 5 times...much better than Microsoft's 3X. Quite honestly bringing in an entirely new base of gamers(the casual), and making gaming mainstream is a hell of a lot more impressive than MS 3X increase in sales over their previous attempt.
As to your post above. You can disregard what we say all you want. The best way to do that is to stop carrying on this stupid fan boy nonsense. Sales didn't matter last week, last year, 6 years ago, or today. It also doesn't matter who won the "console war", because it is manufactured by people such as yourself for god knows what reason. And yet you still had to write a blog about it.
If it matters to the customers (read: console owners) then it matters to the console creators as well.
The issue at hand isn't whether the console war is needed or justified, but rather did MS "win" the console war. In some respects they did win certain aspects of this generation...such as gaining market acceptance and increasing their user base. That is a win. A 3 fold increase is nothing to be ashamed of, but shouldn't be used as the basis of who won or lost. All three companies have done things good and bad this gen, so this need to keep this whole discussion going is kind of silly.
Isn't it obvious that a true unbiased discussion that didn't devolve into fan boy ranting would be terribly more interesting and matter much more to the consumers, because that is what these companies do. They are not sitting there like we do insulting or dismissing their competition on a daily basis. Is it really so hard to simply discuss the pros and cons of all that's happened this generation without throwing blame or seeing the long term outcomes of many of the decisions made this gen, or that all three(along with PC, SmartPhones, and tablets), all had a big part to play.
Microsoft has every right to be very proud of there sucess.
And I might add.. PS3 costing $599 60GB - production cost $840 Now WHO'S really the dumba## hahaha
How many people brought the ps3 simply because it had the best and cheapest blue-ray player at the time?
Trolls always make comments about the xbox360 but are blind as a bat to there own PS3 faults. And you just know, having the wii out selling them is eating them alive.
After Sony's wildly successful ps1 and ps2 and establish brand, there was little doubt the ps3 was also going to be successful.
Make no mistake.. Sony and Nintendo can never be taken lightly, they both are very good at the console market.
You apparently. Almost every new console sells at a loss for a long term return on software sales. It didn't work out for Sony this time, but paid off big for the PS1 and PS2. They're making money now, and the PS brand has always been profitable for Sony overall.
"How many people brought the ps3 simply because it had the best and cheapest blue-ray player at the time?"
Probably less than brought a 2nd 360 after a RROD. 33% fail rate is pretty high, and free replacements didn't come around until about 2 years in. About a year after the PS3 hit the market stand-alone blu-ray players were almost half the price of the PS3. Either way the actual numbers are probably negligible when it comes to 70+ million units for both.
"Trolls always make comments about the xbox360 but are blind as a bat to there own PS3 faults. And you just know, having the wii out selling them is eating them alive."
Both sides ignore the Wii when it comes to sales. It doesn't eat us alive any more than it does you.
The only valid point made in this post was that MS, along with Nintendo, helped to dismantle Sony's dominance of the marketplace. Nintendo did it with a creative method of bringing in new types of gamers, and MS did it with lots of marketing and some foresight on what was going to be popular in this generation. Sony's arrogance lost them market share, but actual sales are not that bad, and they are still a strong competitor. The rest of this blog is just spin and trolling with nothing original to offer.
One thing people leave out though, is the Xbox brand didn't exist until 2001, nearly 2 decades AFTER Nintendo created it's console brand. Also, the release of the Playstation (original) in 1994 gave Sony a 7 year head-start over the Xbox as well.
Consider the huge number of existing console gamers that already had ties to Nintendo/Sony, it makes Xbox's achievements even more impressive.
Xbox became a console game leader in a fraction of the time it took both Nintendo and Sony to do during their brand's lifetime. And Xbox continues to grow at a rapid pace.
What I find interesting is that Sony has the best selling console of all-time (PS2) and the PS3 that is now outselling the Xbox 360, yet they continue to lose money day after day, year after year.
Nintendo is in a league of their own, which should be obvious to anyone who has seen the games on the Nintendo Wii (and Wii U) along with their release schedule (never the same year as Xbox/Playstation).
In my opinion, based on everything I know about what's happened in the past several decades of console gaming, Microsoft's Xbox is the strongest and fastest growing console brand.
?
"In a fraction of the time?"
Sony's first console is the PS1. How much did that sell?
Microsoft's first console was the Xbox. How much did that sell?
After answering those questions Re-read that quote and tell me how that makes any sense in anyway..
After 6 years on the market, PS1 sold roughly 80 million units. It varies depending on if you count fiscal years or actual release years. Fiscal is easier although doesn't account for different months of release or differences in companies fiscal years.
After 6 fiscal years on the market PS2 sold 87 million units.
After almost 6 fiscal years on the market the PS3 is estimated to have sold between 73-77 million.
@original poster
MS has yet to match what Sony has done and is now doing in 6 years for all it's system in a total of 7 years with the 360. See sales facts above if you care to dispute.
To people who want to argue sales figures, learn how to use google. They are readily available. Learn how to establish a base line before creating your argument. This information literally took me less than 2 minutes to look up, and another 5 to verify.
If we calculate the perceived failure rate of each console and compare it to the sales data, where does that leave us with usable consoles for each platform?
What about the articles/comments that went on about the PS3 being doomed due to its high price point/ heavy investment in blu-ray?
What about the articles/comments that constantly reminded us that no console manufacturer had ever dominated for 3 consecutive generations?
The media and a large portion of the internet loons were really quite negative towards the PS3 back before it launched and for a good while after.
In fact the only people that were confident of the PS3s success back then were Sony themselves and the internet fanboys (who really shouldnt count because they're akin to school kids ranting and raving about how their dad can beat up yours).
Microsoft was the richest company in the world when the 360 launched. If not the richest, in the top 3. So it wasn't a "David and Goliath like tale" when Microsoft have too much $ to throw around.
Also, I find it completely laughable when people use M$ when referring to Microsoft. Sure they want your money but so does Sony. To keep things fair, which is something I'm sure the majority of you don't know or care how to be, refer to Sony by using $ony. Just like Microsoft, Sony will take every dollar I'm willing to give them.
What is a good one for Nintendo? $Nintendo or Nin$tendo maybe, with the $ being silent?
Meanwhile, Sony got hacked, continues to have massive downtime during maintenance and is losing money every year.
"Meanwhile, Sony got hacked, continues to have massive downtime during maintenance and is losing money every year."
Sony got hacked and lost a lot of sales on the PS3, but then gave consumers (Games, PS Plus and a Apology) a reason to come back. So, they acknowledged (It took awhile) what went wrong and corrected it.
That downtime for maintenance was told to us long before it happen and they kept us up to date for when it was going to come back or when they needed more time. It also gave us a reason to enjoy those Single player games.
I'm sure all that maintenance is to keep their online infrastructure safe, secure and to prep the Gaikai servers.
As for losing money every year, that is true. But they are standing to make a profit this year of 220+ million. While that is after they sell their New York (HQ) building.
"better infrastructure, security, expanding the capabilities of the Xbox 360, and even turned a profit."
I can guarantee if Mircosoft brought the wrath of anonymous onto themselves they would have had similar issues. I mean the Pentagon gets hacked and that has one of the most secure networks in the world. It is all about how much time people are going to invest in it. Which is what happened to the PSN. The PR side of the issue was awful but nothing ever materialised from it. Sony pissed off the hacking community which is the only reason why the hack happened. They followed industry standards with online security.
Lets not forget the Hotmail exploit for Live which Microsoft refused to acknowledge was an issue and was their fault (also unfairly putting the blame on to EA). No online system is secure and Microsoft's live is no secure than the PSN. What you would probably pay for from Live is a quicker investigation if a big hack happens. Sony had to outsource that which took time.