I’m going to break this down into each segment of text you bolded.
Sony posted their first profit in five years this last quarter, thanks mostly to a weakened yen and the Xpheria line which helped rebound their smartphone division. Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/b...ounces-370-million-quarterly-profit.html?_r=0
The PS3 destroyed everything the PS2 had built for Sony right out of the gate. Why the massive losses? They spent a major amount on R&D and sold the console at a tremendous loss. Source:
http://www.1up.com/news/sony-lost-ps3-ps2
Not to mention their failures over the last few years that devalued their stock and led to a massive restructuring. Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/t...behind-in-the-tech-parade.html?pagewanted=all
A massive restructuring that cost 10,000 people their jobs. Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/sony-layoffs_n_1420229.html
More job cuts followed in the following months. But the restructuring hasn’t done a whole lot besides drain money from their profitable insurance, film, and music divisions to bolster their failing divisions. Their propriety technology is so minuscule that they have few worthwhile patents they could liquidate. If you’d like to read Sony’s quarterly report, here you go.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/13q1_sony.pdf
They’ve continued to depreciate in value, and if Daniel Loebe has his way Sony won’t be operating as poorly as they have been in recent years. But they initially rejected Loebe’s proposal. At a 7% stake in the company, and likely amassing more each day, he’ll sway big shareholders into accepting his proposal eventually. The company is trying to rebound from the horrible state they've fallen into, but it’s going to take years of steady profits from wise investments to pull this company from the gutter.
----
I’m not sure why you even bolded this point since it’s blatantly obvious if you take into account the scale of Microsoft. They generate $20 BILLION in excess cash each year and they’re sitting on over $50 billion of working capital. They have a tremendous amount of money to spend, and with Ballmer retiring this excess cash will likely be more accessible to take more risk on innovations rather than just acquiring pre-established companies. Source:
http://thebusinessferret.com/microsoft-financial-analysis-destroying-value-with-too-much-cash/
We also have the Azure network to take into account, which is worth billions of dollars and embodies an infrastructure Sony does not have the cash to compete with. These servers are a tremendous asset to developers, and to act as though they won’t make a difference is arrogant. I don’t think I need a source as its quite obvious Microsoft has secured numerous high profile third party exclusives, as well as investing a lot of money in in-house studios. The acquisition of exclusive and timed-exclusive DLC is also an asset people seem to try to pass off as miniscule. But for the CoD or FIFA fans who only have one offering each year then many of them will be swayed by DLC incentives.
As for the NFL deal, that was announced alongside the unveiling of the Xbox One. Source:
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/May13/05-21NFLPR.aspx
Now tell me, why wouldn't the “Official Game Console of the NFL” not be advertised during NFL games? The partnership could lead to Sony being unable to advertise their system during NFL games completely. Considering the substantial ratings NFL games bring in:
http://www.adweek.com/news/television/nfl-caps-another-powerhouse-season-146305 ...I would say it’s safe to assume this is a pretty big deal. And a Superbowl spot? 100+ million people watching.
----
Why the hell did you bold this one? You’re in a topic that’s proving this point. If you click on it and even read the first sentence you’ll see the link to an earlier article which embodied one of the most scathing criticisms that Microsoft was receiving. This isn’t the first article to make the claim that the tides are turning. The E3 fallout was brutal, yet the Gamescom coverage has been optimistic. Further inevitable announcements will likely lead to even more positive press coverage until the media won’t be so slanted in one direction.
----
This has been a big assumption for some time, bolstered by other sources that have given more credibility to it. Source:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Sony-PS4-Camera-Price-Xbox-One-Comparison,23278.html
Why would the camera have been showed boldly alongside the system when it was unveiled? It implied it would be in the box. The camera retails now at $60. What was their likely intent? Considering the system was aimed at minimizing losses and hopefully turning a profit, the camera add-in bumping the cost up to $499 would have been a no brainer. There’s nothing in there that’s tremendously costly, meaning it probably cost Sony under $25 to produce which a likely wholesale value of $40-$45. It would have been a smart decision if Microsoft was planning to launch at $599.
How could they possibly look good if they launched at the same price AND implemented a pay wall system in a single conference? They couldn’t, so they went with the undercutting marketing strategy which they did to compete with the Saturn years before. Boxing the pay wall between the astonishing applause of a $100 price different and the blatant pandering of their DRM-less console was brilliant, at the time at least. Market tactics have a lot of psychology behind them, and Sony played their cards right with that one, but at what cost to them? The hardware itself looks to be making a profit thanks to the overall cost of materials. Patcher estimate their product cost at $325 with an estimated profit at wholesale of $50.
But that’s not taking into account R&D costs and massive amounts of money they’ll be forced to sink into marketing this thing. Sony said they won’t incur as severe losses as they did selling the PS3, but they didn’t say it would be profitable, something you’d figure they would have been touting to investors.
---
The Sega Saturn launched at $399, and was forced out the door early. While initial estimates thought the PSX would launch at $399 as well, Sony made the announcement that they’d be selling their system at only $299. Not entirely Sony’s fault for the failures of the Saturn, but it certainly didn’t help. It’s quite a common practice to undercut the competition, so why you think Sony would be above such a thing doesn't show a whole lot of critical thinking on your part.
Both companies WILL SEE LOSSES. Sony isn't going to turn a profit for some time, and neither will Microsoft. I think I laid out enough previous evidence to make this apparent enough, and considering the Wii U is selling at a loss with inferior technology and almost no marketing budget then that’s not a good sign for the more costly hardware. As far as it being less detrimental to Microsoft, again, compare the companies as a whole and you will see any losses the games division incurs is minimal. With continued Live subscriptions and lowering costs of the 360 hardware then that will also do a tremendous amount to offset losses generated by the Xbox One. The PS3 still has life in it, but their PS+ numbers are meager when compared to XBL subscribers.
---
Already addressed this earlier. The PS3 was a financial burden for years. The PS3 didn’t see a profit until 2010. Source:
http://kotaku.com/5575994/after-nearly-four-years-the-ps3-finally-turns-a-profit
The games division has been slipping recently again and unless PS4 sales are absolutely stellar than this system will incur losses for some time. It wasn’t just the PS3 that hurt the electronics division. Poor management, a tremendous lack of innovation, and a massive drop in demand for Sony electronics buried the division under the weight of its previous success.
---
Considering the sales numbers for all the major shooter franchises, I’m pretty sure this holds a lot of truth to it. I think your ridiculous bias and your inability to comprehend that my previous post had a lot of data and logical assumptions when data was lacking. And again, why is this bolded? Why would a single person’s view on an entire genre of games negate their overall success? If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. But don’t try to me the sky is yellow when even the most simple person would know it’s blue.
---
I don’t think you want to get in a quote war because you have no actual argument and are leaning on your bias and the reinforcement of others to try to formulate some poorly thought out argument against me. The PS4 could be a tremendous success, but the fact of the matter is Sony needs more than the success of the PS4 to dig them out of the last few crippling years, and because of the situation they’re in, it would be irresponsible of them to try to compete with Microsoft in terms of the losses they’re willing to accumulate to win.
And you’re really going to try to jab at it being my first post? I wasn't under the impression your time wasted on a forum qualified you to disprove an argument by bolding text. For further readings I’d recommend Google to do your own research on crap you seem to have no comprehension of. 5,985th post as well? Goddamn.
TL;DR: You should probably spend more time reading instead of being a dick.
Yes, look at Halo. Halo, a game that almost singlehandedly ensured the original Xbox wouldn't fail in a market where they had zero footing in an industry dominated by two well entrenched competitors. The 360 thus far has sold three times as many units as the original Xbox now. I think you greatly underestimate the power of an excellent game that’s marketed incredibly well. Considering the buzz it’s already generating, it could certainly be the Xbox One’s saving grace. Time will tell, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Price will ultimately mean little, especially if Microsoft continues to try to offset the price difference through further incentives. People are putting too much weight on the price difference. The Wii U is still struggle even at the lower price. And as I said originally, overall sales really don’t mean that much unless there’s a significant difference. It’s the attach rate and pay wall subscribers that will determine how successful these consoles are at the end of the day. As far as Titanfall goes, keep in mind the 360 version is being developed by an outside entity, and Microsoft isn’t going to push the 360 version in their marketing campaign nearly as hard as they will the Xbox One version. The point of the exclusivity is to push Xbox One sales. People also like to bring up the PC version, but the reality is most people don’t own a $1,000+ gaming rig.
The PS4 will almost certainly do better in most European territories. But the fact of the matter is Europe isn’t as big of a territory as North America, and if Microsoft can dig into either territory and not give any ground elsewhere then it is possible. And again, the 360 has a higher attach rate and a very large paid subscriber base. Having less than a million console advantage isn’t a true measurement of financial success. If you’re not generating as much money and sell as many games as your competitor than it’s nothing more than a statistic to wave in front of the people who take things at face value. And the trends in one generation do not set the trends in the next, as history has shown. Sony rebounded from an embarrassing pricing model with the PS3, so I’m not sure how people believe this has solidified Microsoft’s position this generation. And outside of a lower price and a marginal advantage in power I feel don’t see any significant advantage you claim the PS4 to have. I think Sony's smug marketing tactics and the media's outright hatred for Microsoft will do more to hurt Sony because it forced Microsoft into a corner and led to a more customer oriented policies and substantial new investments.
I'm looking forward to the inevitable backlash I'm about to receive.
but probably You meant drm and stuff? 
