I think the Xbox detractors are forgetting an important part of operating a business.
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. In the case of large companies, you sometimes need to spends lots (read: billions) of money to make lots of money with the possibility of no return on your investment for 10+ years.
I mean, it's not like Microsoft makes its money day-trading.
But the rest of the company is still wildly profitable, so as a whole the company isn't actually financially unstable. It's different to say, Sony, who rely on the videogame division to make a great deal of profits and who post a greatly diminished income when that division does badly.
Yeah but when a division has been operating at a loss for almost a decade MS might not be so quick to keep it alive.
If they don't pull out of the red after September and hype about Halo 3, you're probably going to see some changes in how they do business as they slowly pull away from the console market for good.
but they know there's potential for vast profit and they're on the verge of making some of it
like i said, they're not in the same situation as sony because microsoft is vastly profitable
i'd say sony are closer to dropping out the market than microsoft, and i shouldn't think either will at any time in the near future
I'm anxious to see what happens post September. I don't see them pulling a profit personally considering their 6 year track record and current events as a whole. Regardless of the fact that they have a good amount of bank backing them up, a couple of billion dollars isn't something people just glance over with ease when it's a number that's pointing in the negatives.
They didn't for every single other post-Office investment that they've made.
Anyone who thinks MS will pull out now has not looked at the history of the way that company does business in non-vidjagame areas.
Unless you're going to cite examples I'm not going to entertain this point unless you can show that Microsoft had introduced a product that ended up costing them billions of dollars over a 6 year time frame.
Also, Zune.
MSN comes to mind. Introduced in 1995, didn't start making money until what, 2004? There are other examples, but I'd have to look them up.
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
Again, it's billion, about 5 billion dollars, over 6 years.
That's what they did. Lose a couple of of billion.
Not millions. Hundreds of millions, sure!
So at this point, what are they trying to do other then lose money? Investment? Sure, I'd agree if since the dawn of their inception they would have had some sort of profit trickle in but they didn't.
Do people honestly believe MS will pull out of home console gaming because it is a money sink.
Guys, they print money at a scale Nintendo only dreams of. Billions upon billions in pure profit just from Windows and all their media and software stuff.
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
OMG THEY LOST MONEY!
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
OMG THEY LOST MONEY!
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Because in Meizland if you don't instantly generate many billions in revenue, you're a failure and will quit the market.
Oh wait no sorry this only applies if your name begins with M and rhymes with Bicrosoft.
By this logic, Microsoft wouldn't have bothered with the 360 at all. But no, after 2 years they suddenly realise that, fuck man, this shit ain't worth our time! And then they would hop on to what I assume would be Segways and go get a frappacino with all their anti-money.
Meiz,
You still haven't explained why they'd leave now when now is when the whole things turning around for them.
And XBox Live has HUGE potential for profitability. Once you've bought a 360, they got a direct order and delivery method to you. Movies/Games/Shows/whatever, it's all ready to go straight to the consumer. No hook up or other purchases required. If they have a product they want to sell you, it's ready to be sold and distributed with the wave of their hands. Their are companies that would rape children for that kind of thing.
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
OMG THEY LOST MONEY!
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Because in Meizland if you don't instantly generate many billions in revenue, you're a failure and will quit the market.
Oh wait no sorry this only applies if your name begins with M and rhymes with Bicrosoft.
It just amazes me that some Meiz and Vicious can't grasp this concept. Seriously, they're talking like it's a big fucking surprise to Microsoft that they're losing money by the billion bucket-loads.
I'm sure there's a big vault that has documents detailing 10, 20, maybe even 30 year plans for their Xbox initiative with the pros/cons and the market effects of entry and exit of competitors. They knew ahead of time that they were going to be losing lots of money at first, in this INVESTMENT. They went ahead with it because they expected it to reap profits at the end.
Unless you guys have inside knowledge, or are somehow smarter and more educated than the 1000+ economists that Microsoft has working for them, you guys are wrong. Unless, of course, through some weird phase of the moon, you're right and then the government should pay you to predict when the next depression occurs.
Government: "Meiz, when will the next depression occur?"
Meiz: "Snap. Forkle. Biznit!"
Government: "Genius! Set economic growth along those guidelines."
Read the part where is the article says they put the losses on FY 2007 results and that ended last week (at the time of the article July 5, 2007) Meiz, if you're going to put forth a ridiculous DOOOOOOOOOOOM theory, at least get your facts straight.
So...over the past five years MS has lost ~$6 billion on the H+E division and that spells DOOOOOOM for the Xbox...but the fact that Sony (the UNDISPUTED champ of the console war the past 2 generations) has lost ONE THIRD THAT AMOUNT (~$2 Billion, for those who struggle with TEH MATHS) the past single YEAR on their games division is no problem at all? Puhhh-lease.
Mind you, this loss happened the same year they launched the PS3.
But the Xbox is DOOOOOOOOOMED?
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
OMG THEY LOST MONEY!
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Because in Meizland if you don't instantly generate many billions in revenue, you're a failure and will quit the market.
Oh wait no sorry this only applies if your name begins with M and rhymes with Bicrosoft.
And in your mindset, if you generate billions of dollars in losses, you keep pouring money into it to make the hurt go away for a period of 6 years?
bongiland stinks when it comes to wise choices for investment.
Read the part where is the article says they put the losses on FY 2007 results and that ended last week (at the time of the article July 5, 2007) Meiz, if you're going to put forth a ridiculous DOOOOOOOOOOOM theory, at least get your facts straight.
So...over the past five years MS has lost ~$6 billion on the H+E division and that spells DOOOOOOM for the Xbox...but the fact that Sony (the UNDISPUTED champ of the console war the past 2 generations) has lost ONE THIRD THAT AMOUNT (~$2 Billion, for those who struggle with TEH MATHS) the past single YEAR on their games division is no problem at all? Puhhh-lease.
Mind you, this loss happened the same year they launched the PS3.
But the Xbox is DOOOOOOOOOMED?
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
Also what you see as millions dollars "lost" is to MS millions of dollars "invested". I know this is a difficult conceptual chasm to cross, but do try won't you? If your claim is that it would have been a smarter business decision for Microsoft to put the money in the bank and sit on it then you have a faulty notion of what MS are attempting (which, for the sake of us all, I won't try to quantify for you, because it's fairly obvious).
OMG THEY LOST MONEY!
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Because in Meizland if you don't instantly generate many billions in revenue, you're a failure and will quit the market.
Oh wait no sorry this only applies if your name begins with M and rhymes with Bicrosoft.
And in your mindset, if you generate billions of dollars in losses, you keep pouring money into it to make the hurt go away for a period of 6 years?
bongiland stinks when it comes to wise choices for investment.
There is definitely some truth to the phrase 'throwing good money after bad'. It's just that all signs point to good investment, rather than bad investment. This is particularly true given that the 360 is constructed to rape your wallet with the click of a button at regular intervals.
Maybe this is news to you to, but usually you don't invest based upon past behaviour. Well, bad investors might. You invest based upon what you consider the future holds. Sometimes you get it wrong sonylol. Sometimes it's right. And in 6 years a lot of things change.
They spin a huge gold plated wheel that tells them what their next move should be. Sometimes they even buy a vowel.
I heard they purchased the entire Borg Collective, hid them all in one giant cube under Mount Everest, and now have the collective hive-mind working 24/7 on digital entertainment revenue forecast algorithms.
"Xbox Live am teh_winnar!!!"
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Read the part where is the article says they put the losses on FY 2007 results and that ended last week (at the time of the article July 5, 2007) Meiz, if you're going to put forth a ridiculous DOOOOOOOOOOOM theory, at least get your facts straight.
So...over the past five years MS has lost ~$6 billion on the H+E division and that spells DOOOOOOM for the Xbox...but the fact that Sony (the UNDISPUTED champ of the console war the past 2 generations) has lost ONE THIRD THAT AMOUNT (~$2 Billion, for those who struggle with TEH MATHS) the past single YEAR on their games division is no problem at all? Puhhh-lease.
Mind you, this loss happened the same year they launched the PS3.
But the Xbox is DOOOOOOOOOMED?
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
It's also not the smartest post in this thread.
It's a perfectly legitimate comparison. They're making essentially the same fucking product. If one company can stand to lose $2 billion in one single year, but another can't lose three times as much over six times as long a period, why does the first company not also stand to pack up and leave?
Read the part where is the article says they put the losses on FY 2007 results and that ended last week (at the time of the article July 5, 2007) Meiz, if you're going to put forth a ridiculous DOOOOOOOOOOOM theory, at least get your facts straight.
So...over the past five years MS has lost ~$6 billion on the H+E division and that spells DOOOOOOM for the Xbox...but the fact that Sony (the UNDISPUTED champ of the console war the past 2 generations) has lost ONE THIRD THAT AMOUNT (~$2 Billion, for those who struggle with TEH MATHS) the past single YEAR on their games division is no problem at all? Puhhh-lease.
Mind you, this loss happened the same year they launched the PS3.
But the Xbox is DOOOOOOOOOMED?
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
It's also not the smartest post in this thread.
The point is that the gaming division was going to be in the black in the FY that just ended if not for the warranty, which they retroactivley put on 2007, from here on out it's 2008 for them and so with the 360 poised to have a huge holiday season, they will undoubtedly be in the black for 2008 and it will only continue to get better from there.
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
It's also not the smartest post in this thread.
Every comparison someone makes isn't a straw man argument. How old are you, 14? Because anyone's argument that you can't impugn with logic you scream "TEH STRAWWWWWWW MANNNNNNNNN." Sorry, that doesn't work with me.
Let me explain, if your going to say company A is DOOOOMED because of BILLIONS of dollars in losses, you just can't ignore the losses company B has taken if you're predicting TEH DOOOOOM because of said losses for company A. Especially if company B (their direct competition) has taken bigger losses.
There's nothing straw man about it. Microsoft has twice the "next-gen" consoles in people's homes that Sony does with half the loss from the past fiscal year. FACT.
It's a perfectly legitimate comparison. They're making essentially the same fucking product. If one company can stand to lose $2 billion in one single year, but another can't lose three times as much over six times as long a period, why does the first company not also stand to pack up and leave?
Because otherwise he couldn't wank off to the newest Final Fantasy Emo-Pretty-Boy Hero. And that's an idea too scary to contemplate.
Read the part where is the article says they put the losses on FY 2007 results and that ended last week (at the time of the article July 5, 2007) Meiz, if you're going to put forth a ridiculous DOOOOOOOOOOOM theory, at least get your facts straight.
So...over the past five years MS has lost ~$6 billion on the H+E division and that spells DOOOOOOM for the Xbox...but the fact that Sony (the UNDISPUTED champ of the console war the past 2 generations) has lost ONE THIRD THAT AMOUNT (~$2 Billion, for those who struggle with TEH MATHS) the past single YEAR on their games division is no problem at all? Puhhh-lease.
Mind you, this loss happened the same year they launched the PS3.
But the Xbox is DOOOOOOOOOMED?
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
I say we just keep quoting it after every one of his posts until he realizes comparing a Bass to a Bass isn't a strawman, and that he is just using that term as a blanket to protect him from the reality of how utterly flawed and incorrect his argument is.
Apparently, Meiz and Vicious cannot fathom an investment who's strategy is not to turn a profit in 5 years. Hell, companies make investments that they don't expect to turn a profit in 20 or 30 years.
Also, they're ignoring the fact that the Xbox is turning MS from being viewed primarily as a software company to a media/entertainment/hardware/electronics conglomerate. This shift in focus and consumer acceptance is not something that you can easily attach a monetary value to. The Xbox has opened tons of markets for MS
I'm a little bummed, but I guess it's just a testament to how the internet has changed everything. I wouldn't be surprised to see more conferences follow suite.
TheFid2 on
0
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
Yeah, it sucks that there will be no big show from them this year. Then again with all the awesome that is going to be on our 360's in the coming months, I'm not exactly going to miss turning off my console to watch something about games that will not be in my hands for another year.
I thought that image was a nod to the apparent straw man argument. Which of course, it wasnt a straw man argument. People like to throw that phrase around like they know what it means.
But the rest of the company is still wildly profitable, so as a whole the company isn't actually financially unstable. It's different to say, Sony, who rely on the videogame division to make a great deal of profits and who post a greatly diminished income when that division does badly.
As long as the 360 keeps getting penetration (harder, faster, stronger) as long as the rest of MS stays profitable the 360 will be around, even if it is losing money. I'm sure MS didn't think it would be the world leader or maybe even be profitable with the second round of consoles.
I fail to see how that article supports the financial scenario that the x-box division is in currently considering it's been in the hole for a couple of billion for almost a decade.
Sure it would apply if they tied in the sales of the console with Vista, MS office 2007 ect. but they're not.
They're not turning a profit.
I don't see them turning a profit.
As a result I still think that they're going to sever ties with the console industry in order to entice investors.
You missed the point
THEY'RE A LOSS LEADER TO GET INTO THE MARKET.
Do you get the point now?
Do you really think MS stock buyers are scared?
Do you?
Are you that nuts?
They've been operating at a multi-billion dollar loss for over 6 years. This little strategy you say they are using would apply if they turned a profit.
I thought that image was a nod to the apparent straw man argument. Which of course, it wasnt a straw man argument. People like to throw that phrase around like they know what it means.
X07 will be all "Hi. I'm Don Mattrick. You might know me from EA's 'Raping Your Wallet' and 'Raping Your Wallet Part 2'. What's that? Where are the awesome games? Shit, homey, they're already out! Go look!"
I think it's equal parts them not wanting to only be able to show another CG trailer for Fable 2, Halo Wars, etc and to give Mattrick some time to settle in. That would be shitting springing a conference on him when he's only had the job for a few months.
Seriously, though, with the holiday coming out for the 360, Microsoft will be rolling in some dough. Who knows how much dough? No one knows. But the revenue will be coursing through their "evil," "black," and "sinister" veins come Christmas time. Halo 3? Lets say it sells only 2 million copies (FYI-- it will sell easily double that in the first week if they print enough.) That's 120 million dollars of revenue. Some goes to the publisher (Microsoft,) and the rest goes to the developer (Bungie.) Some gets set aside and burned in a ritualistic fire, as per Microsoft's "evil" heritage. No, it's not profit. But some will be.
And then they get some cuts of sales like Mass Effect, GTA4, Bioshock, ect. ect. Not to mention the cut of the Live Arcade titles sold, the marketplace and video marketplace. Bottom line, the 360 has the highest attach rate for games of any console out right now and potential in the Marketplace to keep sucking my wallet. Gentleman, they like sucking my wallet. They will turn a profit before this thing is up unless Sony gets their shit together (and stops re-introducing products at the deadly 599 price.) More importantly, when the games come out.
It's all about the games.
/chadwarden
-edit- wulf, why are you not on my friends list? woah.
I thought that image was a nod to the apparent straw man argument. Which of course, it wasnt a straw man argument. People like to throw that phrase around like they know what it means.
I thought that image was a nod to the apparent straw man argument. Which of course, it wasnt a straw man argument. People like to throw that phrase around like they know what it means.
Hence the humor, caused by a deliberate misinterpretation of his statement. Is their a woosh smiley or can I assume your either a) also joking or b) didn't find it funny?
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
It's also not the smartest post in this thread.
Every comparison someone makes isn't a straw man argument. How old are you, 14? Because anyone's argument that you can't impugn with logic you scream "TEH STRAWWWWWWW MANNNNNNNNN." Sorry, that doesn't work with me.
Let me explain, if your going to say company A is DOOOOMED because of BILLIONS of dollars in losses, you just can't ignore the losses company B has taken if you're predicting TEH DOOOOOM because of said losses for company A. Especially if company B (their direct competition) has taken bigger losses.
There's nothing straw man about it. Microsoft has twice the "next-gen" consoles in people's homes that Sony does with half the loss from the past fiscal year. FACT.
Show me where the straw man is genius. LOL.
Plorp
"Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."
Posts
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. In the case of large companies, you sometimes need to spends lots (read: billions) of money to make lots of money with the possibility of no return on your investment for 10+ years.
I mean, it's not like Microsoft makes its money day-trading.
MSN comes to mind. Introduced in 1995, didn't start making money until what, 2004? There are other examples, but I'd have to look them up.
Again, it's billion, about 5 billion dollars, over 6 years.
That's what they did. Lose a couple of of billion.
Not millions. Hundreds of millions, sure!
So at this point, what are they trying to do other then lose money? Investment? Sure, I'd agree if since the dawn of their inception they would have had some sort of profit trickle in but they didn't.
They haven't
For 6 years
losing millions
Every quarter
For 6 years
adding up to billions of dollars lost.
Billions.
You got it?
Guys, they print money at a scale Nintendo only dreams of. Billions upon billions in pure profit just from Windows and all their media and software stuff.
They didn't lose it.
It didn't disappear from their bank accounts.
They didn't leave their XBOX wallets in a car that got stolen.
They didn't suffer 360 credit card fraud.
The money was spent on developing a console, a brand, a market, a service, a reputation, a platform.
This is what's known as "investment", not "loss."
My dog could understand this if I gave him a hard enough beating. Why can't you?
Because in Meizland if you don't instantly generate many billions in revenue, you're a failure and will quit the market.
Oh wait no sorry this only applies if your name begins with M and rhymes with Bicrosoft.
You still haven't explained why they'd leave now when now is when the whole things turning around for them.
And XBox Live has HUGE potential for profitability. Once you've bought a 360, they got a direct order and delivery method to you. Movies/Games/Shows/whatever, it's all ready to go straight to the consumer. No hook up or other purchases required. If they have a product they want to sell you, it's ready to be sold and distributed with the wave of their hands. Their are companies that would rape children for that kind of thing.
It just amazes me that some Meiz and Vicious can't grasp this concept. Seriously, they're talking like it's a big fucking surprise to Microsoft that they're losing money by the billion bucket-loads.
I'm sure there's a big vault that has documents detailing 10, 20, maybe even 30 year plans for their Xbox initiative with the pros/cons and the market effects of entry and exit of competitors. They knew ahead of time that they were going to be losing lots of money at first, in this INVESTMENT. They went ahead with it because they expected it to reap profits at the end.
Unless you guys have inside knowledge, or are somehow smarter and more educated than the 1000+ economists that Microsoft has working for them, you guys are wrong. Unless, of course, through some weird phase of the moon, you're right and then the government should pay you to predict when the next depression occurs.
Government: "Meiz, when will the next depression occur?"
Meiz: "Snap. Forkle. Biznit!"
Government: "Genius! Set economic growth along those guidelines."
This is the smartest post in this thread in of course Meiz completley ignores it.
They spin a huge gold plated wheel that tells them what their next move should be. Sometimes they even buy a vowel.
And in your mindset, if you generate billions of dollars in losses, you keep pouring money into it to make the hurt go away for a period of 6 years?
bongiland stinks when it comes to wise choices for investment.
Yes, I'm ignoring it because it's making a comparison with sony and that's a straw man argument.
It's also not a good way of presenting an argument.
It's also not the smartest post in this thread.
There is definitely some truth to the phrase 'throwing good money after bad'. It's just that all signs point to good investment, rather than bad investment. This is particularly true given that the 360 is constructed to rape your wallet with the click of a button at regular intervals.
Maybe this is news to you to, but usually you don't invest based upon past behaviour. Well, bad investors might. You invest based upon what you consider the future holds. Sometimes you get it wrong sonylol. Sometimes it's right. And in 6 years a lot of things change.
I heard they purchased the entire Borg Collective, hid them all in one giant cube under Mount Everest, and now have the collective hive-mind working 24/7 on digital entertainment revenue forecast algorithms.
"Xbox Live am teh_winnar!!!"
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
It's a perfectly legitimate comparison. They're making essentially the same fucking product. If one company can stand to lose $2 billion in one single year, but another can't lose three times as much over six times as long a period, why does the first company not also stand to pack up and leave?
The point is that the gaming division was going to be in the black in the FY that just ended if not for the warranty, which they retroactivley put on 2007, from here on out it's 2008 for them and so with the 360 poised to have a huge holiday season, they will undoubtedly be in the black for 2008 and it will only continue to get better from there.
EDIT: Aaaaand the post I was referring to was deleted. But who doesn't love non-sequitors? I'm looking at you Meiz.
Every comparison someone makes isn't a straw man argument. How old are you, 14? Because anyone's argument that you can't impugn with logic you scream "TEH STRAWWWWWWW MANNNNNNNNN." Sorry, that doesn't work with me.
Let me explain, if your going to say company A is DOOOOMED because of BILLIONS of dollars in losses, you just can't ignore the losses company B has taken if you're predicting TEH DOOOOOM because of said losses for company A. Especially if company B (their direct competition) has taken bigger losses.
There's nothing straw man about it. Microsoft has twice the "next-gen" consoles in people's homes that Sony does with half the loss from the past fiscal year. FACT.
Show me where the straw man is genius. LOL.
Because otherwise he couldn't wank off to the newest Final Fantasy Emo-Pretty-Boy Hero. And that's an idea too scary to contemplate.
PS - Reply like 2 posts above.
I say we just keep quoting it after every one of his posts until he realizes comparing a Bass to a Bass isn't a strawman, and that he is just using that term as a blanket to protect him from the reality of how utterly flawed and incorrect his argument is.
Apparently, Meiz and Vicious cannot fathom an investment who's strategy is not to turn a profit in 5 years. Hell, companies make investments that they don't expect to turn a profit in 20 or 30 years.
Also, they're ignoring the fact that the Xbox is turning MS from being viewed primarily as a software company to a media/entertainment/hardware/electronics conglomerate. This shift in focus and consumer acceptance is not something that you can easily attach a monetary value to. The Xbox has opened tons of markets for MS
Also,
Pax?
So... how about that X07?
I'm a little bummed, but I guess it's just a testament to how the internet has changed everything. I wouldn't be surprised to see more conferences follow suite.
That's just mean man. Meiz and Vicious have brains. Their just not using them.
Do you read, or just poast?
LOGICAL FALLACY
X07 will be all "Hi. I'm Don Mattrick. You might know me from EA's 'Raping Your Wallet' and 'Raping Your Wallet Part 2'. What's that? Where are the awesome games? Shit, homey, they're already out! Go look!"
I think it's equal parts them not wanting to only be able to show another CG trailer for Fable 2, Halo Wars, etc and to give Mattrick some time to settle in. That would be shitting springing a conference on him when he's only had the job for a few months.
And then they get some cuts of sales like Mass Effect, GTA4, Bioshock, ect. ect. Not to mention the cut of the Live Arcade titles sold, the marketplace and video marketplace. Bottom line, the 360 has the highest attach rate for games of any console out right now and potential in the Marketplace to keep sucking my wallet. Gentleman, they like sucking my wallet. They will turn a profit before this thing is up unless Sony gets their shit together (and stops re-introducing products at the deadly 599 price.) More importantly, when the games come out.
It's all about the games.
/chadwarden
-edit- wulf, why are you not on my friends list? woah.
Do major gaming announcements usually occur there?
AD HOMINIM
E PLURIBUS UNUM
No, we're making fun of graizur. Thanks for reminding me though.
PAX?
According to the article, there will be an event, much like X0 in the UK before Christmas.
Oh, yeah, I went there. By there, of course, I mean I went back to the original topic of this thread.
Hence the humor, caused by a deliberate misinterpretation of his statement. Is their a woosh smiley or can I assume your either a) also joking or b) didn't find it funny?
Also, PAX?
Plorp
"Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted."
And fade to black.