<![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Microsoft has been emasculated by Nintendo. Period. Microsoft had a one year lead and they completely blew it with overpriced piece of shit hardware. Why compare being first to being rich? First of all, Microsoft's 360 Division has just gotten into the act of having profitable quarters. They have got a long way to go before they ever justify the ENTIRE Xbox investment with one cent of overall profit and it may even come before the end of this console cycle if they can find a way to NOT get their ass kicked in the ps3's glory year of 2008 (MGS4, FF, GT, Killzone, Littlebig planet, etc.) Pachter, they're a long way from being rich AND being first. That's the bottom line.

Gagamus

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again and again.

The, "attach rate," is a SIDESHOW.

It only makes a difference, ONLY makes a difference, is the various consoles install base, is relatively close. In other words, if the 360 has 23million units on the market and the Wii has 25, then it's close enough that the install base matters.

However, when the dust settles things usually are not that close in the console business.

Typically, the market leader, will lead by a very significant margin. We can already see the occurring now. Seeing as Wii console sales show no sign of slowing down, it's highly likely that there will be well over thirty million units sold before it Wii sales slow any.

The 360 on the other hand, may have peaked. I say may, as it's hard to determine if it's a peak or simply the fact that 360 sales are more seasonal. In either case though, it's unlikely the 360 will be able to shrink the margins between it and the Wii anytime soon, and the gap will probably grow.

If it does, then attach rate doesn't matter. One less game won't make a ounce of difference if there are 100million Wii's on the market and only 40million 360's.

Still, I expect the 360 will remain profitable. Maybe, just maybe, if they take their time and do things right, they'll be able to take first place next time around.

WolvenOne

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @sascha23: I'm honestly not all that excited about any of those.

Doomstalk

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> With a lot of respect to Michael Pachter ...no, no wait...I don't have any respect for Michael Pachter.

zymman

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @sweenyJ:

360?

@sascha23:

True, seems the only anticpated titles are GTA IV and Gears of War 2, but I'm not a fan of either. Thank God I bought my Wii and still had enough for a 360.

Jac21

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> It actually should matter to us more than it should to MS. Look, it may seem immature to have a constant fanboy war but I take issue with the idea that consoles can co-exist. Developers have finite resources and will therefore pay more attention to the console with the greatest marketshare. How many games are coming out for the XBox now versus the PS2?

It maybe shouldn't matter to MS if their goal is to be profitable, but I don't think that really was ever their real intent in entering the gaming market.

Still, it's hard pill for investors to swallow, investing money in two generations of consoles in order achieve mindshare for some theoretical market in the far future.

gozirah

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> This is Mac versus PC all over again, except Pachter is suggesting a role reversal as far as gaming is concerned. Notice most of the software gets developed for PC though, rather than Mac. And that is why console sales numbers are important. It's not enough that you the console maker are profitable. Other companies developing for your console want to be profitable too, and that's easiest when you have the largest user base.

jsf49

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: Anyone who doesn't look at a company's past is stupid. Especially if you're buying a stock as expensive as Microsoft. You want to look for stable growth, not volatility. If you're fooled by such tactics, you deserve what you get.

Doomstalk

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> i for one think the companies should worry about whos first, yeh its trivial but think about it. the more these companies fight to be top dog, the more we consumers should (in theory) get out of it. gamers just need to learn to stop caring so much.

just sit back and watch these companies scream for your attention its better that way. if they wern't fighting eachother we'd all have crappy consoles that last only a day before blowing up.

sweenyJ

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Let's start the "Mark Wilson needs a PS3!" fund.

No man or woman should go without his/her MGS, Little Big Planet, Ratchet, Killzone or Resistance.

This is a tough year to only own a 360.

sascha23

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> 360s won the money race - look at its attach rate, but for pure fanboy material nothing will beat console sales.

Still at the end of the day its fairly pointless. Though I'd love a PS3, I can't afford one... I would prefer there to be on less console on the market for defo.

Communist_Gamer

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> This is true, you certainly do not be the number one console manufacturer to be making money. That being said, every console maker should be running their business as if they're actively shooting for that number-one spot.

The reason for this, is because in the business world, you're either growing our shrinking in terms of profitability or market share. Since shrinking is bad, you generally want to run your business aggressively and grow it as much as possible. You may never reach the number one spot, but if you're doing things effectively, at least you'll be growing.

WolvenOne

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> "street cred"

The same way Microsoft shouldn't care, niether should you.

Edge of Blade

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @kagai: Even more so I think this cycle has showed us that consoles can not only survive, but thrive in individualized markets. This is very much shaping out to be a Wii = Japan, 360 = N.A., PS3 = Europe type of race.

Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but now that we are really reaching a similarity in the consoles 9PS3 & 360) in what they can offer, I am curious t see how they differentiate themselves from here on out.

M.A.S.

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Doomstalk: They never took a 1.5 billion hit. It never actually happened, no money was lost. The actual loss is projected to take place over 3 years. But instead they dont have to report the actual loss now, because they just mark it down as something they already reported.

Investors and shareholders do not care about the past, they only look at the now. By reporting the major loss almost a year ago, they get to show to investors they are making money, when they really would be losing money for 3 years.

@rotcepsurt: I don't need to spin it... heck you sure have already swallowed the corporate spin yourself.

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: Tons of companies do it, most just in smaller amounts. Anyway you spin it , the $1 billion was written off in a previous quarter. Current day to day operations are generating positive cash flow and MS IS profiting off of the 360 and has done so the previous two quarters as well.

rotcepsurt

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I'm not sure I get Pachter's point. It's not just about money, its about mindshare among consumers and that's where #1 and #2 come in. Why is mindshare so important? It's going the brand into the next generation to at least have good footing and its going to be what the general consumer hears in the media 'the top selling console is x' or 'North America's best console is y'.

Maximus9

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> What a fanboy.

RaepGoblin

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: Is it really being all that tricky? Taking a $1bn hit all at once looks pretty bad to investors. It seems like it'd be sneakier to quietly amortize it over the lifespan of the system.

Doomstalk

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> It doesn't matter to the console manufacturers, nor does it to THQ, Ubisoft or EA. You can make a shitload of money on a minority platform. Nintendo, THQ and Apple all have shown just that. The console wars have never been between manufacturers but between consumers.

The Gamecube was mentioned earlier and every GCN owner can tell you it's not much fun having nothing to play. Nintendo made good money but what good is that to a gamer when your platform of choice doesn't get the attention you expected. Not everybody can afford to buy all systems you know.

It's the same now. The race is close this generation and nobody knows what will happen. That's why fans scream so loud. Same as in sports, you scream your team is the best until the bitter end.

TrekVogel

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @rotcepsurt: Not all companies work this way, as they can't afford to. Company like MS gets away with this tricky book keeping all they want. No actual money is set aside, nor do they have to hold money back. It's purely numbers and as you say "semantics" to play with the minds of shareholders. MS can afford to fudge the numbers all they want, not everyone can be so liberal with their financials.

They knew it would look bad for them if they gave the true numbers of their operation out quarterly, they gotta save face and keep their momentum going. Are they truly making profit? Not really.

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I don't think anyone, in any endeavor, doesn't try to be number one. You have to strive to be the best, but being the best and being successful are two different things.

The video game industry is at a point where more than one console can achieve success without being number one and that's a good thing.

Does anybody want one director making all of the movies, or one writer writing all of the books? We can applaud number one and still admire those below who find success and continue working to be the best.

kagai

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Candlejack:

good stuff there mate no need to be ashamed, ps3 will be competing with the next Xbox and then the consoles will fall out of sinc with each other.

SwindleUK

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: You can argue semantics but that's what companies do. They wrote off what would be a future loss a few quarters back and thus are making profit now. The 1 billion dollar write off is done, the money is set aside for repairs and sits atop their previous debt. Current operations are generating positive cashflow.

rotcepsurt

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81:
Actually,I figured that but I was curious as to the response.I'd like to look at Nintendo/MS financials from the beginning(year to year) to see the overall picture myself.


enewtabie

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @ManjiKengo: lol! Thanks :D I like Pachter though. Just like to hear him talk. He seems very intelligent and down to earth to me.

His projections....well. Some I can agree with, some seem a little far fetched.

Candlejack

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @mind in rewind: Never mind, I just checked out some of the recent posts. At least they're making a profit on every unit sold. Aren't the initial losses a write-off, anyway?

FP mind in rewind

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @enewtabie: Hell no, LOL, but they've proved they have a legitimate presence in the market and their profitability continues to increase. They WON'T make all of that back this generation, but if they maintain current profits and don't screw up, they could possibly get back in the black sometime during Xbox 3's life.

rotcepsurt

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @lordjoebill: If by "hemorrhaging money" you mean "making a profit", then, you're correct.

FP mind in rewind

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> You've got to try to be number 1 - otherwise what's the point?

Do you think Sierra and THQ sit around going:

Sierra: "You know, I'm really happy where I am, I knew Timeshift would be average and that's fine!"

THQ: "Too right! Saints Row 2 won't be anywhere near as good as GTA IV, but does it need to be?"

Ok, maybe Blacksite tried to be dull, but there's always an exception.

Meldy

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @enewtabie: Of course not, as a whole MS is still several billion in the whole with their gaming division, and they are likely never to recoup all that loss this generation.

All they care about is reporting a profit on their fiscal year statement periods. But overall Xbox division still has several billion to recoup.

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @rotcepsurt: MS only appears profitable on paper. They really should be losing money still, but because they put the 1 billion loss to the RROD on a past quarters results. Technically they are still losing money, but since they went and applied 1 billion of loss before Halo 3 even came out, they appear profitable. They have not incurred the 1 billion loss yet, they just estimated how much it would.

It hides the loss from shareholders and makes it look like they are making money when they really aren't.

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @kagai:

Took the words right out of my mouth. Great post.

DARTH_TIGRIS

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @rotcepsurt:
That includes the original xbox years too?


enewtabie

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Activision was number one of 2007 right? I mean the comparison is still valid, but you can't call out the reigning champ just like that.

TehDiplomat

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: Gamecube did get some great games though.

Indeed. Owning just a Gamecube was frustrating when I wasn't able to keep up with fighting games (though I was sort of until my Dreamcast died)

Still we had a lot of great games and I was never starved for something to play. It just depends on what you want, ya know?

Now I own a PS2, Gamecube (and Wii) and original XBox. The Gamecube games get a lot more play than the PS2, though I do need to start some RPG's I've been hoarding.

battra92

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @lordjoebill: Actually, MS has been profitable for the past two quarters now, even with the extended RROD warranty. I believe SCE as a whole is back to profitability, but the PS3 hasn't made them a dime yet.

rotcepsurt

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @lionkitten:
thanks for that.I will get it tonight.


enewtabie

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Pachter may be right,but he's not realistic.Companies all over the world seek to be #1,whether it's in Video games or other Industries.For example,where I work..we're in third and yet we made a nice gain in profitablility/sales.We're still looking to be #1 though and that won't change.Unfortunately,I don't believe it'll happen for years in this economy.

enewtabie

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Is this already preparing the masses for not being number one? or two?

After all, the milestone of 100 million was already reached, so now the new milestone is what 130 million or whatever the PS2 is at?

Andy D.

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Pachter's appearance on the KOXM (official Xbox Mag) podcast dated 4/18 is worth a listen. Quite interesting stuff and I had never heard him actually speak. Sounded saner than I would've guessed. Available on iTunes if you care about such things...

lionkitten

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I thin this has been MS strategy for a while now. They could haveeasily been more agressiev with price cuts and stuff, but to them its far more important to show the business can be profitable.

Marasai

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I don't really care who's first or second. It's more important for Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony to get rich so they stay in business, especially Nintendo since it's a videogame exclusive company.

M

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @lordjoebill: The 360 started being profitable either last quarter or the quarter before. Sony is the only company still losing money on this generation.

Stormrider

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Ess:

There is one issue, however. While it is possible that a system in third place can make a profit and thrive, there is still the distinct possibility of the system failing before its time.

I'm sure many of us remember the trouncing of the Dreamcast by the PS2. Basically, gamers don't want to be caught in a situation like that again. Because of this, I understand why marketshare and other metrics are important to gamers. They need quantifiable assurance that they did not waste their money on a moribund system.

Of course, for the 360 and PS3 this is less of an issue. Both systems have established themselves sufficiently that they will continue to get software (most likely in the form of cross-platform releases) even if one pulls ahead of the other. And if GTA IV and COD 4 are represent the quality of multi-platform games, we have little to worry about.

Darth Navster

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Candlejack: you sound more credible than patcher on his other rants.

Honestly though, Microsoft shouldn't give a shit who's first or second. They are still making fuck tons of money either way.

ManjiKengo

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Doesn't matter if Microsoft is first, second, or third, they're still hemorrhaging money.

I'm sure Xbox360 could be profitable just appealing to American fanboys, assuming the console didn't cost them so much to develop (and then subsequently replace all the damn time).

lordjoebill

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I like three-ways = )

LeLoi

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Microsoft mainly cares because a highly successful console creates a largely self-sustaining sales engine. Better software leads to more console sales, which leads to more developers, repeat ad infinitum. Being in first can potentially drive your profits into the stratosphere. That being said, I've been saying the same thing as Pachter since the Gamecube days.

Doomstalk

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> While it doesn't hurt to be first, it does hurt not to be competitive, especially in this environment.

History has shown us repeatedly that no one stays as #1, especially if the entity in question is driven almost solely by hype and brand, if not "rich" recognition.

At the end of the day for Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and everything else in between, it's a matter of how well they can entice us to support what they produce and just as importantly, how they can maintain our loyalty to their brand.

That, thankfully, is a matter of quality, which anyone from a long established entity to a start up has the potential to accomplish well.

Truvill

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @photoboy: That's not the same, though. Unless the bottom seriously drops out of the demand for one of the three, none of them is really in danger of being abandoned. The Wii is the dominant platform in terms of install base, the 360 dominates North America and has the highest software attach rate, and the PS3 will always have some Japanese support because of Microsoft's irrelevance in Japan. This generation is very different from last generation because there isn't one clear dominant machine.

Stormrider

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I don't think we will see any of these consoles (PS3, 360, Wii) reach as high as the PS2 did, with all due respect to the Wii. It won't be able to catch that mass because the demand for HD disc playback and games will gradually go up as we advance in 2008 and especially 2009.

The 360 won't either, simply because it labelled itself as the ultimate hardcore gaming console, to combat that portion previously married to Sony. It hasn't really got a franchise that reaches as far as, say, SingStar or Mario Kart. They get the Guitar Heroes and Rock Bands, yes, but as long as they're not exclusive, there's no point that the mass audience (read: casual gamer) sees to choose the 360 over the Wii. I expect Microsoft to announce a new system towards the end of 2009 and release it mid 2010.

The PS3 on the other hand, even with the aspired 10 years plan, I see fading away as Sony releases, and they will, the PS4. They might keep support for the PS3 up for 10 years and keep releasing downgraded versions of their first party PS4 titles for the PS3, but there is no way in hell they will stay appealing when new consoles with much superior hardware enter the field, especially once Nintendo does that.
Even at a super low price point, gamers will want the most recent console and get the most out of the experience.

Nintendo will have to release a more up to date piece of hardware (call it Wii2 or WiiHD or whatever) around then to stay competitive, even though their current business model is clearly catering to the people without HDTV. This has to lose its appeal at some point when more and more people migrate to HDTV. I don't see the issue with killing the Wii off in about 2 years time either - it's not like they're building a super high spec device that needs years to get the money back in that it ate up in production. And consumers aren't paying loads to buy it.

Then again, I'm no analyst, so my projections are probably bullshit. Sorry to take your time reading this.

Candlejack

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @photoboy: At the same time, a console that loads of people own will see the most shovelware appear for it. I'm not disagreeing with the point you're making, just showing that it's got another side to it.

zebber

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @photoboy: Gamecube did get some great games though. Maybe not as much as PS2, but it still got games that people loved. Xbox had games people liked too.....

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Tepoz: Those times are over. I think companies are fooling themselves if they think they are going to pull off what Sony pulled off with the PS2 simply because that means supporting for a length of time much longer than what had been done in the past or will be done in the future.

And that can't really be done when you have more competition and a different global society added and blended to a perfection.

It's SORT OF like when Ford had the market to itself.

jp182

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> "But how can any major, innovative console manufacturer not be looking at the 100 million+ precedent set by the PS2 and realizing that no one but first place has a realistic chance of reaching such heights?"

So, in other words, quit listening to voices of reason and keep fanning the flames?

Kotaku - The Happy Clique for Hypocrites!

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Of course Microsoft wants to be first, they've become used to it ever since Windows. I don't think that they ever anticipated being first either. I find it hard to believe someone at Microsoft actually thought the Zune could dethrone the Ipod. But you have to give them credit, they put themselves into a position to achieve it. If they don't end up losing money then stock prices stay stable and everyone sleeps happily in Redmond.

XxMajesticOneXx

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Well if we ignore the PS2 for the mean time, Xbox 360 is still first place for game to console attach ratio's. The Wii may sell a ton more than its competition but it still has a pretty poor game attach rate, although its been improving as of late.

@kagai: I agree completely, people seem to think that there can't be room for 3 consoles but there is, as is evident by sales today. PS3 for a while was considered to be in last place and done for, look how its doing now, its doing great. Thats not to say Microsoft isn't doing great either but they could certainly do better in Europe.

Walker

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Ask any Gamecube owner if having a console that makes the hardware manufacturer lots of money is better than having a console that loads of people own and is therefore not unceremoniously dumped by all the third party devs...

photoboy

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I said this months ago. Who cares who "wins." As long as your system sells enough to make it worth putting games out on, there will be great games to play.

I had an Xbox 1 and that system was a dismal failure compared to the PS2. It was outsold something like 10 to 1.

Yet, amazingly, I played lots and lots of great games on that ugly black box. Halo 1 & 2, Riddick, GTA, Forza, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Crimson Skies, etc. etc.

Who cares if more people own a Wii? A publisher knows a good game on the 360 will move a million units.

Who's the number one music studio? Who's the number one film distributer? Who cares? Certainly not the shareholders. All they care about is whether Columbia or Fox or Paramount are profitable. And all I care about as a gamer, is whether there will be good games to play. So far so good.

Ess

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> I've been paying for Lost episodes on XBL because I don't have Tivo. Their online capabilities are amazing, although now that I also have a PS3, I'm starting to migrate a lot of my collection to that. Free online is pretty sweet.

Sasquatch

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> A perfectly valid point. It will always bother me that, because we invest in commercial product A or B, we feel that it has to be represented in the best light out of all the other options, even if it can't possibly be that good.

zebber

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @Kyle81: The PS2 was first and it made tons of profit because of good competitive decisions. You can have both if good decisions are made.

Tepoz

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> The point isn't selling 100+mil consoles, which I don't think will happen during this console cycle, it's selling enough systems and games to remain relevant to both consumers and publishers to reach and sustain a profit.

I think this cycle shows that three consoles can thrive within the videogame industry and be successful. The more choices for the consumer the better off we all are. It's a great time to be gamer!

kagai

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> You know what makes even less sense than Microsoft caring so much about sales figures and the so-called console wars? Gamers caring.

kingclip

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> Fact: Mark Wilson hates all consols except the 360. Kidding Kidding, don't hurt me.

So Mark, Metal Gear gonna make you by a PS3? I ask cause that seems to be the PS3 buy in game for a couple of my friends.

Rabidsquirrel

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> @jun581: anyway back on topic. Well to MS credit, they are trying to make money with the stuff they charge online; especially with XBLA. they don't really come cheap. But Ikagura is great so a lot of people are willing to pay for them.

Jun581 won't give you tree fiddy!!

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> The Gamecube was last place last gen, and Nintendo still made good profit off of it. You don't got to be top dog system to make money.

Kyle81

]]> <![CDATA[Pachter: Microsoft Doesn't Need To Be First, Just Rich]]> you only own a 360? i thought you also owned a wii.

Jun581 won't give you tree fiddy!!

]]>