PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Akira AC]

I wonder why people keep insisting in technological upperhand and sales numbers, one of main aspects that cemented 360's rep was the release of both Gears and Halo 3 which created enough hype to make the xbox gain some attention, PS3 back at those days had nothing just MGS4(and that was 2007).

I'm not really sure about the 10 years lifetime plans, considering technology advances(specially in the computing areas) is quite hard to make that plan work. Apart from that, there are not only technology changes but also the distribution methods(DLC, physical media formats and such) and future platform that might take off depending on different technologies that might be develop by the time(personally I find physical media very outdated for a new console, having more than one drive is actually quite redundant, not to mention that digital distribution slightly help to control piracy).

And then there is also the whole "game" aspects of these games consoles, I think that they should focus on making a developer friendly platform while being capable of outputting enough power to renders and complex engines, SDKs are also something that I expect to see more in future game consoles(Playstation Suite seems quite promising, by watching some tech demos you can tell that is actually quite easy and flexible(it uses C sharp like any other PS console but it actually seems easier to test and compile). I think that use wants to see what happens first with the Vita, they making pretty big things with that thing, things that are only being scratch on the very surface to this day(granted they are competing with IOS and working on Mobile environment platforms, however the potential from such platforms applied to home consoles is quite high).

 

[Slash]

I'm happy because then I don't have to dish out another grand for a new system.

 

[bevo]

Remember the last time that a console maker had at least a six month jump on its competitor? It became a third party publisher instead and shut down its console division. That's right, I'm talking about SEGA.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the six month jump. The 360 came out a year before the ps3, and it seems to be doing alright.

 

[Luminis]

So am I missing something about this, "major flop" that the PS3 is?

Maybe that the PS2 sold more than five times as many units as the original Xbox and that, right now, Sony is behind in sales? Compared to the last generation, the PS3 is a major flop.

Sony went from being the unchallenged dominator of the home console market during the last generation to competing for second place with MS, which both are being severly out-sold by Nintendo. Whereas MS's console sales roughly doubled, Sony's dropped down to about a third of what they accomplished with the PS2.

So, if all that matters is not being beaten by the Xbox360 too badly, than no, the PS3 isn't a flop. If the console was supposed to keep Sony in the strong position they were in during the last generation or even expand on that, than I'd consider that a flop, yes. And, personally, I doubt that just competing with MS was Sony's original intention.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

Maybe that the PS2 sold more than five times as many units as the original Xbox and that, right now, Sony is behind in sales? Compared to the last generation, the PS3 is a major flop.

Sony went from being the unchallenged dominator of the home console market during the last generation to competing for second place with MS, which both are being severly out-sold by Nintendo. Whereas MS's console sales roughly doubled, Sony's dropped down to about a third of what they accomplished with the PS2.

So, if all that matters is not being beaten by the Xbox360 too badly, than no, the PS3 isn't a flop. If the console was supposed to keep Sony in the strong position they were in during the last generation or even expand on that, than I'd consider that a flop, yes. And, personally, I doubt that just competing with MS was Sony's original intention.

I see that argument a lot and quite frankly it doesn't hold water. NOTHING was going to sell in those kinds of numbers. Everyone forgets that the PS2 had Gran Theft Auto III exclusively for about three years. That created what you'd call "Beatlemania" for the console. Anyone who wanted to play it, had to buy a PS2. Is there anything on any console that makes anyone say "I gotta play that!"? I don't think there is.

Microsoft didn't launch the 360 early to be swell guys. They did it to steal market share from Sony. Which they did, in the United States. Everywhere else Microsoft isn't doing nearly as well. What I find interesting is that Microsoft's intention was to become the #1 console on the market, which they clearly are not. Why isn't anyone saying that the 360 "flopped" (and I really do hate that term, because it gets used so often and not always in the proper context). Is it because everyone thinks they were "swell guys" by fixing their consoles in order to avoid a recall? Or is because "but.. they have Halo?". Early on I remember Yahoo running a piece naming the 360 one of the worst consoles ever made, primarily because it was plagued with so many problems. Since Microsoft's attempt to buy Yahoo, now that article has vanished. Hmn...

 

[Tornado]

If the console was supposed to keep Sony in the strong position they were in during the last generation or even expand on that, than I'd consider that a flop, yes.

I've never been under the assumption that that was what the PS3 was supposed to do. Sony certainly didn't seem worried about it until 2009 or so. So no, I don't consider it a flop because it didn't reach unrealistic (and from Sony's reaction, nonexistent) sales figure projections anymore than I consider the PSP a flop because it didn't outsell the DS.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

I've never been under the assumption that that was what the PS3 was supposed to do. Sony certainly didn't seem worried about it until 2009 or so. So no, I don't consider it a flop because it didn't reach unrealistic (and from Sony's reaction, nonexistent) sales figure projections anymore than I consider the PSP a flop because it didn't outsell the DS.

What the PS3 really did was provide a launching pad for Blu Ray. And no, it was not a "Trojan Horse". Nobody who bought a PS3 ever said "wait, this thing has a Blu Ray player?? I had no idea!".


Really though, did anyone really believe that the PS3 was going to sell 200 million consoles? I know that the popular gamer perception is that if B follows A then A=B, but that is what's called faulty cause and effect.

 

[Luminis]

I see that argument a lot and quite frankly it doesn't hold water. NOTHING was going to sell in those kinds of numbers. Everyone forgets that the PS2 had Gran Theft Auto III exclusively for about three years. That created what you'd call "Beatlemania" for the console. Anyone who wanted to play it, had to buy a PS2. Is there anything on any console that makes anyone say "I gotta play that!"? I don't think there is.

Microsoft didn't launch the 360 early to be swell guys. They did it to steal market share from Sony. Which they did, in the United States. Everywhere else Microsoft isn't doing nearly as well. What I find interesting is that Microsoft's intention was to become the #1 console on the market, which they clearly are not. Why isn't anyone saying that the 360 "flopped" (and I really do hate that term, because it gets used so often and not always in the proper context). Is it because everyone thinks they were "swell guys" by fixing their consoles in order to avoid a recall? Or is because "but.. they have Halo?". Early on I remember Yahoo running a piece naming the 360 one of the worst consoles ever made, primarily because it was plagued with so many problems. Since Microsoft's attempt to buy Yahoo, now that article has vanished. Hmn...

I've never been under the assumption that that was what the PS3 was supposed to do. Sony certainly didn't seem worried about it until 2009 or so. So no, I don't consider it a flop because it didn't reach unrealistic (and from Sony's reaction, nonexistent) sales figure projections anymore than I consider the PSP a flop because it didn't outsell the DS.

You guys sure make it sound like going from, what, ~150 out of ~200 million units sold of sixth generation consoles (which would equal a market share of 75%) to roughly 55 million out of, again ~200 million units of seventh generation consoles (about 28% market share) would be completely insignificant

All reasoining aside, and even if it was expected (I doubt it was expected from the start), I can hardly think of a company that would be happy if things turned out like that.

Also, going by this quote from Wikipedia:

In a July 2008 interview, Hirai stated that his objective is for the PlayStation 3 to sell 150 million units by its ninth year, surpassing the PlayStation 2's sales of 140 million in its nine years on the market.

(Link), it does sound like the PS3 kinda was supposed to keep Sony in the position they were in... Just saying.

Also, one thing I don't quite get: Everyone's using MS as the target for the PS3, even though its the Wii that should be this generation's benchmark. And compared to that, both MS and Sony are failing a bit, no?

 

[CaptainHarlock]

You're going by Wikipedia? A site that Stephen Colbert influenced by telling his viewers to log on and "agree" with the changes he made?

I think we're done here.

 

[CAM]

I don't exactly understand why people are speculating that SCE won't release another home console. Forgive me if my logic is faulty, but I don't foresee the overhead for raw materials being as high as they were on PS3 (no selling at a $200 loss initially), and I also believe that there is enough demand (especially since MS is 100% releasing the NextBox) to make a profit. What kind of business decision is it to totally cease production of home consoles at the PS3 when we know there are potential advancements to be made on the PS4? If you can't tell, I would definitely invest in one after all the time I've gotten out of my PS3 .

 

[gt addict]

PS4 and ps3's both on psn at the same time. How is that going to work. Same with the Xboxes on XBL at the same time.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

I never said it affects me personally, I don't buy into the hype at all and buy the games I want but I'm saying many people do and manufacturers know this. It all comes down to selling consoles and console bundles and if they know they can keep pumping out Halo's, hyping it to infinity and sell a ton then they will keep doing it.



If they can sell more by doing this then power to them, there's nothing immoral about hyping things. Sony could learn something from MS in that department.



Well it usually takes one particular game to make you want a system, what that game is is totally down to personal preference, to say it 'doesn't make sense' is a personal opinion. I like where MS are going with Kinect and thats currently the best game which makes use of it, without the Kinect the 360 doesnt really interest me because I can get nearly everything else on PS3.

Most people did actually buy the Wii for Wii sports, often it was the only game people used on the system (all those first time casual gamers).

No, there's nothing "immoral" about it, but putting your name everywhere is not any indicator of quality. What this is called is "McDonaldization". Where quantity makes up for lack of quality. By giving people a lot of a bad product, and promoting the hell out of it, you make people think that because they are getting a lot of something then they must be getting a good value, when really they're not. They're buying something because it's readily available, is cheap, and in "gamers" cases, they didn't have the patience to wait for the PS3 which was launched a full year later.

The XBox 360 also benefits from what I personally call "the SUV effect". That's where there is a perception of a loss of status from lack of owning one. How many people out there bought a 360 because "all my friends have one"? I'd venture a guess that a considerable number of them. It's the same thing that the Big 3 auto makers did back in the early 00's. Everyone had to buy a Suburban because the people down the block had one. I can't be the only on my block without one in my driveway.

 

[Luminis]

You're going by Wikipedia? A site that Stephen Colbert influenced by telling his viewers to log on and "agree" with the changes he made?

I think we're done here.

Yeah, right now, I'm going by Wikipedia. What sources did you provide, again? Oh, wait, none at all? That sure is better, isn't it?

Anyways, had you bothered to check the sources for that quote, you would've noticed that it was taken from the Financial Times. Or are the Financial Times an unreliable source to you, too?

Talk about "being done here"

What kind of business decision is it to totally cease production of home consoles at the PS3 when we know there are potential advancements to be made on the PS4?

Depends on a lot of factors. Considering that the Wii is doing tremenduously well with quite inferior hardware, and that the PS2 still sold quite well even after the Xbox360 launched, it might be for the best to keep the PS3 around for a few more years before launching the PS4.

My personal assumption is that there is quite a bit of money to be made from just selling stuff like move to the, well, more casual audience out there. And, as the Wii has proven by now, you don't need cutting edge graphics to accomplish that. Right now, it might be the bbetter decision to try and grab more of Nintendos audience than of Microsofts. MS and Sony are, in that regard, competing pretty hard already while Nintendo basically went on unhindered until Kinect and Move made their respective appearences.

 

[CAM]

So you're saying that the market is moving away from innovation to bait people with fancy movement games? I sure hope that I don't have to wait longer for a next generation console because of that, jeez .

 

[Akira AC]

You guys sure make it sound like going from, what, ~150 out of ~200 million units sold of sixth generation consoles (which would equal a market share of 75%) to roughly 55 million out of, again ~200 million units of seventh generation consoles (about 28% market share) would be completely insignificant

All reasoining aside, and even if it was expected (I doubt it was expected from the start), I can hardly think of a company that would be happy if things turned out like that.

Also, going by this quote from Wikipedia:

(Link), it does sound like the PS3 kinda was supposed to keep Sony in the position they were in... Just saying.

Also, one thing I don't quite get: Everyone's using MS as the target for the PS3, even though its the Wii that should be this generation's benchmark. And compared to that, both MS and Sony are failing a bit, no?

I don't know since it depends on significant changes through the last 8 years or so. Back in PS2 days there were no Mobile platforms(except for the Gameboy), there wasn't any big online marketplaces like Steam(they exist back at those days but they weren't really significant), there wasn't any significant competence(Xbox was staring, the Dreamcast was highly outperformed in terms of conveniences and games library, and Nintendo went for the Gamecube which was quite pretty but pretty lacking), and the market was pretty much globally dominated(EU/JP/US, and there wasn't markets like Brazil or Korea).

Market segregation is a significant variable that Sony did not expect, in fact no one expected the Wii explode the way it did, the same goes for steam and some other platform that take some parts of the market share.

This makes me think that the PS3 isn't such a flop, but it wasn't brilliant either, the first two years for the PS3 were dreadful as their game's library was pretty dead, but comparing it to how the market was back at those days makes me think that the PS3 is doing fairy well, I think that the console should stick around for two or three years until there is a clear picture of where will be the money and how will be the most viable structures and systems(who knows, maybe the next PS can be a home computer rather than a game console, or a dedicated system, no one knows really).

 

[Tornado]

You guys sure make it sound like going from, what, ~150 out of ~200 million units sold of sixth generation consoles (which would equal a market share of 75%) to roughly 55 million out of, again ~200 million units of seventh generation consoles (about 28% market share) would be completely insignificant

You mean compared to the freak occurence that was the Wii's success?

Also, going by this quote from Wikipedia:
(Link), it does sound like the PS3 kinda was supposed to keep Sony in the position they were in... Just saying.

You mean the quote from a guy who wasn't in charge when the system came out that was said two years after it was launched while Sony was going through a painful reorganization process?

Also, one thing I don't quite get: Everyone's using MS as the target for the PS3, even though its the Wii that should be this generation's benchmark. And compared to that, both MS and Sony are failing a bit, no?

No, because the Wii's success is basically irrelevant to this discussion. It won't be repeated, and even Nintendo has acknowledged that.

 

[Luminis]

So you're saying that the market is moving away from innovation to bait people with fancy movement games? I sure hope that I don't have to wait longer for a next generation console because of that, jeez .

Basically, yes. That seems to be exactly why Nintendo's Wii and the DS are selling so well. It also seem like Sony and MS are also acting aaccording to such a believe, hence the creation of Kinect and Move.

Personally, I dislike that stuff quite a lot (Darrk Souls and Rayman Originis would, for example, be far more to my liking, and they're rather traditional in their approach), but it is hard to deny that the Wii, even though its hardware is quite outdated, is doing better than any of its more graphically advanced competitors.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that better graphics don't necessarily equal innovation. Actually, I'd say that the biggest innovations have been the Wii, Kinect and Move. The PS1 and Nintendo 64, those were innovations based on processing power, as they intoduced 3D gaming, but stuff like that is only done once. Right now, I hardly see more processing power equalling innovation, whatsoever.

 

[CAM]

I suppose. I just don't see why they are going to not allow a person that wants to play Call of Duty with a PS3-style controller or play GT with a DFGT on a next generation system that may make the games we have now better. Some people will still want it the old-fashioned way, which if they aren't releasing a console in the form of a PS4, they will be forgetting their roots by not allowing that to be so.

 

[Jello18]

Everyone calling the PS3 a flop compared to the 360 should see the failure rates. At one point the failure rate for the 360 was 54%, at the same time the ps3 was 10%.

Also I hope that Sony makes a dualshock 4 for the PS4 instead of focusing of motion controls.

 

[CAM]

Also I hope that Sony makes a dualshock 4 for the PS4 instead of focusing of motion controls.

That's basically ALL I want. The focus of the PS3 seemed to be graphics to me. Now that that's out of the way. I want the PS4 to focus solely on gameplay, and keep the controller as the primary means of gaming.

 

[Luminis]

You mean compared to the freak occurence that was the Wii's success?

I'd rather say compared to the freak occurence that was the PS2's success. That's why I compared the sales of both the PS2 and the PS3, in the first place.

You mean the quote from a guy who wasn't in charge when the system came out that was said two years after it was launched while Sony was going through a painful reorganization process?

Yeah, the quote from the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment. But what does he know, right?

No, because the Wii's success is basically irrelevant to this discussion. It won't be repeated, and even Nintendo has acknowledged that.

The Wii's success is irrelevant when discussing whether the PS3 could be considered a flop, when the Wii is arguably what influenced the current console market more than any of its competitors (going by MS and Sony both going for counter measures like Kinect and Move)? Also, how does repeating that success make any difference whatsoever on the PS3's position on the console market?

Anyways, my personal perceiption of these things is fairly simple. Sony went from being the top dog to playing catch up. Argue all you want, that's the current situation. Whether it's a freak occurance or not, Nintendo made the best selling system for this generation by making the right decisions, Sony didn't and MS arguably didn't, either.

I'd say that the Wii basically shows two things quite clearly: One, it's not about processing power and hardcore gamers only. Two, avoiding competition by altering your product is quite a good idea. Avoiding competition seems to make a very decent reason to not throw a PS4 on the market when MS is about to release a NextBox. Sony and MS have been following Nintendo's lead to an extend already, anyways, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a change in strategy regarding the competition, either.

I suppose. I just don't see why they are going to not allow a person that wants to play Call of Duty with a PS3-style controller or play GT with a DFGT on a next generation system that may make the games we have now better. Some people will still want it the old-fashioned way, which if they aren't releasing a console in the form of a PS4, they will be forgetting their roots by not allowing that to be so.

I doubt that they would actually try and deny that sort of oldschool gaming. But it would make sense to not release a console until they're able to satisfy both markets to a higher degree than they are able to right now, with Move.

This makes me think that the PS3 isn't such a flop, but it wasn't brilliant either, the first two years for the PS3 were dreadful as their game's library was pretty dead, but comparing it to how the market was back at those days makes me think that the PS3 is doing fairy well, I think that the console should stick around for two or three years until there is a clear picture of where will be the money and how will be the most viable structures and systems(who knows, maybe the next PS can be a home computer rather than a game console, or a dedicated system, no one knows really).

This, in my opinion, might very well be why there Sony said that they aren't going to announce the PS4 any time soon. I do think that we already have some huge indicators to where the gaming industry is headed, with the casual market and micro transactions being the most noticible trends, but Nintendo and MS duking it out with the Wii U and the NextBox might give a very good indication for what approach to take on Sony's part.

 

[Tornado]

I'd rather say compared to the freak occurence that was the PS2's success. That's why I compared the sales of both the PS2 and the PS3, in the first place.

PS2 wasn't a freak occurrence. It was Sony coming on the market with basically no competition for the first 3 years of its life before publishers started throwing their weight behind the original XBox, and even at that point the console was still getting far more exclusives than either other system.

Yeah, the quote from the CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment. But what does he know, right?

Absolutely nothing in regards to the original intended purpose of the PS3, which is what we were discussing.

The Wii's success is irrelevant when discussing whether the PS3 could be considered a flop?

Yes.

And the stuff I excised from your post is similarly meaningless because that is just Sony and Microsoft jumping on a gravy train when the Wii itself was beginning to die a horrible death.

Also, how does repeating that success make any difference whatsoever on the PS3's position on the console market?

Because the PS4 and Xbox 3 won't have to deal with similar competition, so Sony doesn't have to go nuts trying to Copy-Paste Nintendo.

 

[CAM]

I was under the impression that despite the massive sales of the Wii and other motion gaming devices, that many of those buyers were dissatisfied with the product they received, myself being one of them. I would imagine that satisfaction rates would be higher for MS and Sony consoles than Nintendo's products. With that logic, I'd imagine it'd be smarter for MS and Sony to pursue controller gaming (higher satisfaction) than motion gaming (lower satisfaction), especially since the first wave of curious motion gaming "suckers" has already been duped. I hope they don't pursue said Barnum effect of motion gaming, and go with the tried and true method that has made money already.

 

[Luminis]

PS2 wasn't a freak occurrence. It was Sony coming on the market with basically no competition for the first 3 years of its life before publishers started throwing their weight behind the original XBox, and even at that point the console was still getting far more exclusives than either other system.

Which, in my opinion, would be fairly similar to what we've seen wiith the Wii. With the differences being that the PS2 had no competition and the Wii avoided it by shooting for a different market.

Absolutely nothing in regards to the original intended purpose of the PS3, which is what we were discussing.

Any word on what that originial intended purpose was, though?

And the stuff I excised from your post is similarly meaningless because that is just Sony and Microsoft jumping on a gravy train when the Wii itself was beginning to die a horrible death.

Given that Kinect games seem to seel decently, it doesn't even seem like that#s been the worst idea ever.

Because the PS4 and Xbox 3 won't have to deal with similar competition, so Sony doesn't have to go nuts trying to Copy-Paste Nintendo.

We'll see about that, depending on how well the Wii U does.

I was under the impression that despite the massive sales of the Wii and other motion gaming devices, that many of those buyers were dissatisfied with the product they received, myself being one of them. I would imagine that satisfaction rates would be higher for MS and Sony consoles than Nintendo's products. With that logic, I'd imagine it'd be smarter for MS and Sony to pursue controller gaming (higher satisfaction) than motion gaming (lower satisfaction), especially since the first wave of curious motion gaming "suckers" has already been duped. I hope they don't pursue said Barnum effect of motion gaming, and go with the tried and true method that has made money already.

You know, I think that GTPlanet is a place that usually attracts a more 'hardcore' crowd, which the Wii doesn't seem to be focused on, so it does seem logical that people around here wouldn't be too pleased with it.

However, I'd say that companies like Sony or MS are most likely to just look at sales figures and draw their conclusions based on those. Frankly, who cares about satisfaction rates when your sales are through the roof, anyways?

Me, I'd never be content with a game that makes me jump around in front of my TV screen. Just not my cup of tea. But it seels like well.

Just like I'd never want to buy an iPhone, because I'd be pretty displeased with something as unflexible as the closed system that is iOS compared to Android, but Apple is still dominating the smart phone market like it's nobody's business. Kinda hard for me to get my head around, but it works.

 

[CAM]

I just hope that motion gaming isn't the future. I know very few people that like it, and I would be very upset if the console as we knew it ceased to exist.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

Everyone calling the PS3 a flop compared to the 360 should see the failure rates. At one point the failure rate for the 360 was 54%, at the same time the ps3 was 10%.

Also I hope that Sony makes a dualshock 4 for the PS4 instead of focusing of motion controls.

I'm sure they will, but they probably will make a lot of stuff motion capable.

 

[Akira AC]

I just hope that motion gaming isn't the future. I know very few people that like it, and I would be very upset if the console as we knew it ceased to exist.

Nah, motion gaming isn't the future, on thing that games like MW2 did back in 2009 was to focus the mainstream market into more hardcore games(subsequently such thing made the Wii starts to fall back, apart from the stronger games library that were pouring back at those days which made casual focus more into hardcore, sounds weird but it is the way it was).

If something, the Wii worked out similarly to the IPad and IOS devices these days, and its work is make a gimmick very popular. After 30 or so years of controlled based gaming the Wii was shock, however since the game experience is broken by the lack of accuracy and responsiveness by the Wii controller this concept dry out quite quickly. Is obvious that the PSMove or whatever it was was trying to get behind that accuracy and responsiveness business, but given that the people realized that games loose some of its quality and immersion of their "motion" mode it is clear that such thing is not they way for an entertaining experience. Kinect by the other hand try to have a new approach, sadly the concept itself is pretty flawed(if not, very problematic), a lot of people tent to show Kinect sales numbers but those numbers are mostly attributed to the bundles and the re-design of the console itself.

As far as controllers/input devices go I will say that maybe a new thing that might work is what the PSVita is trying to implement, a touch pad surface mixed with a button layout, I believe that this concept is pretty promising(WiiU seems to go into a similar direction) and such thing might probably make the new controller scheme for home consoles (touchpad surfaces to remap special actions/buttons might work for certain games like strategy games). That could be a gimmick that might get the appeal of both casual/hardcore if implemented correctly(i.e. and strategy game using the WiiU controller might be very adequate if implemented correctly).

 

[Luminis]

I just hope that motion gaming isn't the future. I know very few people that like it, and I would be very upset if the console as we knew it ceased to exist.

Well, I do think that stuff like motion gaming kinda is part of what leads us to the future, but I don't think it will replace traditional gaming anytime soon. I think both kinds of gaming can easily coexist.

Those probably don't include holiday season numbers. Unfortunately due to sales and package options the 360 outsold the ps3, 10 million units to roughly 3 million.

Kotaku has reported MS's announcement of 66 million Xbox 360 units sold on the 9th of January, whereas Sony's own websites states that 55.5 million PS3s have been sold, so you're right, those figures are kinde outdated.

Kotaku also states that 18 million Kinect units have been sold, which kinda goes to show how important those things are becoming

 

[CAM]

One intriguing question: If GT6 may not be a PS3 title, and it is already confirmed to be in development, then what could the PS4 be and how would it function if it isn't traditionally controller-wheel based? I don't exactly see how GT can be made into a motion-centered game efficiently.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

I wouldn't put too much stock into Microsofts "announcement. They've been engaging in a practice known as channel stuffing for years. You flood the pipeline and make it look like your sales figures are higher than they are. They've done it with the XBox, the Zune, and with the Windows Phone. Besides, what did you think they were going to say?