Quote:
Originally Posted by SackAttack
Dude, for the changes to be neutral, they would have to have a negligible effect. That means the people who were angry would have to still be angry and the people who were excited would have to still be excited. A neutral change cannot, by definition, change the mindset of the market.
Secondly, if the change IS 'neutral,' then it is neither good nor bad - in which case there is exactly zero reason to question whether it's a "good thing." If it's neutral, it doesn't hurt them, so who gives a fuck?
Sony can argue that they're leading the market. Sure. And that will matter to exactly nobody outside of fanboys for either side.
If you're arguing that the moves are neutral, there's no reason for you to be commenting on what it does to their contrast with Sony. If you're arguing that the moves are bad, then you're implying exactly what you say you aren't. You're certainly not arguing that the moves are good.
|
We're splitting hairs here. I'm arguing the net effect. Tthere's a positive on both sides. MS doesn't look nearly as bad on the indie front. Sony can argue a market leader position and that they weren't followers when making decisions on their console. Net result as you mention is that neither gained much in the exchange.
There's some perception on your part that I'm arguing that these small changes will flip the market on it's head. That's not the case. I'm a business and investment guy who finds these kinds of things fascinating and I love to talk about the minutia of it all. This is fantastic business analysis stuff, much like the last launch. People should enjoy discussing it.