Qbert, excluding PS2 is ridiculous.
Secondly, you and I agree that last gen, Sony's brand name is what saved them from dying completely, but that doesn't actually prove anything about this gen.
My point stands unchallenged. The brand name is valuable but to what extend is pure subjective speculation, and nothing more... but what last gen DID prove, is that even without a well-known/globally established and matured brand, if you make the best product, you can win the biggest gaming market in the world.
In any case, even if you did 'disqualify PS2' (which is totally ridiculous), PS1 sold over 100 million, and it was Sony's FIRST stab at the games console market. PS3 did worse than their first console. That's really sad, and shows that their brand wasn't enough to make their inferior product stand up against a relative new-comer to the industry in the biggest gaming market in the world.
So again, you can keep telling yourself that it's Sony's brand that's the number one contributor to their success this gen, but that's just patently unsubstantiated, and it's certainly not what industry analysts have suggested...
PS1: over 100 million
PS2: nearly 160 million
PS3: 80 million
Xbox Prime: around 25 million
Xbox 360: 80 million
Xbox One: Beating same lifetime sales as Xbox 360...
Obviously, Microsoft is in a great position. Sony lost massive market share last gen (they even did worse last gen than they did with their first foray into the console industry), but this gen, they're doing great. It really is a good time for both companies... but Microsoft's upward trajectory speaks well for the company generation over generation... the same cannot be said for Sony's position, with such a massive blunder last gen.