Offering business sense is not being childish. If I were a gaming store and sold gaming consoles, I would also like to sell the software with it. After all, gaming stores sell gaming products including software. If I were selling Xbox Ones,  I would like to have a healthy repeat customer base  to come back and buy the games for the console to help support my business, employees, and family. If there is  less of a chance of a repeat customer base  for a particular product, that product is of a higher risk factor than, let's say, the Nintendo switch or the Sony PlayStation 4. It's called "running a smart business."

Being childish is being spiteful over a retailer not favoring your console choice.

The physical vs digital debate was done long time ago, the only thing I can say is that I'm barely 25 and sometimes I feel like those oldschool dinos, man.

"Digital games will be cheaper because .... and all other stuff. Now I buy cheaper retail games and sell it for 3/4 price....

Yes removing their main console seller and one that sell a lot of SW on their store and don't have policies against their way of doing business is just the same as removing X1... and sure the ad hominem seal the deal.

Fair point. Let me put it this way. The Wii U flopped and its games are definitely to blame, but Nintendo has been good about keeping a loyal fanbase. There were games on the Wii U that the Nintendo fan liked, even if it couldn't appeal to a wider market. This is also why Switch can succeed because Nintendo's games do attract people when the company has their shit together. Nintendo held on to their core, but Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing that. The base seems to be gone. 

And to answer your second question, it depends. Strong games always drive system sales and one game can change everything. The problem Microsoft has is they didn't create another hit after Halo or Gears. Rare never released a major success on XBox and their other studios didn't do much besides Fabel. The Kinect experiment may have also hurt them because their studios were focused on making Kinect games rather than the next big series. So when Microsoft tries to go away from Kinect, there's nothing to go back to. Sony's line-up isn't great, but at least its something and at least the company has a long history in games. With Microsoft, the rats all fled the sinking ship. The Wii U kept Nintendo diehards, but I can't say XBox One kept the Microsoft diehards. That's why I think this project won't work. 

As an aside, this looks like experimentation. It seems Microsoft is more looking into alternatives rather than trying to save the XBox One or try to relaunch with a new system. 

Even with WiiU bombing hard Nintendo IPs sold higher on its 15M than MS could sell Halo and Gears on its 35M userbase.

MS, Sony, and Sega have never beaten Nintendo in 1st party in attach rates.

Because of this, your argument is irrelevant. The people buying Wii U's primarily just wanted Nintendo games.

People buying Nintendo HW primarily wants Nintendo games =p which in itself shows that it isn't exactly the quality of Nintendo games (which is more or less constantly high) that make their console sales grow or diminish.

"Fair point, now here's my convoluted argument."

You say Nintendo's games are to blame for Wii U's failure, is that typo? The problem wasn't the games, the problem was the hardware/controller. Wii U was expensive and the tablet control was dumb as a primary controller. If they stuck with Wiimotes it would have been cheaper and sold better.

I've had this discussion with people, its often argued the problem with X1 is it lacks a huge new IP. N64 had Goldeneye. Xbox had Halo and Fable. Xbox 360 had Gears of War. Wii U had Splatoon. However, X1's 35 million sales and growing means it has crushed N64, OG Xbox, and WIi U in spite of lacking a huge IP. As for Xbox 360, that console thrived thanks to the failure of PS3 and that lead to a plethora of support.

The reason X1 struggling today is because mistakes at launch, that shifted the momentum back to PlayStation. Bascially, Sony regained it momentum that was lost from PS3. Regardless what MS does and regardless if they get a great selling new IP, they still have to compete with the momentum of PS4. Even if 10 or 20 million people buy a X1 to play some HUGE NEW IP, it would still be way behind PS4. This is why your argument holds no water.

You basically praise Wii U for maintaining die hard fans, meanwhile the X1 crushed it in sales. That tells me the die hard fans don't matter as much as the masses. People buy X1 because it has large library of notable games AND notable exclusives.

What is your perception of saving Xbox? If its profitable and has a viable userbase, it doesn't need saving per se. Efforts are clearly being made to grow the userbase as well. The X1X just released, the Xbox One S is generally competitively priced, numerous exclusives are coming this year, and numerous more are planned. Realistically, what more do you expect?

Uhm... I wasn't arguing the problem was Nintendo's games. The tablet control was a terrible idea and I believe that alone killed the Wii U.

Again, the same Wii U console instead using WIimotes as its primary controller would have been more successful AND cheaper.

That's not what the big box guys have said. They're totally against it.