I think I agree with your full comment, but just to reiterate: It's completely fine to talk about console sales, heck that's mostly what this site is for. But I just find it to be one of the least compelling (and particularly when people use themselves as an example, disingenuous) arguments. It just doesn't really add up to that many sales, I think, and when you follow through with the logical it isn't really sound.

Oh please. You're not an intellectual for pointing out that a company has a "narrative" of success to sell, and i'm not ignorant to that. But that doesn't change the fact that they do make more from the combination of Windows and Xbox, and that's not just a "narrative", that's making more money and being more successful. 

"I'm one of the people that would just buy it on steam. I guess that makes me one of the few you mentioned. But I'm not interested in most of MS' exclusives. Forza is just a racing game, and I don't play sports or racing games, unless there's enough unique elements to make it more than just a sim (Think Mutant League Football, Mario Kart, or Mario Tennis.). Gears is just another bland shooter in a sea of bland shooters. Halo stopped being good after Reach. I suppose there's still Sunset Overdrive, but I'm not sure if that is ever coming to PC."

The only Microsoft exclusives that are on steam are their indie titles, which conveniently is probably the only titles you are interested in. Everything else is Windows Store Exclusive, which means they make 100% of the profit. 

"Ok, why isn't this an argument for Xbox failing? Yes, it's true that most people that bought an Xbox aren't going to get a PC. But that doesn't invalidate the following argument:

[argument]Microsoft has failed to provide enough exclusives for their platform, and making their few exclusives available on PC has made Xbox less appealing to PC users. The combined effect of this (few exclusives + those few exclusives being available on PC) has drastically lessened XB1 console sales.[/argument]"

The first part is a completely valid argument and one I agree with. The second argument isn't entirely invalid, it's just mostly invalid because A ) It still makes Microsoft a profit at the end of the day B ) Most of the people who use the argument were never interested in either an Xbox, Windows 10 PC, or a Microsoft game to begin with and C ) Microsoft's Gaming Division as a whole is more important than a console war, and that's how they're going to expand their game division. 

"Most of the people MS is selling consoles to aren't going to get a PC (or a PS4 for that matter), because the Xbox brand is so weak at this point that MS is only selling to those types of people. If Xbox were a stronger brand then XB1 would sell to PS4 owners, as well as PC owners, in addition to selling to the single console buying Dads, Teens, and Kids. "

That's actually a fair point and I agree with it, but here's the thing: There are a TON of PC gamers who would never touch a console, more so than this supposed large crossover potential. If Microsoft addressed the issue with their games declining in popularity and made some changes to their PC division, it would almost certainly be more profitable than even an alternate dimension where the Xbox just was a very successful console. 

And lastly, to address your almost patriotic feel about how VGChartz discusses ONLY console units! and ONLY game sales! = that's a big reason why the site is becoming less relevant. Digital sales are increasing at such a rate that the tracking on this site can be anywhere from extremely helpful to almost entirely worthless, and I respect the people who put time and effort into predicting physical copies sold, but acting like sticking to the norms set up is inherently good is just ridiculous.

By the way, you do know the next generation Xbox was announced at E3 2018 ... right? Maybe you should spend a little more time keeping up to date. 

lmao at some of these posts.

Everything from marketing, to PR spin. How is investing in first party studios, and even naming their next console any sort of abstract idea of spin. Yes, they have to prove themselves with the new studios, but ffs give them some credit. It's not like they are going to show everything they invested in right now. If you follow anything MS at all, their E3 was a showing for their dedication for the future.

Going from 84 million units sold to 45-55 million units sold isn't already a massive flop? Buying numerous studios is something that software publishers do as well. Sega recently bought all of Atlus. Does that mean Sega has plans for Dreamcast 2? I guess they have said that they are making more consoles, and will continue to push the benchmark for consoles. But I'm still waiting until I see it at E3 (as a prototype product being shown off on the floor with a release window), because you never know what they could be working on. For all we know they could launch Xbox 2 as a "console" that also has full blown windows, and is basically just a Windows PC in a box. Sort of like how Steam did a bunch of PCs a few years ago and called them Steam machines. In other words I'm saying that they may just be working on a PC/Xbox hybrid, and that may be their "next console" for all we know. So I'm waiting to see. 

I do not care TBH. As you said, it is win - win for MS. It is mainly just a console war thing. The bigher concern for XBox fans is if their PC service is profitable far beyond what their consoles bring in, who is to say that they do not just go the steam route? But that is another topic entirely and I do not personally see them taking that behemoth head on.

The big thing that leaves my X1 as a netflix machine in the living room is not that the exclusives are also on PC. It is because they do not have exclusives that are worth my time IMO.

Are the games bad? Some are, some are ok. But the problem I run into is I am not investing my time in a mediocre game (IMO) when there is a God of War on Playstation or a Breath of the Wild on Switch. It could even be a 3rd party game like Red Dead Redemption 2, which I can play on my PS4, that claims my time. At the end of the day, XBox exclusives outside of Forza Horizons and Sunset Overdrive are rubbish compared to what I can play everywhere else (IMO).

I got my X1 for Sunset Overdrive, Scalebound, Fable, Titanfall, and Quantum Break.

Sunset is irrelevant today, but this is one of the few exclusives I enjoyed on the console.
Titanfall is now a multiplat series.
Quantum Break ending up sucking.
Scalebound was cancelled.
Fable was cancelled, and even that looked lacking (I am just a huge Fable fan).

Nothing they have shown me since looks even remotely interesting. So for me, PC has nothing to do with it.

But I agree, I have seen that PC port nonsense used all the time when, the fact is, the people saying it do not even game on a PC. Anything to fuel the "console wars" I guess.

First of all, I didn't say anywhere that this change should be industry wide, or that we should all start judging companies like I suggest we judge Microsoft. I think it's well known for instance that a subscription service like PlayStation Now is never going to be as important as Xbox Game Pass, or that Sony is ever going to have as good a grasp on the PC market as Microsoft (until we, possibly, get a no-console future some years down the line). 

Secondly, if anyone after this is just going to post "But but but it's a PR spin!" just don't post at all. That's a very lazy way of looking at it, because it's not a spin. Microsoft IS making more money with this business model than if they just kept Xbox One going in the direction it is now. They might have a couple thousand console sales more, but the software sales would be significantly down to the point it wouldn't be worth it. Just look at Cuphead, when that game originally released I believe the ratio was something like 75% PC to Xbox. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say not even 10% of those people would have bought an Xbox for Cuphead. 

Now, does the integration of both Xbox One and Windows 10 create convenient PR capabilities? Absolutely! Does Microsoft have a track record of convenient PR ... "spin"? Yes, all companies do, but because of Microsoft's blunders they might have possibly the worst this generation. And I've called them out on it before. But making more profit is not a "PR spin". 

People are just acting like I said "It's ok that Microsoft isn't trying out all with Xbox because they can sell software on PC", which isn't true. It's far from the truth, I think there's a ton of things you can criticize Microsoft for. At the same time, the ideal world for Microsoft is everyone buying an Xbox, and I just don't think that's possible ... for this generation at least, it's far too late. They're probably making more money off this than they would have just pushing the Xbox One extra hard, because even with all their multi-million dollar marketing deals with third parties, and even with their many developers, Xbox sales still slowed down. They can't just pull new projects out of their ass, and they can't buy every third party game out there (and even if they did, the investment vs. reward would be small - just look at Rise of the Tomb Raider). 

This is probably the easiest way to be profitable, and because the Gaming Division at Microsoft is just that, a division, it needs to prove itself by maintaining higher software sales. This allows them to invest more into games than they would otherwise. 

This complaint makes no sense. "Why should I buy an Xbox One when I can play a game on a PC" is an entirely valid question from a consumer's point of view. As a PC gamer, buying an Xbox is completely off my radar.

From Microsoft's standpoint, that means I still have the potential to be a customer but a much less valuable one. They still want to pull as many people into their ecosystem as possible but I doubt anyone will pretend that they're doing as well on that front as they'd like. Even if I end up buying a game through the Windows Store, they certainly won't be extracting the same kind of fees from me as on an Xbox console and I won't be sealed in a walled garden that they control, especially relative to third party content.

Seriously, Xbox isn't about games, it's about establishing a controlled environment for subscriptions and services. It's not going away. They're just trying to expand the scope of their ecosystem and perhaps bring in revenue that would otherwise be out of reach.

Also, "you can't bring up this point because it's console warz lol" is just defensive posturing and an attempt to poison the well instead of actually composing an argument.

In my view, MS has bigger problem with Steam than with Sony...they know how to deal with Sony, they just royally fucked up this gen and couldn't fix what that fool Mattrick got them into, but they're still trying to find a good answer to combat Steam.

It's like you read enough to argue, but not enough to know what you're arguing with.

I mean your third comment is something I agree with and it's a large basis of my point, the fourth comment is something I didn't even say, and the first comment just seems largely ignorant.

The basis of any argument can be sound by itself, but that's the problem. Bad arguments are arguments that are built on until they just largely become irrelevant or useless. In this case, sure, there are some people (including myself even!) who might buy an Xbox if it had awesome exclusives. Those people are by far a minority, and the potential of a PC gamer buying an Xbox is much lower than a PC gamer buying software that releases on their preferred platform. Beyond that, this play anywhere idea wasn't born out of nowhere, it was obviously in-part a reaction to the fact that Microsoft was spending money on a gaming division that was seeing less returns because of the Xbox One. To be honest, considering how much money they dumped into third party exclusives and third party marketing deals - and how little of that money they got back, I don't think there was any other way for them to make a bigger profit than to increase the division to the PC platform. It helps fund more games and it expands the division which gives more console exclusives.

In an ideal world sure, it would be great if things could be linear and not overly complex. That's just not the case. If everything went right with the Xbox, maybe a lot of these arguments would make sense, but that's a completely alternate universe and therefor they don't. Ironically it's the arguments for play anywhere that aren't in a vacuum, whereas the arguments against it are largely fueled by old mentalities

To put it in a way that makes sense: I doubt the lead 3:1 lead PS4 has on Xbox in Europe has almost anything to do with the PC at all. That's a much more important thing to figure out than how to get PC gamers to buy an Xbox, particularly when you can reach far more PC gamers by not trying to convince them at all.

The first part is a completely valid argument and one I agree with. The second argument isn't entirely invalid, it's just mostly invalid because A ) It still makes Microsoft a profit at the end of the day B ) Most of the people who use the argument were never interested in either an Xbox, Windows 10 PC, or a Microsoft game to begin with and C ) Microsoft's Gaming Division as a whole is more important than a console war, and that's how they're going to expand their game division. 

My argument is simply an argument for why there are less Xboxes selling. That's it. Maybe other people are trying to take that argument to a different conclusion, and I agree that that would be a nonsensical conclusion. If people want to argue that MS is losing money, because they aren't selling as many Xboxes, and that it's because of their weak exclusives, then that isn't entirely sound. Why? Because we can't look at MS' gaming division PnL Sheets to see if they are really losing money or not. And because, it is not outside the realm of plausibility that they are making more money than if they were just a really successful console maker. Unlikely? Yes. Unlikely to the point of being implausible? No. 

If Microsoft addressed the issue with their games declining in popularity and made some changes to their PC division, it would almost certainly be more profitable than even an alternate dimension where the Xbox just was a very successful console. 

Of course it would. But that has more to do with how selling digital games, is a massive moneygrab. Digital games don't have to pay console royalties, don't have to pay for advertising (the storefront is all the adverts you need, don't have to pay the Brick and Mortar store, don't have to pay for packaging/shipping/printing, don't have to compete with used games market and don't have to take the financial hit of already produced copies not selling.) And yet publishers continue to ask for a full $60 price tag for digital games during the crucial first two weeks of sales. IMO selling a digital game for $60 is a disgusting rip-off and a grossly anti-consumerist policy. Digital-Only sales could be 1/2 as much as Physical sales, and still make the same amount of money in the long run.

This is because most developers are lucky to pocket $10 to $20 for each physical sale, but most developers get to pocket $40 from a digital sale. Nintendo, and Sony first party titles are the exception to this, because they are self publishers, own the console, and have shipping/distribution lines already set up. So they pocket $30 to $40 out of their first party physical game sales, that go for $60. And since Nintendo/Sony often use their own in-house engines, and have other ways to streamline production pipelines, they often make even more money due to lessened dev costs. Nintendo for example is selling us 1st party games with largely 2013 levels of technical quality for a full $60.  MS may also own their console, and be a self publisher, but unlike Nintendo they try to make games with cutting edge tech and dev costs soar. Unlike Sony they don't sell enough console units so their 3rd party publishing revenue and hardware production cost offsets, and drags down their first party revenue. Also, they are probably really wasteful when it comes to using dev resources. 

And lastly, to address your almost patriotic feel about how VGChartz discusses ONLY console units! and ONLY game sales! = that's a big reason why the site is becoming less relevant. Digital sales are increasing at such a rate that the tracking on this site can be anywhere from extremely helpful to almost entirely worthless, and I respect the people who put time and effort into predicting physical copies sold, but acting like sticking to the norms set up is inherently good is just ridiculous.

I agree, but that's a good reason why I'm here. I don't want to talk to the iPhone kids, or the casuals. Yeah, eventually the PC casual crowd will win out, and everything will go digital-only, and Nintendo will even have to close their doors. Eventually everything will be "LIvE SerViCes" and most games will be crap with MTS, fee to pay, oversimplified handholding game design, etc. Imagine Shadow of War but with a monthly service charge of $20 a month to play, and MTS, and even grosser padding late game. 

The golden and silver ages of gaming are over. Games are slowly entering the same age that movies and music are currently in. The age where everything gets dumbed down, to appeal to everybody, and genuinely good content is rarer and rarer. Movies keep getting flashier, but the plots suffer. Songs keep getting louder, but lose their tibre, range, and nuance. 

Nope. 45-55 million is still a viable audience.

The Vita wasn't a failure because it sold significantly less than PSP. Vita would have been a great success with half of PSP's userbase. Wii U could have been successful with half of the Wii's userbase. The movie Solo wasn't a failure because it made less money than other Star Wars movie, it was just a flop. Understand?

Sega bought Atlus well after they went 3rd party (around 2013). Meanwhile the Saturn and Dreamcast only sold like 10 million units, which is why they went 3rd party (around 2000).

I predict the next Xbox technically will have Windows, but it won't function like a Windows PC. Which would be a great idea, the Xbox should be capable of running Windows software easily for developers.