Xbox One; was it a successful console?

[EricHiggin]

Azzanation said:

EricHiggin said:

I do believe this. Why didn't MS show off the XBSS first? Why did they market XBSX hardcore for like 6 months before more quietly announcing XBSS closer to launch? Was MS trying to keep it out of the spotlight? Were they unsure about whether or not they even wanted to sell Lockhart as some articles suggested at that time?

When you take into account how much XBSX hardware has to go towards servers, obviously that takes away from it's consumer stock.

When you take manufacturing into account, especially the APU's, you can't make anywhere near the same amount of large chip dies for the XBSX.

The APU manufacturer has been booked solid and odds are that any openings get split between MS and PS if they even get any extra at all vs others.

MS couldn't sell as many XBSX's as they can XBSS's if they wanted to, assuming there was reasonable demand for the XBSS, which there does seem to be.

I also stated extremely early on that I thought replacing the XB1X with next gen hardware would be a smart move based on the MS roadmap at that time. Most people thought it was a crazy idea and would crash and burn or that it was flat out stupid and useless. Looks to be working pretty good right now doesn't it? Another gen like PS4 vs XB1 would not have been anywhere near as interesting don't you think?

Umm, MS are the ones who make the XSS, so of course they want to sell it. Why would any company make a product that they don't want to sell. They want to sell both the XSX and XSS.  

RolStoppable said:

Your profit/loss figure for the Xbox 360 looks off to me. It's as if you only counted its initial years and ignored that the volume of Xbox Live subscriptions gave it a few profitable years in the latter half of its lifecycle.

You have to stop talking about the Xbox Series X|S because it's pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Xbox One was a success. Microsoft began to change their business model exactly at the point when they realized that the Xbox One was not going to be a success. Or do you think otherwise?

It's of no use to keep citing things about the XSX|S and trying to apply its circumstances to a generation ago where Microsoft's mindset, approach and strategy was a very different one. The Xbox One has to be judged by the circumstances of its own time.

Of course i am not counting the Live subs, because MS does not disclose Live sub profits. Article below was created in 2013, at the end of the 360's life span. The 360 console itself lost $3b. The subs is what kept Xbox alive and is why the XB1 was suppose to be an always online console etc. The business model was changing until the uproar from the XB1 reveal, which led to MS to revert the system back into a basic gaming console. The Xbox model was changing way before Sony took the lead in sales in the 8th gen.. 

Xbox 360 and PS3 losses total $8 billion, ex-Sony employee paints grim future | VG247

Why should i stop talking about the Series X/S? Because it doesn't suit your console war logic? I linked you an article claiming MS don't care about sales, regardless if it was outselling the PS5 or not. If they don't care if they outsell the PS5, why would they care if they outsold the PS4? Ill link it again in case you forgot to open it.. I would like to know your source to back up your claims.

hil Spencer Won't Disclose Xbox Series X|S Sales, Even if it Outsells PS5 (vgchartz.com)

Phil's Quote,

"I think the people who want to pit us against Sony based on who sold the most consoles lose the context of what gaming is about today," he added. "There are three billion people who play games on the planet today, but maybe [only] 200 million households that have a video game console. In a way, the console space is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the overall gaming pie."

MS stopped disclosing XB1 sale figures when Phil took over, and maybe, just maybe Phil doesn't give a damn about sales figures unlike his predecessor Don. Also sale figures stopped at a similar time we started seeing Xbox re-branded. When they started moving games to PC, that wasn't long into the generation when they started doing it. 

Well yes, once they finally officially announced XBSS, they clearly had decided to sell both. The article title below even shows that Lockhart hitting the market was in question. Also, if MS doesn't care like Apple about how different the products are, why market XBSS as 1440p when it's really a 1080p console? There's nothing wrong with 1080p, considering the next gen hardware is totally worth the $300 price tag for those who are ok with that resolution, which many still are. I would've bought one myself as a secondary console by now if it had a disc drive.

Microsoft’s cheaper next-gen “Lockhart” console is still in the pipeline according to new report - OnMSFT.com

"In a recent interview with The Verge, Xbox head Phil Spencer explained that the Xbox team had "a goal of having market success” with the next generation of consoles, and the cheaper Lockhart SKU may help with that."

Sounds like Phil really cares/cared about the hardware and wants/wanted it to be successful, in which case if Phil and MS don't care about HW sales and have moved on, why are they saying hardware success is/was a goal?

If MS doesn't want to show the numbers, even if they're combined, that's fine, but the public wanting to know the numbers, especially the more hardcore who want complete breakdowns, isn't surprising. If MS isn't willing to show the numbers after saying what they've said, then the public is entirely free to guess and have an opinion of what the reasons may be.

It seems to me as well, that you're taking these posts as hardcore shots against MS. I don't think anyone part of these 'branch posts' is or was trying to say MS sucks right now, in fact, I believe it's been clearly suggested they've been improving and are on a better path, since the topic is about XB1 and how well it did or didn't do. It's pretty hard to say that the new consoles aren't doing better in comparison as of now.