Xbox One; was it a successful console?

[EricHiggin]

Azzanation said:

EricHiggin said:

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.

You do understand that the XSS was years in the making way before we even heard about it right? They didn't just make the Series S yesterday and wanted to hide it so the X can sell, the S was to support low income customers and it was meant to do well for them from the very beginning.

Hardware is still a part of Xbox, it doesn't have to be the main focus of the brand for them to still care to move units. Its that they don't want to disclose sales figures for fanboys to compare when one company focuses heavily on hardware while the other doesn't. 

And don't worry i am not taking these posts as jabs to Xbox, i am just justifying misinterpretations, which happens a lot on this site.  

I dunno, can the APU manufacturer make new different chips overnight for MS if they want a new model? 

Didn't both PS and MS have multiple mid gen console designs ready for Pro and X, in which they decided which one was best for them at the time and picked that one, while tossing the others? No way they wasted all that time, effort, and money to just toss the rest, right?

Well if the competition is giving out numbers even when they're not strong in comparison to MS and what they may find more important, it's hard not to wonder why MS isn't doing the same. Plus I thought MS said they aren't directly competing with anyone anyway, so who cares if the numbers are being compared?

Ok I won't worry.