(Business Perspective) Does MS really need Xbox Hardware?

[DonFerrari]

Azzanation said:

Machiavellian said:

Naw, Sony would still consider MS a threat no matter if they sold hardware or not.  If you had a chance to totally nuke MS ability to gain any leverage why would you give them any outs.  You kicking their butts on hardware and software sold, there is no incentive for Sony to let them compete on their hardware with their services when Sony is trying to do the same thing but at a slower pace.  There is no scenario if I am Sony that I would ever give MS any leverage that can come back and slap them in the face when you can just say no and worry about nothing.  The 3D chess move for Sony is a "Hell NO, go fish" because at the end of the day, their is no incentive for them to help MS.

No they wont. How would MS be a threat to Sony by offering games to the PS platform that will boost PS console sales even further and Sony profits off? MS don't need to put subs on PS either, they can just use Sony's hardware to sell digital software that also makes Sony money. You really need to learn to play chess as well as know what you are talking about. Sony make money on Xbox games sold on PS. More games sold = more profits. Sony and MS don't hate each other like you think to believe. It's a business not a sport. There is no plastic trophy at the end of each generation.

Pemalite said:

They didn't at the time. Correct. I never said they did.

However, they do exist now. And they are the competitor to Steam.

Every market needs competition.

The current Console industry is full of bad competition. Xbox hardware is not needed.

Sony doesn't do anything to ban minecraft or any other MS owned title from their store, they even gave some in PS+. So yes depending on how the GP is proposed Sony may accept, on the ABK case it seems like MS offered the GP and Sony was willing to accept if MS allowed PS+ on their end and them things didn't worked out.