(Business Perspective) Does MS really need Xbox Hardware?

[Pemalite]

Azzanation said:

1) GamePass needs to be on more devices, not just Xbox and Cloud which is still under developed. Example: GP on Switch. That will boost sales significantly.

Gamepass appeals to Microsoft/Mature gamers primarily.
On a Nintendo console, Nintendo games like Mario, Pokemon, Zelda are what sells... Not so much Microsoft I.P like Doom.

- Gamepass is on PC and has literally no traction or users at all... So it's a little bit of a lie to assume, just because it's available, that it will accrue users.

I have already provided evidence that contradicts your claims anyway.

Azzanation said:

2) Epic is no where near Steam to influence the industry. Stop acting like services like Epic and UPlay make a difference, they dont. They may try to compete but they are so far behind the marketleader it does not matter. Only thing these competing services do is moneyhat and try to divide the PC audiences. 

Epic has a massive influence on the industry.
It is literally the engine technology that underpins the vast majority of modern gaming.

And again... I don't know why i need to repeat things several times, but Steam isn't -just- in competition with PC store clients, it's in competition with Xbox, Switch, Playstation, Android, iOS and more. It doesn't live in a vacuum.

Epic Game Store has also taken marketshare in the PC marketplace.

I have already provided evidence that contradicts your claims anyway.

Azzanation said:

3) I don't care what other industrys do. I am referring to the console industry which does not as much competition, it has enough with Sony and Nintendo. Most healthy industries are run by Duopolys. The console market isnt big enough for 3 competing platforms. Weather you agree to disagree, you are not changing my stance on that. History has proven time and time again, 3rd best selling platform exits.

Mate. The microchips that consoles are derived from are part of the console industry, you cannot exclude the literal technical underpinnings of console manufacturers because it contradicts your lie that competition doesn't result in price drops.

What kind of false logic and lies are you trying to push here? Start being honest and people will take you more seriously.
I have already provided evidence that contradicts you here anyway.

Console market has always had 3 competitors or more. Always. And it's been fine for half a century.

1st console generation: Magnavox, Atari and Coleco.
2nd console generation: Magnavox, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision.
3rd console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Atari.
4th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Atari, NEC, SNK.
5th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Atari, Panasonic (3do conglomerates of Panasonic, Sanyo, Creative, Goldstar).
6th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, Sony.
7th console generation: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
8th console generation: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
9th console generation: Microsoft, Sony and eventually Nintendo.

The 7th console generation was probably the best example of an evenly split generation with all manufacturers selling more than 70 million hardware units and every company was healthy.

The fact that the console marker has always had 3 or more entrants. (Granted, most were of limited success) showcases that it can support more than 3 companies.

Plus... With PC now encroaching on Nintendo's portable market, it's going to blur the lines even more between PC and consoles.

Azzanation said:

4) Cool story. Games can by made by ideas, funding and dreams. you dont need competition to make a video game.

Every product that sells to consumers is competing with another product.

You don't make money with just "ideas and dreams". - You actually need to compete, earning money isn't free or guaranteed.

Competition provides us with lower prices and more innovation, always has.