This.

The truth of the matter is that Microsoft has a monumental track record when it comes to over-promising and under-delivering. To suggest that they don't care about selling consoles is not true. I'd like to hear them say that to their investors. It seems like so many people lack the basic ability to be skeptical when being fed information from a source that is trying to market their own product. Of course they are going to try and hype it up. But the amount of bullshit Microsoft has tried to pass off as legit should be downright illegal.

Does anyone remember Project Natal? Jesus, all of their tech demonstrations were entirely acted out. I still remember that tech demo where the girl had a conversation with Milo, and Milo responded back to her in a non-computerized voice. As though Microsoft had created an AI capable of understanding and holding a conversation with someone without sounding robotic. And this was a decade ago. Even today, the very best in digital voice synthesis (Siri, Alexa) is still easy to distinguish from an actual human, and they are nowhere near capable of retaining memories and having an emotional conversation as depicted in the Milo demo.

I dunno, but I've always sort of noticed a layer of BS when it comes to their marketing.

I guess it all depends on what you consider a traditional console. If Nvidia launches a 40Tflops console that cost $2000, would that be a traditional console? Imo a traditional console is something that's designed for mass market penetration with a tolerable price and has games that're specifically designed for that platform. We don't know the price of Series X yet, but if it's $599 or more I'm sure MS knows it will never sell 100m units. 

So 100m units is the deciding factor if a console is a traditional console?

Well, I guess in that case Sega Master System, Genesis, DreamCast, NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, Wii U, PS3, Xbox and Xbox 360 weren't traditional consoles either.

It's not speculation when everything I said were just quotes from Phil Spencer. These are all facts

• MS wants to be the netflix of gaming and says we won't be playing on dedicated consoles/ pc anymore in about 10 years time.
• MS Does not care if you buy the Series X as they can reach their business goal regardless, which is building GP subscibers for their glorious Cloud future 
• They want to reach as broad a audience as possible with GP and are therefore making all their 1st party games cross-gen and scalable across their family of devices

The only thing we don't know with 100% certainty is how the games will scale. But using the lowest common tech denominator makes the most sense if they are aiming to reach as many gamers as possible. That's also just a scientific fact. Unless, of course, they are planning to sell 100m Series X's and sell it for $399. So maybe we should just wait till they announce a price, because then things will probably become a lot more clearer.

And yet Steam is one of the best consumer friendly gaming stores in this buisness.. id trust Valves vision over the console market.

That's what's unsettling about the whole situation. Many people like you who condone flodding the market with garbage products, calling it "consumer friendly", paving the way for low(est) effort high yield business. 

Why else would Google consider some indie trash would be worthy timed exclusives.

This.

The truth of the matter is that Microsoft has a monumental track record when it comes to over-promising and under-delivering. To suggest that they don't care about selling consoles is not true. I'd like to hear them say that to their investors. It seems like so many people lack the basic ability to be skeptical when being fed information from a source that is trying to market their own product. Of course they are going to try and hype it up. But the amount of bullshit Microsoft has tried to pass off as legit should be downright illegal.

Does anyone remember Project Natal? Jesus, all of their tech demonstrations were entirely acted out. I still remember that tech demo where the girl had a conversation with Milo, and Milo responded back to her in a non-computerized voice. As though Microsoft had created an AI capable of understanding and holding a conversation with someone without sounding robotic. And this was a decade ago. Even today, the very best in digital voice synthesis (Siri, Alexa) is still easy to distinguish from an actual human, and they are nowhere near capable of retaining memories and having an emotional conversation as depicted in the Milo demo.

I dunno, but I've always sort of noticed a layer of BS when it comes to their marketing.