I was hell bent on not giving it because he asked it in a confusing mess of a post.  I have been re-explaining the same thing with no results for how long now, and I'm getting tired now.  I honestly didn't realize that you didn't know it was a theory...   I thought that was implied.  

Based on...? You have to give me something, man, I have figures and everything to back up my point in case you disagreeeed! T__T

Anyway, I'll toss out some of my own reasonings to go with this. It IS pretty long, but I like to be thorough. x3 I'll split it into sections, in case for whatever reason you're finished reading a particular point partway through.

EDIT: The lines splitting the sections won't display. >< STARS IT IS!

***

Microsoft's pattern thus far with the Xbox One, largely, seems to contracting third-party developers to release exclusive titles, as their own Internal studios, lately anyway, don't seem nearly as robust as Sony's, and frankly seem to focus mostly on the aforementioned 'Sure-Sellers.' Ryse was Crysis, Sunset Overdrive by Insomiac, Remedy for Quantum Break, Respawn for Titanfall, etc. Platinum is doing that dragon-thingy game (name escapes me, too lazy to Google.) This could, again, change, but that is still something Microsoft needs to prove over the long haul, as their prior history does not support the idea of using their core studios to really 'branch out.'

(This might come across as snide, but I'm actually curious, what titles ARE Microsoft's internal studios confirmed to be working on that are new IPs? I thiiiink Project Spark is one, but not even super sure on that front.)

Either side of working with third party studios provides risks and costs- in the case of 'buying' an exclusive, the cost will rise dramatically the more units are being 'Locked Out' by the exclusivity deal, which might explain why Microsoft didn't bite the bullet and push for Titanfall to be a true-blue Xbox One exclusive, keeping it off PC and 360, which would have cost them LOTS more. (And though Microsoft is, yes, obscenely wealthy, they did get that way in part by NOT flinging money left and right, meaning while there is almost no limit to what they COULD spend, there is no doubt a very concrete limit as to what they WILL spend.) In the case of contracting a third party developer, if you do not own the IP, (and I don't believe Microsoft owns the Sunset Overdrive IP, but I don't know about the rest,) it makes it far easier for said developer to go multiplatform down the road, with their bigger, better sequel.

Just look at the situation with Metal Gear Solid, Kingdom Hearts, etc, etc. They might have been on Playstation consoles exclusively for a long time, but they were never owned by Sony, so there was nothing to keep them from going multiplat when their publishers saw the value of it. The more exclusives Microsoft contributes to that they can't lock down, the more likely these successful and established franchises will do what Bioshock and Mass Effect did; release, become super successful, and then go to Playstation next. Because, if nothing is legally stopping you from doubling your available market, or more... well, why wouldn't you?

*****

Finally, in addition to the aforementioned laziness-on-the-exclusives front, Microsoft does have a reputation of having their exclusives have an asterix beside it, the kind that leads to a footnote saying 'Also On PC,' more frequently than Sony's. Even core franchises haven't been unaffected, as Fable 3 is also available on PC. Granted, this could in part have been because the PS3 was probably a NIGHTMARE to port from, (god knows it was a nightmare to port to) but right now, a PC gamer who knows this might look at both platforms and figure; 'Well, chances are I'll be missing out on more stuff if I get an Xbox One, cause I'll probably get to play a fair number of their exclusive stuff on PC anyway.'

Whether it turns out to be correct or not, at the moment it's simply pattern recognition. It's another bad habit Microsoft made last generation that they need to break this one.

*****

Please note, this is all subject to change. Heck, Sony could grow mustache-twiddling evil when they get back on top, go nuts porting their exclusives, while Microsoft becomes the bastion of keeping their titles on their platform. (Granted, the latter seems... unlikely...) But it's stuff that would need to change, and change far more dramatically than it currently has, to really sway public opinion. And even if Sony does go to evil ways if they 'win,' there's literally no reason right now to think Microsoft won't as well, because they didn't seem terribly altruistic the last time they were winning. We need to get a bit further past the honeymoon period to really confirm either way.

Sony has been very slow to improve the platform, I agree. But it's probably for the same reason that Microsoft was glacier-slow to improve the negative policies of the Xbox 360; because right now, they don't feel the fire under their feet. xP

It's a pretty straight forward set of conclusions.  I glossed over them and there doesn't seem to be anything I disagree with.  

I just take it as fact that all of microsofts games are going to end up on the PC as well.  They get the license fee for it being a windows game so they'll allow it.  I've always seen it as microsoft shooting XBox in the foot, but I guess they don't see it that way.  

Anything that's marked as exclusive is debatable.  I don't believe much of what any business men say in interviews.  What's stopping them from saying game A is exclusive  when it's really only a timed exclusive to be released 4 months after.  I think it's standard practice now to lie about timed exclusives being timed exclusives.  

This is why I didn't bother answering your post before...  I made theories, theories aren't provable......  How hard is that to understand....  The supports to my theories were already given.....  If you don't like them then go somewhere else....  You haven't disproven anything, you seem more like you're lost in the argument.  More reason why I didn't wanna respond because you just don't seem to understand my points.

They aren't theories. Theories require sound reasoning which your conclusions lack. 

Killinger said "Atari made too much supply and there was not enough demand so they lost money. When Demand outstrips supply, money is also lost because sales are lost."

Yes supply outstripping demand is bad and demand outstripping supply is also bad, but equilibrium is a pipe dream.  Anyways the original point was that Sony's sales are low.  Ferrari said that vgchartz numbers are way off so arguing this point is pointless.  

You are changing goalposts. You said that being sold out was a good thing, proven by history. I proved that being sold out was just as bad as having to much supply. VGChartz numbers have nothing to do with the basic concept of supply and demand.

Killinger said "From what evidence? Please present so I can know how and what you drew your conclusions from, its unsubstantated because your evidence is missing."

This is where I start to doubt your english because are you saying that people had a good impression of the Wii?  You know the console that brought us Wii Fit?

Nonsequitor. Asking for evidence is competely unrelated to claiming that the impression of the Wii was positive, which I never said. Furthermore, according to this site Wii Sports was the most "sold" game of all time brought to you by the Wii.

Killinger said: "Except on the graph I posted, the Wii U's launch was the highest's its sales have been overall."

yes a consoles launch will usually have a lot of sales....  That's not news that's stating the obvious....

Exactly, so you admit you were wrong in saying that the Wiii U was gaining traction because of the PS4 and XB1, It did better when it was by itself then when it faced competiton baring MK8 which improved the performance of system some what.

Killinger said: "Every PlayStation console has had a significant catalogue of games numbering in the thousands."

With rising game development costs, you need more developers for the same amount of games.  Other platforms have been actively stealing development teams for their own.  David Jaffe is working on free to play browser games for example.  His old team EatSleepPlay is working on iPhone games.  Irrational games fired all but 10 people to turn themselves into an indie studio.  THQ went bankrupt.  

You have no idea how game development works do you. One of the major reasons for increasing development cost is because more developers are being hired, why do think so many firing are happening.

This means that not only have developers been dispursed across a dozen development platforms, but the expense of making triple A games has risen as well as various other things.  It's not a hard conclusion to make that game releases will suffer for the home console as a result.  

Your former argument doesn't support this one, developers moving around in the transitary period between generations is not uncommon.

Killinger said: "First of all this is true across the entire industry, not to mention that PlayStation has a number of 1st part development studios and sufficient third party support, if anything of all the eight gen consoles, the PS4 is poised to have the widest catalogue as the Wii U's third party support is MIA and the XB1's lack of international appeal means that its going to miss out on games that aren't western centric/developed at best their will be parity on mutliplat support. There is no reason this would only occur to the PS4."

No its not true across the entire industry.  Indie games for example can be 2D and sell for a good amount of money.  Minecraft sells for 20 dollars was it?  I think I paid 30 for Prison Architect.  That game is entirely in 2D, with graphics rivaling that of the late 90s.  How much do you think angry birds cost to develop?  There are many smartphone games where they just have still images which the player clicks on to progress the story.  

Another Nonsequitor, do you not realized that every triple A is affected by increased dev costs, that while indies aren't affect in budget, they are affected in competition? Just look at the amount of indies at the start of seventh gen compared to its end/

Yes the PS4 will have the widest catalogue in the console industry, but here's another conclusion for you.  Because the PS4 has such a sloppy lead, Microsoft and Nintendo are able to actively leech third parties off of Sony turning what should be an all out victory into a three man race.  

You are just making things up as you go along. The fact that its leading globally at all against the Wii U is crazy, and its lead is near global, the only place where the PS4 is losing right now is Japan against the Wii U. Seeing as the Wii lost to 360 in America I guess the Wii was sloppy too>

As for the Japanese games....  I have my doubts they will even pick up the consoles.  I have my doubts that Sony will continue to fund games for them if they don't buy the console leaving us with an even shallower array of titles.  

Except PS3...

Killinger said: "This makes zero sense, Mobile and PC games are on platforms that hardly compete with solely the PS4, indies are a type of game that the ironically the PS4 was notable for having, web games are just browser based PC games."

I'd say that smartphones are competing pretty well with the PS4 over in Japan.  I personally hardly touch my consoles anymore because I play indie games on Steam mostly.  

Yes, because you are representative of the entire nation of Japan, and some odd 300,000 or so Japanese who've bought a PS4 are just foreigners or some crap like that.

Oh and btw, a little advice, you should stop while your behind, your story is falling apart at the seams.

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Killinger said "From what evidence? Please present so I can know how and what you drew your conclusions from, its unsubstantated because your evidence is missing."

This is where I start to doubt your english because are you saying that people had a good impression of the Wii?  You know the console that brought us Wii Fit?

Nonsequitor. Asking for evidence is competely unrelated to claiming that the impression of the Wii was positive, which I never said. Furthermore, according to this site Wii Sports was the most "sold" game of all time brought to you by the Wii.

I'm not dealing with you anymore...  Half the points you bring up is just your own refusal to admit your wrong and the other half are from an inabillity to pick up on the unstated obvious which I shouldn't have to mention.  

This is a perfect example of utter refusal to admit your wrong...  If you don't understand that Wii carried a stigma with it, then you shouldn't be allowed to post in VGChartz or any gaming forum...  Are you asking me to give you quotes from people saying that they didn't like the Wii and therefore stopped playing Nintendo consoles???  I shouldn't have to, this is implied information that anyone should be able to pick up on....  I don't even know why you mentioned Wii Sports....  I am claiming victory just because of this.  This is my evidence that you are wrong.  This one section where I have proven you PAINFULLY wrong in, you are still arguing.  

First of all lets get a couple of things out of the way, I am a native speaker of english, with a full grasp of the language, their is nothing about my english that is confusing, if you don't understand what I am saying then either ask me or use the internet.

Secondly, you say that I am wrong, but they only thing you are doing is running away or changing goal post because i am constantly disproving you claims, hell you cant even call them theories anymore because I've already explained how that is false as well. You claim these things are obvious, despite me proving them both nonsensical and wrong. You said previously that the measure of a console success was being sold out for the first year, proven by history so you claim, when the very fact that the PS3, last in the US, second globally, was sold out for the entire first year of its release.

Thirdly, quote the post in which I claim that the Wii did not carry any stigma because of the nature of its games, if you can't do this. Your entire last paragraph is an utter lie.

You aren't even using basic reasoning skills at this point, you said the Wii gave us Wii Fit, suggesting that it was a bad thing, I countered that it also gave us Wii Sports which is the most popular console game of all time. Clearly any stigma that the Wii carried didn't affect it in the slightest.

See here is the problem, All you care about is being right. All I care about is making sure you are right. The issue is you are flat out wrong and you refuse to admit it it, and now you want to say I'm wrong? On what grounds am I wrong? Simplify it to brass tacks, or ragequit the argument because you can't handle the fact that its painful to revaluate the vestiges of ignorance that have comforted you for so long.

You're making this complicated when its simple.

The funny thing is you've already admitted nearly all of your points as being mistaken, although you've yet to realize this yet. So at the very least we are making some sort of progress. And its annoying that you have to defend your misguided fallacies to defend your Ego, but since I recognize that its merely the defense mechanism and I know for a fact that I am right, then they do not phase me much at all.

Frankly, I can go for days until you A understand the folly of your claims (a success) or B quit in confusion and frustation (a sad but expected loss). At the very least, I can sleep soundly knowing that all though there are many like you all over the internet, rarely will you have much an effect in the industry as much as on it as well.