True but that's for all companies.

When Nintendo was the leader:

- They didn't want to make another console (the only reason they made the SNES was cause of the Genesis/Mega Drive, otherwise they would have probably just sold the NES til the mid-90s)

- They treated third parties like crap. They were even abusive to them. That's why so many flocked to Sony and considered them a godsend

- They were also arrogant, and instead of CD storage for the N64 they used cartridges

When Sony was the leader:

- $599

That's all that really needs to be said (though I could go on and on about them during the early PS3 years). Microsoft did have anti-consumer policies but they changed those. Sony kept to their $599 price tag and their arrogance though until 2009 when they finally rebranded the PS3.

They were all very well received and popular games, to this very day people play an updated version of quake 3 (now named quake live) in online tournaments.

Your statement was "who did first on console"

It wasnt Microsoft, sorry if thats too hard to accept.

Kindly stop moving the goalposts, here is your statement.

I dont see a sales requirement here, just a false claim that you seem hell bent on defending to the death rather than simply doing the mature thing of saying "actually yeah, im wrong, my bad"

To be accurate, for the Atari, it was more Activision themselves that offered them with their range of games, this is a near complete range of them offered for people reaching certain achievements in their games.

Im my opinion, far cooler than a meaningless numerical gamerscore.

The gold standard is when you didn't have to pay to play online and it still works well.  Xbox Live introduced nothing that I couldn't already do on my PC.  Microsoft did nothing but show that people will pay for something they could have got for free all along, and because of that now Sony is doing the same. 

Sure it's an innovation I guess.  Innovated screwing over not one but two fanbases, maybe three if Nintendo jumps on the pay to play online next gen.

Quake 3 on the Dreamcast did not sell 8 million or close to it, or revolutionize online gaming. By the way I used to own Quake 3 on the Dreamcast and liked it.

Quake 3 was not a killer app.

I feel that the OP is confusing innovation with popularization. A lot of things Microsoft has done was popularizing the innovations done by other companies.

To be accurate, for the Atari, it was more Activision themselves that offered them with their range of games, this is a near complete range of them offered for people reaching certain achievements in their games.

Im my opinion, far cooler than a meaningless numerical gamerscore, though scores were also done, gaming magazines such as nintendo power would post highscores from games along with the name of the submitter in their monthly highscore columns, which would equate to the earliest version of a gamerscore.