Xbox one was a success in many ways tho. It is outpacing the 360 last time I check despite their botch launch and stronger competition. Microsoft is giving us great exclusive software. Who cares if it is on PC? There are a lot of people out there who still prefer consoles over PC gaming (like me). You don't think the reason why PS4 sold over 40 million was because of Uncharted and Bloodborne do you?  And I can tell you right now Microsoft doesn't care if you buy a PC. They view window PC as xbox as well. They are selling their games and services on both devices and they are making it easy to port PC games to Xbox one and vice versa so in a way Microsoft install base is bigger than Sony's .

I'm with Snoopy. I hate how everyone here and particularly PS4 fans, assume everyone that has a console is also a PC gamer. As far as my friends go, we all have consoles and only one of us (my core is 17 close friends that go way back) has a gaming pc. I feel the majority of console gamers are not dedicated pc gamers. That feel different here cuz its a dedicated gaming site and most likely has pc gamers.

A few things.

First off, Your talk about Microsoft having a larger install base than Sony requires some iffy logic to justify and doesn't have anything to do with Scorpio.

Secondly, the Xbox One isn't outpacing the 360. Total sales are ahead, but it's lead has dropped by half a million consoles in the last 12 months and were coming up to a point where 360 sales were very strong.

Between July and the end of 2008 the 360 sold 7,796,789 units while during the same months last year the Xbox One sold 6,268,479 units. Also keep in mind that the Xbox One has been down YoY.

Third. You haven't give a reason as to why someone who didn't want an Xbox One would want the Scorpio.

The PS2 doubled as a DVD that didn't need an add on to read movie and music discs (unlike the Xbox at the time). In between that, the reputation of its predecessor, the lack of variety and versatility in the Gamecube and the Xbox's expensive price tag, it enjoyed an advantage comparable to that of the Wii during it's gen. 

The PS3 was the better equipment only on paper. Most devs actually couldn't code for the damned thing, so most games actually performed worse on the PS3 unless it was an exclusive developed for the console. However, the potential meant that the PS3 had a longer lifespan than the older X360 which lacked the Blu ray player and extra computing power that could be tapped into if devs bothered to try (most didn't). 

It makes no sense for people to support the Xbox 360 and suddenly shift over to the PS4 unless the PS4 had more to offer. In between the DRM fiasco, lack of power, initially more expensive price tag and the smaller game library because of a combination of the aforementioned, a lot of former 360 owners jumped ship. If the Xbox One had been faster, cheaper and had a larger game library than the PS4, people wouldn't have jumped ship. Especially since Sony actually had a bad reputation for the PS3 having been a hassle. Sure, the RROD problem helf Microsoft bad, but it shouldn't have been this bad otherwise. 

Whether a lot of Outcasts used to be PS2 gamers who were apalled at the PS3's price tag and performance is meaningless, since the audience will flock back to the place with the best system. The point is the system cannot rely solely on power. Power, price tag and variety need to be satisfied, as well as a release date. If a better machine is offered at a lower price on the same day, there's no reason to buy the inferior one. 

Ah, there's the old Sony spirit. Except that the PS3 is a reminder that brand loyalty only takes you so far. The people want a better machine, for a lower price with more games. The 360 delivered those when the PS3 couldn't and managed to take the spotlight for once (unless you insist the last gen ended only when the PS3 surpassed the 360 in sales, even though the Wii U had been released a few months before). If there are people with no consoles who are thinking on one or the other, they will either wait for the newer machines or buy one of the existing ones. 

Um suprised the Ban Hammer hasnt descent upon this thread yet.

Why? I haven't read every post but I haven't seen any fights or name calling really.

From Wikipedia:

original Xbox "Retail availability  NA: November 15, 2001"

Xbox 360 "Retail availability November 22, 2005"

"The last game released on the Xbox was Madden NFL 09, on August 12, 2008."

original Xbox "Discontinued  NA: March 2, 2009"

Support for the original Xbox on Xbox Live "was finally disconnected on May 11, 2010"

Nothing in the above suggests a quick abandonment, and commercial software still being released for it until 2009 suggests against your assertion that third-parties were being forced to abandon it.

I'm curious, but what "more wrong" has Microsoft done?  So far you've suggested that you disliked them for pushing online gaming (just following in Sega's footsteps there, and PC gaming for that matter), but that's not "wrong", just a direction that doesn't speak to you.  You suggested Microsoft forced 3rd parties to switch to 360 development, but short of a citation I'm sceptical (and note that Microsoft-licenced software was still being released for the OG Xbox in 2009). 

I don't think Microsoft has never made a mistake, as they obviously have.  But so far we're agreed on a longer list for Sony than we are for Microsoft.  *shrug*  Ultimately they're both for-profit entities who're responsible first to their shareholders.  They're not charities.  :)  I kind of admire what Microsoft has been able to accomplish in the console gaming space.  There are probably very few companies in the world that could have entered the home console market at that time and make that big an impact in the face of the strength of Sony and Nintendo (and to a lesser degree Sega, since we're talking circa 2001).

Abandonment comparable to the PSVita. The company still supports the hardware, but they no longer market or try to sell it.