Looks like you didn't read my comment 

I did.

I disagreed - I think Microsoft at least WAS necessary to the video game industry.

That's why I asked if you meant they currently are unnecessary (you did use present tense) or if they have always been unnecessary.

The only point I was ever trying to make is that Xbox is not necessary to Microsoft, whereas to Nintendo and Sony games are a necessity(ok the latter is a bit debatable but you understand what I mean). That gives Microsoft a freedom that arguably other companies don't have. I don't know why you're bringing innovation into it.

Ohh I thought when you said "they" you were referring to Microsoft, and then when you said if they did get out it wouldn't have any effect. So I just said they (Microsoft) was necessary for gaming.

The thing is trophies didn't even launch with the PS3. I don't think the PS3 even had standard trophies til 2008 or 2009. It was a while because I remember they had to add them for Metal Gear Solid 4. They would've never existed without Microsoft. And I don't even think Nintendo has them yet even though they could just do coins and a Power Star lol.

Xbox Live changed the way consoles are used. You got to have your own account, a friends list, send messages, etc. etc. It does suck you have to pay for it, but I can see why they charge (hardware is not profitable).

To show how clueless Sony was about online play their network adapter had a 56K connection (though TBF it did have ethernet too). Microsoft was brilliant BECAUSE they only allowed an ethernet connection for the original Xbox. Microsoft leadership wanted to include a 56k connection but the Xbox Live team were adamant against that.

Without Xbox Live who knows what online gaming on consoles would be like today?

Sony has a huge problem where they are the industry leader but never seem to actually lead.

It does seem however that Microsoft barely cares anymore though. With the Xbox 360 they pulled out all the stops, but with the Xbox One there is no effort. Hell, backward compatibility with the 360 seems to be a bigger deal than new games.

I think Microsoft pretty much quit caring too much about consoles after the release of the Kinect. They started focusing on that and ignoring "hardcore" games.

I actually thought they were going to slowly exit the console race until they released the Xbox One X. But I still feel they are going to slowly just start focusing on Windows gaming.

To say introducing online to console isn't a big deal is a misguided statement. PSN wouldnt be as good as it is now if it weren't for Xbox live. 

Same goes for achievements. Xbox brought them first, regardless of which achievement system is better.

Yep. Of course, had MS gotten their way we’d be playing on an always online console where we can’t rent or sell games. So it’s great that these companies exist for competition and to keep each other in check. Also I agree about the importance of Xbox Live. Can’t imagine how online gaming on consoles would work if it were left to Nintendo and Sony.

I see what you're saying but Microsoft wasn't the industry leader like Sony was at the launch of the PS3.

Though if Sony didn't turn the PS3 ship around you are 100% right - Microsoft would've nuked the industry with that stuff. Plus, they would've charged like $599 instead of $499.

But I am arguing why it Microsoft was 100% a good thing for the console space (at least up until the Xbox One). Sony was hell-bent on shoving Blu-Ray down our throats for some reason, and hell-bent on making the Cell processor be a thing.

What's so funny is that if Sony would've put a generic PowerPC processor in the PS3, they could've got away with charging $399 and programming would've been easier and thus they wouldn't have lost so much support.

True but then we wouldn't have gotten exceptional exclusives like Uncharted 2/3, TLOU or GT6 which performed way above a console should have been able to do with that power. (Even later multi-platform releases like GTA5 looked substantially better on PS3)

BTW didn't they charge 599,- for it, not 499,-?!

The main reason most games unfortunately were't using the much more powerful PS3 hardware was convenience and laziness. Develppers mostly preferred to just adapt their basic PC code and be done with it. Hence why both this gen consoles just feature X86 architecture now.

And to put the inclusion of BluRay as a negative...?! I assume you think implementation of UHD drive in the X1/X1X is good thing now?! It was a very smart way to help to introduce their new format to the market and combine it with making it a selling point for the console. It's something MS are trying to copy with their UHD drive now but sadly fail to realise that the market has changed already. Most UHD media is only upscaled 1080p content so it's far from a necessary upgrade anyway.

At least Sony used BluRay it as a data source and for actual games...When 360 players were still juggling DVDs.

To impose Sony would have taken even more money at PS3's launch without Microsoft is nothing but speculation and highly unlikely. 

But at least we all agree on something. Competition is good for the business. 

I read that Rockstar wanted to continue the timed exclusive deal with Sony with "next-gen" Grand Theft Auto games but Sony couldn't afford it. Also, Assassin's Creed was supposed to be timed exclusive as well (it was initially announced only for the PS3) but once again Sony couldn't afford it due to the Cell.

The Cell also cost Sony exclusive rights to Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, etc. etc.

I think Sony regrets the Cell big time, which is why they dumped anything remotely close to it for the PS4. Steve Jobs was smart and rejected the Cell for Macs

The Blu-Ray player was whatever. It was super expensive but IMO it at least ha benefits - no disc swapping and scratch-resistance. The Cell on the other hand was nothing but a pain in the ass for developers and made the PS3 cost a ton more.

And there's no way Sony loses $250+ on a console unless they have competition. The Wii wasn't directly competing with them so they wouldn't care.