Yeah, the Cell definitely was an expensive way to compensate for the NVidia chip's short-comings...and as we can see and you correctly stated, Sony has, indeed, learned from their mistakes with the PS4. Ironically it was Microsoft which needlessly overcomplicated things with the ES-Ram on the One. Which they respectively eliminated by making the X1X more like a PS4.

I simply think it's mad to assume Sony would have charged even more than that already off-putting and ridiculous price tag for the PS3 at launch. But you're right...MS have definitely brought some worthy competition for some time. It's just a bit sad I always find just as many reasons why I hate them to why I like them.

Microsoft, IMO, quit caring so much about "core" gamers with the Kinect. I became very interested in why MS got into the video game business because I have no clue why they did. Like people have mentioned, they should've did a Windows Store that resembled Steam instead. I would've canned the Xbox after the $4 billion in losses it caused to be honest. So I was always interested in WHY MS continued to the Xbox brand. To save it from embarrassment perhaps?

And this is coming from someone who likes the Xbox. I am looking at it from MS's perspective.

So here's my theory on whythe Xbox One was such an Eff up:

I have read some behind the scenes stuff, and Robbie Bach (President of Xbox division) was in the theater when Iwata introduced the Wiimote at the TGS in 2005. Robbie said he knew immediately that was a problem. Sony realized this as well and half-assed implemented motion control in the SuxAxis controller.

So Microsoft secretly changed their focus from core games. Which is why you realize that once the Kinect was released all of a sudden MS quit caring about exclusives and all that and focused mostly on that. With the initial release of the 360 they were going after PS2 gamers - which is why they made sure to lock up games like Final Fantasy XIII and Grand Theft Auto IV as day one releases.

So the Xbox One wasn't really meant to compete with the PS4, but it was meant for Kinect to get data in order to help MS with mobile/A.I. Basically, the Xbox One was created with the intent of competing with Google/Apple and not Sony. Only until after the intense E3 backlash did the Xbox One become a PS4 competitor.

So my theory is that MS quit caring much about the "core" gaming audience right when Kinect was released.

They're not doing that bad. I thought they were heading for Wii U levels of failure early in the generation, because the reveal was so awful that they truly never recovered from it.

But they've managed to turn it around and now they're pondering to western third parties with the whole "power this, power that" mentality they currently have.

I think they'll be fine as long as they don't return to their anti consumer practices. Its just how the industry works, as long as they're able te get back up they'll be fine.

They desperately need new IPs and great exclusives. In a world where PS4 and Switch both have plenty of those the XBox simply can't compete...power only matters to a small minority. Power was never the reason why the PS4 dominated against the X1, even though MS seems to think that.

It's really baffling....all that US-centric TV, Kinect "spy on consumers" and only DRM shit...I really wonder what they were thinking back then. You're right, they didn't target Sony back then....they tried to target Nintendo imho! They thought they could get the casuals buy the thing, just like Ninty had succeeded with the Wii.

They also tried to force a "Steam like" service on people in order to get more control over the software market, which immensely backfired. I must say, I am still baffled on how they could still manage to sell almost half of what PS4 was selling in the same time frame, until today. 

I don't think their actual third party focus will pay off, most people won't care if the same game looks marginally worse on a much cheaper PS4Pro. So I think they have done a lot of things right...I just wish they had spent the money, which they have invested in making the X1X in order to fight their inferiority complex, for new I.P.s and studios instead. 

MS not only seems to have a very confused marketing team at time, they also seem to be very confused in what the focus of the whole brand should be. Which all comes together in a way, that people, like me, are having huge problems to trust this company at all, after all their constant 180s and back-paddling. 

I also don't think Spencer is the right person for the job, despite a lot of good stuff he might have done for the brand. I just look in his eyes and see he's a liar, he just has this fake smile that I dislike about American PR people.

The problem with MS is that they rely on their laurels too much and don't want to innovate - at least until recently.

Under Ballmer, they NEVER wanted to take risks and focused too much on Windows and Office.

Because of this, Apple AND Google stole their thunder. Windows Phone should have been the number 1 phone OS, not Android, but Ballmer's dumb ass laughed at the iPhone instead of saying "Holy crap, we need to get a Windows Mobile out to compete ASAP!" Instead it was Google who reacted to the iPhone with urgency.

That's why I never understood the Xbox brand (although I began to like it, and liked their initial approach with the 360). If I were running Microsoft I would have made Windows actually be BETTER than Steam. That would've been the focus for games - not a money sucking Xbox machine. I would have dumped the Xbox brand lol. Not because I don't like it because I do, but because it doesn't serve a purpose now.

Ballmer is just the worst CEO in history though really. When I was growing up Microsoft was this big Empire that was destined to rule the world with an iron fist. Now they're just a whimpering puppy.

I don't think Spencer has much of a choice to be honest. I think MS is seeing what I do and are realizing the Xbox brand is a waste of time, and are slowly transitioning to really focusing on Windows gaming and Streaming.

I don't think you can compare a console from 2013-17 and a console from the early 90's without adjusting for the size of the industry. Selling 40 million units in 1993 would be like selling 150 million or something now.

...by releasing a brand new Xbox model in 2017 and spending god knows how much money advertising it? That doesn't sound like something a company would do if they were trying to phase out a brand.

so selling over 40 million consoles is a failure.....

whatever you say man.

No, what he is saying is at the much bigger console market these days selling 30-40 Million is like selling 10 million back then.

It’s always about relation. If you start in the gen with the clear aim to become the new leader but end up far away at third place, it can indeed be considered a failure. It always depends on the perspective.