You continue to use double standards. You disregard Halo Infinite at the beginning of your post, then continue to highlight a possible PS5 remaster of TLoU2 as something that's a big deal. But you should keep in mind that Halo Infinite is built for the XSX (probable, because of precedent mentioned in an earlier post) while TLoU2's inevitable PS5 version will be a game that was built for the PS4 originally. Being built for old gen (which is an assumption on your part) is why you keep dismissing Halo, so TLoU2 shouldn't receive different treatment from you.

You are on a sales website, so you can look up the bestseller lists of the PS3, 360, PS4 and XB1. All lists are dominated by multiplatform games, so of course it matters which console provides the better performance for those games.

The launch of the Xbox One X is merely another piece of proof for the large pile of evidence that makes it clear that image and perception of any given console is shaped early, so midgen upgrades, add-ons etc. are unable to move the needle in any significant manner.

Your straw man was when you asserted that I am claiming that any console in the past won by having nothing more than better graphics for third party games, which is something that I didn't do. I am going to list the points in order of importance in the PS5 vs. XSX battle:

1. Price
2. Performance of multiplat games
3. Regional preference/bias
4. Exclusives

It's looking very, very likely that Microsoft has secured point 2 (I doubt that third parties will prefer shorter loading times above higher fidelity, because better graphics has always been an easier selling point for games), but that wouldn't mean much if they can't nail the price. The XSX's performance advantage won't be worth an extra $100 to consumers, that's certain. Point 3 is something that is pretty much set and that neither company can change with a lot of help from the other company; Microsoft can count on an advantage in the USA and the UK if they cover point 1 and 2, Sony can count on the rest of the world. Exclusives can provide an extra edge, but most of the bestselling games on PS and Xbox consoles are multiplats.

In any case, if Microsoft gets point 1 and 2 right, then your thread is going to faceplant hard. I hope everyone realizes that point 1 and 2 aren't particularly difficult things to get right; they don't require any special skills or talent, but are rather just about providing powerful hardware at a good price. It's something that Microsoft failed at spectacularly in the previous generation, but it's usually the biggest mistakes that console manufacturers try to correct the most with their follow-up console.

You continue to use double standards. You disregard Halo Infinite at the beginning of your post, then continue to highlight a possible PS5 remaster of TLoU2 as something that's a big deal. But you should keep in mind that Halo Infinite is built for the XSX (probable, because of precedent mentioned in an earlier post) while TLoU2's inevitable PS5 version will be a game that was built for the PS4 originally. Being built for old gen (which is an assumption on your part) is why you keep dismissing Halo, so TLoU2 shouldn't receive different treatment from you.

You are on a sales website, so you can look up the bestseller lists of the PS3, 360, PS4 and XB1. All lists are dominated by multiplatform games, so of course it matters which console provides the better performance for those games.

The launch of the Xbox One X is merely another piece of proof for the large pile of evidence that makes it clear that image and perception of any given console is shaped early, so midgen upgrades, add-ons etc. are unable to move the needle in any significant manner.

Your straw man was when you asserted that I am claiming that any console in the past won by having nothing more than better graphics for third party games, which is something that I didn't do. I am going to list the points in order of importance in the PS5 vs. XSX battle:

1. Price
2. Performance of multiplat games
3. Regional preference/bias
4. Exclusives

It's looking very, very likely that Microsoft has secured point 2 (I doubt that third parties will prefer shorter loading times above higher fidelity, because better graphics has always been an easier selling point for games), but that wouldn't mean much if they can't nail the price. The XSX's performance advantage won't be worth an extra $100 to consumers, that's certain. Point 3 is something that is pretty much set and that neither company can change with a lot of help from the other company; Microsoft can count on an advantage in the USA and the UK if they cover point 1 and 2, Sony can count on the rest of the world. Exclusives can provide an extra edge, but most of the bestselling games on PS and Xbox consoles are multiplats.

In any case, if Microsoft gets point 1 and 2 right, then your thread is going to faceplant hard. I hope everyone realizes that point 1 and 2 aren't particularly difficult things to get right; they don't require any special skills or talent, but are rather just about providing powerful hardware at a good price. It's something that Microsoft failed at spectacularly in the previous generation, but it's usually the biggest mistakes that console manufacturers try to correct the most with their follow-up console.

I've addressed what you said. You keep moving goalposts, that's why your arguments are falling apart.

For instance, in your current post you say that Halo Infinite being on old gen would effect its sales, but what you originally said is that Halo Infinite is nothing; there's a significant difference between talking about decreased sales and brushing off a game as a non-factor like you did. At another point you demanded that I should show proof that a console in the past won by doing nothing more than having the better looking multiplatform games; I was the only one you were having a discussion with at that point, so either you strawmanned me or you randomly asked a stupid question.

The 360 and PS3 were having very similar yearly sales with the lead in weekly baseline sales changing a few times. A lead for the 360 existed largely due to its one year headstart. The two consoles were selling at a similar pace from start to finish of that generation, because the image and perception that the PS3 isn't significantly better than the 360 was defined early.

Rol, your reading comprehension is just poor. You are fighting an imaginary battle with the Cerebralbore in your head, instead of actually addressing me or what I said. 

Forza 8 and Halo Infinite will run on Xbox One, Xbox One X, PC, and Xbox Series X. Those aren't going to move units, because everybody interested in those games has hardware to play those games already.

^There I am talking about how being available on four systems will affect sales. 

Your argument was "Halo Infinite and Forza will push sales for Series X, and the system that has the best 3rd party performance will come out on top". 

I refuted the first part of your argument, by pointing out that Halo Infinite and Forza will be playable on four platforms in total. 

This reduces your argument to "Halo Infinite and Forza will push sales for Series X, and the system that has the best 3rd party performance will come out on top"

Since your argument had been reduced to a single point ala refutation, I then asked the following rhetorical question "Can you give an example of a console winning a generation solely by having better graphics in 3rd party titles?"

Asking such a question =/= Stating that you actually believe that a console can win via nothing but 3rd party performance. 

At best it merely implies it. But that's what you've done these past few posts. You've attempted to read between the lines of what I actually said, to extract your own strawman interpretation, and then went on to attack said strawman. 

Your method of straw-manning is as bad as people that say "Black Lives Matter? That implies what white lives don't matter! The BLM movement thinks white lives don't matter!"

Before I bow out of this discussion with you, I want to reiterate that my argument has never been "the system that has the best third party performance comes out on top." 

Forza is not a yearly franchise. Was there a Forza game last year? Nope, didn't see it. Is Forza Horizon and Forza Motorsport two very different games? Yep. Has it been 3 years since Forza Motorsport 7 released? Yes it has. Did I see how excited people got when Grande Turismo 7 was announced? Sure did. I can bet you we will get a similar reaction for FM8. You're downplay of both Halo Infinite and Forza 8 is laughably bad. Both games are gonna bring the Hype. People want to see how Forza looks for next gen and we already know Halo Infinite will be gorgeous based on what we've seen of the Slipspace engine. We saw how Zelda Breath of the Wild pushed Switch sales. Halo has that same selling power whether you want to believe it or not. Have you not considered all the gamers that went from 360 to ps4? They see Halo Infinite is a launch title, and the Series X is more powerful and (probably) same price as ps5. It may be enough for them to jump ship. Gamers are a fickle bunch. 

There is a big difference releasing a more powerful console at the beginning of a gen vs a mid-gen refresh. It sets the tone for the rest of the generation. Multiplatform games performance absolutely matter, especially when multiplatform games are 95%+ of console sales for Xbox and playstation. Look at the beginning of this gen. Gamers heard ps4 is more power and cheaper than xbox one. Easy sales. It doesn't even matter if the exclusives are bad because these people want to play COD, Madden, NBA2k, etc. They just want to play it on the best system. 

..expected GTA4 to lose to a arena fighter ...

..PS4 and Xbox One would not outsell the PS3 and Xbox 360 mainly due to sharing the same gaming library...

Ahem

How many PS4/XB1 sales are due to Fortnite?