It's a fitting tweet for a company who hasn't found an answer to a pressing question in the last seven years. Microsoft's defeatist attitude shone through in last week's Xbox event - I haven't watched it, but I know enough - so it's no surprise that one of their guys wants to pretend that the console war is over in order to distract from hardware sales. Microsoft wasn't in a bad position to challenge Sony's PS5, but instead of going on the offensive and being daring, they more or less quietly accepted their role as a distant third in the global console business.

That's not to say that the XSX will sell worse than the XB1. It will do better, because the XSX is merely unspectular and can bank on Game Pass (gaming for cheap matters, just look up how Steam centralized PC game sales for the most part), unlike the XB1 which sucked butt. That's an improvement for sure, but Microsoft didn't want to go any extra miles. If you want to win, you have to show that you want it. Spencer and friends showed none of that.

This stands in stark contrast to the Xbox 360 era where Microsoft seriously aimed to have the best-selling console and celebrated their NPD wins time and time again. Good hardware sales mean good software sales and high subscription rates, so of course it's important to sell as much hardware as possible. This hasn't changed. What has changed is that Microsoft doesn't want to hear about it anymore. That's because they couldn't figure out how to be winners.

That's the problem, the gaming community doesn't know what winning is. What happens when you win, how do you win, what is winning in the console market, what does the trophy look like when you win?.... Its always been about money, how you make that money comes in all different shapes and sizes. 

Lets use an example,

We have two companies.. Company A and Company B. Company A sells more hardware than Company B by a fair margin and made $3b in total revenue.. Company B sells half the hardware as Company A but sells double the Software and Services and its revenue gain was $5b, who won? Company A for selling more hardware or Company B who made more overall revenue/profit? 

MS Giving up to make more money isn't giving up, they are aiming bigger and i am sure Sony are too. 

Let me clarify, it’s more we don’t like Sony doing it because their fans use them in “list wars” for literally years before they are released. Agent, FF Versus 13, GT5, FF7, etc. 

And now ironically, when the shoe is on the other foot, PS fans are complaining we getting games announced years before. It’s literally their own medicine but that seems lost on many of them (shrugs) 

Unless you were, inexplicably, making a different argument that was running parallel to the one I remember, vividly, referencing "how right you were", and others people's inability to change their point of view makes me want to challenge you to a fistfight.

Your take: You were repeatedly making a blanket, absolute statement, saying "console sales don't matter". Which is still incorrect now, even when applied only to Microsoft, the company detaching itself the most from the traditional console sales model. When applied to Nintendo and PS, who's combined market share represents much more of the console market than that of Xbox, that argument gets even worse. Many, if not all, of the finer points as to why this point of view was incorrect have already been covered.

So, "console sales don't matter": That was essentially the totality of your stance. You weren't right then. You're merely less wrong now.

I haven't looked at it, but I have a direct link back to one specific instance of what I'm referencing here, because it was my most recent ban.

The best-selling console will continue to bring in the most gaming profits for its manufacturer.

Your post is baffling. Your opening sentence alone is so far detached from reality that smacking your head on a desk is just about the last hope to get some sense into you.

Both of you guys try your best to make Microsoft's PR seem sound to yourself, but you aren't going to convince anyone with that faulty logic. How about you are honest with yourselves and see the tweet for what it is: A weak and pre-emptive attempt to distract from console sales. Microsoft isn't going to get more gaming profits than both Sony and Nintendo (individually, not combined) with the strategy they are pursuing.

Your example demonstrates that you don't know what winning is. The PS4 brings in a lot more revenue than Switch, but Switch is more profitable nonetheless.

Winning is first and foremost about selling the most units of hardware. There hasn't been a generation where the best-selling console wasn't also clearly the most profitable console at the same time. It's only among the runner-ups that oddities could be observed, namely the Xbox (24m) being less profitable than the GC (21m), and the PS3 being less profitable than the Xbox 360 despite slightly higher unit sales.

The best-selling console will continue to bring in the most gaming profits for its manufacturer.

Your post is baffling. Your opening sentence alone is so far detached from reality that smacking your head on a desk is just about the last hope to get some sense into you.

Both of you guys try your best to make Microsoft's PR seem sound to yourself, but you aren't going to convince anyone with that faulty logic. How about you are honest with yourselves and see the tweet for what it is: A weak and pre-emptive attempt to distract from console sales. Microsoft isn't going to get more gaming profits than both Sony and Nintendo (individually, not combined) with the strategy they are pursuing.

Sure, I'll explain. Let's look at it again:

You highlighted the final sentence of my post, in the paragraph where I talk about what has changed. You directly respond to this sentence of mine with "Well neither could Nintendo." But Nintendo has come up with ways to win. The Wii sold the most units in its generation and was the most profitable console. Switch is on pace to do the very same thing against its competitors, the PS5 and XSX.

That's why Nintendo has never said anything along the lines of "it's not important how many consoles you sell", because they've been confident enough to believe in their own ability to win in the console business. Microsoft doesn't have that confidence, hence why your analogy doesn't work at all. You try to make it work by suggesting that the console business is about AAA third party games, but it isn't about them.

I think you are mixing up nouns and verbs here, namely the word 'console'. I and others are talking about the noun, but you mean the verb. You find solace in the knowledge that Microsoft is still getting AAA third party games, so that's at least something; enough to console yourself.

That's the problem, the gaming community doesn't know what winning is. What happens when you win, how do you win, what is winning in the console market, what does the trophy look like when you win?.... Its always been about money, how you make that money comes in all different shapes and sizes. 

Lets use an example,

We have two companies.. Company A and Company B. Company A sells more hardware than Company B by a fair margin and made $3b in total revenue.. Company B sells half the hardware as Company A but sells double the Software and Services and its revenue gain was $5b, who won? Company A for selling more hardware or Company B who made more overall revenue/profit? 

MS Giving up to make more money isn't giving up, they are aiming bigger and i am sure Sony are too. 

Use that metric if you want. Sony sell more than double the hardware, more than double the PS+ versus XBL Gold, more than double the 3rd party game royalties and like 5x more first party games sold. So yes Sony completely obliterated MS on revenue and profit this gen.

Your example demonstrates that you don't know what winning is. The PS4 brings in a lot more revenue than Switch, but Switch is more profitable nonetheless.

Winning is first and foremost about selling the most units of hardware. There hasn't been a generation where the best-selling console wasn't also clearly the most profitable console at the same time. It's only among the runner-ups that oddities could be observed, namely the Xbox (24m) being less profitable than the GC (21m), and the PS3 being less profitable than the Xbox 360 despite slightly higher unit sales.

The best-selling console will continue to bring in the most gaming profits for its manufacturer.

That's a great example, but can you really see and explain how MS can possibly make more revenue/profit than Sony or Nintendo with their current strategy if their marketshare in console business will stay pretty much the same (which is around less than 20%).