You also understand the Switch has an online infrastructure which boost game numbers right? What about the big AAA games? Why isn't every company getting on board the Switch? If you want to include all the small indy games on the Switch, than we might as well admit that online gaming is the way to go which is exactly what Xbox is focusing on. Steam has over 50 thousand games, curious how many Consoles has Valve sold to get that many games? 

I will agree that a more successful platform will attract more games, hence the term platform.

Dude.. i cant believe you are still trying to use the Elite Controller as your example, its completely different. Its a premium controller that's sold separately with the console. If you want the controller you have to pay extra for it, its too expensive for the average user. You can buy it bundled however the price of the bundle goes up because its expensive. Imagine if you brought an Elite controller and Xbox than charges you a fee to use its features for some games, thats what Sony is doing with the DS.

Your comparison is like if you went out to buy a car and you brought the V6 model, than complain that the V8 should of been the standard and at no extra cost. The Elite Controller is the V8 in this sense. The car company doesn't charge you extra to use the extra 2 cylinders after you already brought the V8 model.

I personally don't consider it a success due to the fact that they seemingly lost market share and the interest in some gamers, and it really doesn't help that the name is just about as bad as Wii U was, if not worse.

When I see the word "success," I don't imagine something that just barely passes. I imagine something that at the minimum meets expectations, and I get the feeling that where the system ended up wasn't where they were expecting it to be when they planned this console for release.

And I can't believe it's not butter...

It's more like how GP is so important and crucial, so much so that by having just GP, it supposedly gives you the "full XB experience" even though you don't have to have the XB console.

Yet imagine if when you buy the console, even the most powerful monster, but you don't automatically get GP with it. You're only getting a fraction of the full experience for top dollar on the top model. You have to pay an extra fee to use its features for those GP games. That's what MS is doing.

You are comparing optional features to standard features. Buying Extras is one thing, buying the use of features you already own is another thing.

If you want a Sunroof with your car, than you have to buy it. If you want to use your Air Conditioner that comes with the car, you shouldn't have to pay a fee to use it.

Tesla and the way of the future disagree. Don't want to be left in the past right? Some extra's come as standard depending on the company as well.

If you buy the XB Elite Controller, and find it's not worth it, you've lost over $100. If you bought the XB1 and didn't find Kinect of use, you lost $100.

If you buy the PS5, and you choose to pay the extra $10 for DS features in a game, if you find its not worth it, you've only lost $10.

What's worse, losing $10 or losing $100? What's more consumer friendly of the two?

If you're a console gamer, GP requires an XB, which doesn't automatically come with XB. It's extra software for the full experience.

If you're a console gamer, DS capabilities require a PS5, which doesn't automatically come with PS5. It's extra software for the full experience.

Extra software is extra software even though you require the hardware to run it.

It would seem we ultimately agree then, which is why sales matter beyond just console wars. (Though I'd argue they also matter simply for those who enjoy the statistical side of their interest/hobby)

Switch may not get all the day-and-date AAA blockbusters, but if it had been another Wii U in terms of sales, we never would've gotten the likes of Witcher 3, Doom Eternal, Ori and the Blind Forest/Will of the Wisps, Crash Bandicoot 4, Hellblade, Mortal Kombat 11, Cuphead, etc.

Their is a clear difference between owning something and it works as advertised than buying something as an optional extra.

Whats more anti consumer is if you pay for a piece of hardware and now have to pay a fee to use that hardware.

If you went out to buy the Elite Controller, it works as intended. If the owner doesn't like it than they can return it. Meaning you lose $0.

GP is an option and will always be an option. Your Xbox will work as intended without GP. 

The problem i have is that the DS features wont work on some games without a fee. The big difference here is that you own the hardware and features and a company puts it behind a pay wall on some games. GP you don't own, it does not come with the console.

Whats worse, losing $10 or losing $0. The answer is right their.

Since when are consumers unable to return PS products and only XB products? You can't return the PS5 if you don't like the DS situation?

Wouldn't that mean both lose $0? Did I find the right answer, or was this another one just lying around?

So selling any and all upgrades, separate, for exorbitant fee's that "the average user" can't afford, like the XB Elite Controller, is less anti consumer?

Can't wait for next gen.. where the casuals and "the average user" won't be able to afford to join in at all due to everything being extra.

GP, as an extra option, offers "the full XB experience", but the $500 monster XBSX doesn't. 

Well if that's a good thing, then:

DS features, are an extra option, beyond the $500 PS5, if you want the full experience.

It's up to the consumer to decide how much of the experience they want to pay for either way, correct? If they can pay for it at all that is..

Maybe after the XB1 Kinect fiasco, MS should still be selling it separately for unaffordable prices. Perhaps the answer was right there all along..

To answer your question, if i payed for GamePass, id expect to be able to use GamePass and not have some of its features hidden behind another paywall. If i buy any device or upgrade, id expect to use them as intended.

Does the Elite Controller work as intended when you buy it? Yes.

Does the DuelSense Controller work as intended when you buy it? (Not with all games, a $10 fee applies on some games, or are hidden behind further upgrades)

That right their is the issue, and you are failing to see that. The fact you are comparing an optional service to actual hardware features being moved behind paywalls is worrying. I guess every time a company adds an extra button or feature to controllers in the future, we have to pay extra fees to utilized them by your logic.

You've mistaken my sarcasm about your logic, for my logic.

Does the DS automatically apply its features, or does the hardware require separate software to make it work as intended?

Do all (PS4) games make (full) use of the PS5 DS? If a game were designed to be better experienced without the DS features, than what? Add DS capabilities just because the hardware can regardless?

Optional service vs necessary hardware? I thought you didn't even need an XB console to enjoy the "full XB experience" on PC with GP? I wonder how often the optional XBSX actually puts out even close to its expected monstrous 12TF?