Why are people talking about the Playstation? That's isn't the topic. If you want to have that discussion make a topic about it.

Well yes, once they finally officially announced XBSS, they clearly had decided to sell both. The article title below even shows that Lockhart hitting the market was in question. Also, if MS doesn't care like Apple about how different the products are, why market XBSS as 1440p when it's really a 1080p console? There's nothing wrong with 1080p, considering the next gen hardware is totally worth the $300 price tag for those who are ok with that resolution, which many still are. I would've bought one myself as a secondary console by now if it had a disc drive.

Microsoft’s cheaper next-gen “Lockhart” console is still in the pipeline according to new report - OnMSFT.com

"In a recent interview with The Verge, Xbox head Phil Spencer explained that the Xbox team had "a goal of having market success” with the next generation of consoles, and the cheaper Lockhart SKU may help with that."

Sounds like Phil really cares/cared about the hardware and wants/wanted it to be successful, in which case if Phil and MS don't care about HW sales and have moved on, why are they saying hardware success is/was a goal?

If MS doesn't want to show the numbers, even if they're combined, that's fine, but the public wanting to know the numbers, especially the more hardcore who want complete breakdowns, isn't surprising. If MS isn't willing to show the numbers after saying what they've said, then the public is entirely free to guess and have an opinion of what the reasons may be.

It seems to me as well, that you're taking these posts as hardcore shots against MS. I don't think anyone part of these 'branch posts' is or was trying to say MS sucks right now, in fact, I believe it's been clearly suggested they've been improving and are on a better path, since the topic is about XB1 and how well it did or didn't do. It's pretty hard to say that the new consoles aren't doing better in comparison as of now.

Compared to the other consoles, the XB1 would not have cost as much to make on top of all that, it did not have $1.6b worth of Red Ring consoles to replace so its already ahead in those terms. I can confidently say the XB1 lost less money than the OG and 360 consoles. Considering the XB1 would have had more paid subscribers than the OG Xbox and possibly not far behind the 360s sub base, i would say it is quite clear the XB1 was way more successful when it came to the bank. The reason Don was moved on was because of his failed marketing, he failed at relaying the message and gave the brand a bad name to the point MS had to change their model (did a 180) only to do another (180) years later to recover the image. I doubt the XB1 lost more money than the Original Xbox losing $7b and without the issues of the 360s hardware failures which a lot of that Live money would have gone towards. The XB1 would have pocketed more, as well as increasing digital sales which earns more profits than physical.

Microsoft pockets a HUGE '$28' on an Xbox One: But NOT REALLY • The Register

Is Microsoft losing money on Xbox 360? (macworld.com)

Don Mattrick was working for Xbox when Xbox's business model was about selling hardware. Xbox's model was very similar to PlayStation's and Nintendo's which is why they disclosed sales figures like the rest of them back than. The moment Xbox changed its lead to Phil and its model, hardware sales were not the prime focus of Xbox anymore, it become all about the services and software.

Phil was a man who walked into this industry, saw the childish nature and removed it. Hardware sales is only used to fuel console wars, something Phil is trying to move away from. He does not care for it, especially when the company he runs does not solely focus on it.

To answer your question, no they wouldn't mind, because Xbox is more about GP, Streaming and Live. Xbox games are on more platforms now than ever before, they want to see 100s of millions of gamers signing up. If the Series X/S sold as much as the XB1 which i believe they would do about the same, i don't think they will care, as long as their revenue goes up and they continue to rack in billions from GP.

You do understand that the XSS was years in the making way before we even heard about it right? They didn't just make the Series S yesterday and wanted to hide it so the X can sell, the S was to support low income customers and it was meant to do well for them from the very beginning.

Hardware is still a part of Xbox, it doesn't have to be the main focus of the brand for them to still care to move units. Its that they don't want to disclose sales figures for fanboys to compare when one company focuses heavily on hardware while the other doesn't. 

And don't worry i am not taking these posts as jabs to Xbox, i am just justifying misinterpretations, which happens a lot on this site.  

Well, nothing change the fact that Xbox One appears above SNES at the best-sellers list. xD

I would say Xbox One was a moderate success. Just not a huge success, like PS4 or Switch. But it also wasn't a failure like Wii U or PS Vita.

Answer me hun, were you successful? Don't make me punish you. Unless bitch, you want me to punish you.  I can bring it.

True but the numbers need to be seen in context; SNES was market leader at 49 million while Xbone at 50 million sold less than half of the market leader.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Xbox One made more money than 360 and Xbox combined. 50 million consoles is no small feat and most of them have gold/gamepass. Apart from the money cost there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of micro transactions + additional fees. gold/gamepass at the end of xbox one's life was a lot stronger than the 360 era.

I dunno, can the APU manufacturer make new different chips overnight for MS if they want a new model? 

Didn't both PS and MS have multiple mid gen console designs ready for Pro and X, in which they decided which one was best for them at the time and picked that one, while tossing the others? No way they wasted all that time, effort, and money to just toss the rest, right?

Well if the competition is giving out numbers even when they're not strong in comparison to MS and what they may find more important, it's hard not to wonder why MS isn't doing the same. Plus I thought MS said they aren't directly competing with anyone anyway, so who cares if the numbers are being compared?

Ok I won't worry.

You'd have to define what "made more money" in your books actually means.

There is no question that XOne lost huge amounts of money on hardware (for the most part of its lifetime, the console was available for around 200 bucks in Europe, way below manufacturing price).

The argument "...but GoldPass/Microtransactions/Phil Spencer is God.." is difficult to argue. We simply don't know how much XOne had to contribute to infrastructure/maintaining supply chain/etc to MS (my guess is they were freeloading on the server infrastructure as that is not cheap to maintain/expand).

I still remember the XBox reveal party. I was with a few colleagues, one of which was a MS guy. When the Mattrick show was over, the MS guy had the most pale face I've ever seen. It was clear to all that this was a trainwreck of epic proportions and XOne would be a complete failure (outside of the US "tvsportssportstvtvsports fangroup").

And don't blame Mattrick alone on it. He was an ideal scapegoat but a lot of key people (including Phil Spencer) were sitting at the boss table during the time the vision was developed.

To sum it up: Yes, XBox One was a complete failure. It failed to meet every and all targets. The only achievement was the start of the next console development cycle and the cleaning up of the completely US centric visions. While it looks much better now, the damage done to the brand will take years to repair.