So fanboys are completely unimportant, in fact useless, which is why MS doesn't want them comparing numbers as you said earlier, but charging more for extra is important because extra should be free, even for the fanboys?

Sales numbers are not important, people should be playing games not comparing business sale numbers.

I'd think, all gamers matter, but what about the non fanboys that liked XB due to console exclusivity. You think they don't exist? They are of no value?

Never said that.

So SNY shouldn't charge extra for the included PS5 next gen DS Controller features, but MS can charge extra for the not included, Elite Controller (S2)?

I don't understand, Are you comparing Sony charging $10 more to include DS Features on the default controller that comes with the system to a Elite Controller (S2) which is sold separately? Id tell you what i wouldn't agree on, if MS charged for the use of the Share Button on the Series X controllers.  

I'd say sales figures have been seen in a more negative way towards XB yes, because their numbers haven't been as good. PS (and Nin this gen) have their numbers looked at in a positive manner because they've been great. Nobody is going to look at poorer numbers and say wow this is fantastic.

They will never be as high anymore because MS isn't all about trying to push you in buying an Xbox. They are giving people plenty of reasons to ignore the console unless you really want one. Phil stated it clearly. If they wanted to compete head on with console sales, they wouldn't bring their games to other platforms like PC and XCloud. They would have stayed with the same business model as the 360 which did go head on.

Ok so MS isn't as focused on consoles so nobody can or should compare them. Then SNY isn't as focused on Netflix gaming, multiplayer, streaming, etc, so nobody can or should compare them. Nobody should be making any comparisons to GP, xCloud, etc, because that wouldn't make sense, correct? Yet SNY is still obviously competing but isn't as strongly in those area's, so they don't matter whatsoever? Ok I guess?

Correct, we shouldn't compare them.

What about people who care a lot about online multiplayer and/or fairness, cheating, brand toxicity, and cross play? Don't you think that how many people have the same console matters if you'll only be playing with people with the same console, or do those people not matter at all either? It's really no different for any device, Nin Switch or otherwise. Unit sales matter, even if you believe it doesn't for fanboys and hardware enthusiasts.

Unit sales don't matter, only to those interested in the console wars. Again, people should be playing and talking about the games, not which system sold more.

We are in a industry thats divided by exclusives. If they didn't exists, we would live in a world where console makers would be focusing on trying to make the best console with features that sell a system and not the games. Exclusives only separate friends, force people to buy hardware they don't want or afford. If anyone can watch a DvD on a DvD player why cant consoles? Than it all comes down to which console suits your needs, price, features, services, etc. Everyone plays together on the hardware that suits them. Much like Apple vs Android phones, we can all call and text each other, doesn't matter of the phone, what separates them are the features. This is why i favor PC gaming, its one community, not divided. (Until Epic, trying to bring in that console mentally, trying to separate the people with their service and paid exclusivity.)

If the Xbox Series was a total flop it would get way less games and Microsoft might stop making consoles so these parts are completely untrue. Comparing the libraries of poorly performing systems to ones that are really successful shows how massively important sales are.

K well I'm not responding to all of that because clearly it and much of the past replies have just been dodging, but if you don't think that one company offering advancements in their new console, which costs the same as the competition without those same advancements, like the controller, yet they both charge extra for controller upgrades, just in their own way, then it's not worth bothering, just like hardware sales...

BTW, its disappointing to know there won't be an, 'XBSS/XBSX : were they successful consoles?' Perhaps instead it'll be, 'XBSS/XBSX : myth or fact?'

Now compare the software libraries of PS3/360 vs Gamecube. The former have much stronger lineups due to their much bigger install bases. Switch vs Wii U is another very telling comparison of how much sales matter in this regard.

Now compare the software libraries of PS3/360 vs Gamecube. The former have much stronger lineups due to their much bigger install bases. Switch vs Wii U is another very telling comparison of how much sales matter in this regard.

Ah, I see. The competition should wise up and leave out any and all extra's and charge more for them separately. Make as much as possible proprietary. Which makes sense because if you can't compare one brand vs another, there's no reason whatsoever not to nickel and dime consumers. That used to be considered anti consumer due to comparisons, but going forward it's just the new norm I guess.

Name a high selling console that competed overall, especially when it comes to performance, that didn't have enough great first party and tons of third party support. You can't just not compete with performance then suggest that has nothing to do with lack of some titles. Other consoles certainly lack portability and a screen so you couldn't justifiably say they sold poorly as mobile handhelds so they didn't get mobile games.

Well if the success is based on me personally, and owning the console and having fun with it as you say, then I'd have to change my earlier outlook, because I never owned an XB1(S)(X), since it didn't ever seem worth it.

I guess the XB1 was a failure after all.

Switch has no shortage of third party games. It may not get every AAA PS/Xbox game but between the ports it does get, console exclusives, Japanese support, AA games, and indies, it is stacked with content. And it's not even close to done yet; it likely has years still ahead of it to grow its catalog.

Gamecube also missed out on a lot of major third party games, and overall has a much smaller library than Switch, PS3, or 360.

Ah, I see. The competition should wise up and leave out any and all extra's and charge more for them separately. Make as much as possible proprietary. Which makes sense because if you can't compare one brand vs another, there's no reason whatsoever not to nickel and dime consumers. That used to be considered anti consumer due to comparisons, but going forward it's just the new norm I guess.

Name a high selling console that competed overall, especially when it comes to performance, that didn't have enough great first party and tons of third party support. You can't just not compete with performance then suggest that has nothing to do with lack of some titles. Other consoles certainly lack portability and a screen so you couldn't justifiably say they sold poorly as mobile handhelds so they didn't get mobile games.

Well if the success is based on me personally, and owning the console and having fun with it as you say, then I'd have to change my earlier outlook, because I never owned an XB1(S)(X), since it didn't ever seem worth it.

I guess the XB1 was a failure after all.

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.

Switch has no shortage of third party games. It may not get every AAA PS/Xbox game but between the ports it does get, console exclusives, Japanese support, AA games, and indies, it is stacked with content. And it's not even close to done yet; it likely has years still ahead of it to grow its catalog.

Gamecube also missed out on a lot of major third party games, and overall has a much smaller library than Switch, PS3, or 360.