Microsoft blew their chance to consolidate their lead over Sony after the 599 US dollars criticisms.

While Microsoft were never in 1st place console wise, I would argue that they were the best of the 3 during the ps360-wii days

Call of duty had exclusivity deals with Microsoft, and even some Japanese games made it over there in the case of blue dragon.
It wasn't until the end of the generation where Microsoft shifted the 360 from more of a console to more of a "service" box. If Microsoft kept up what made the 360 a better choice then the ps3 then sony might have been in 3rd place that gen.

As an aside I would like to point out that the xbox 360 sold the most software that gen, so saying xbox got "dead last" just because they sold the least HW, and not even by that much, seems a bit unfair

Nothing of this has anything to do with them being on top or not. They have always and will always protect their IP to an extreme extent. And do you think they're the first and only ones to charge for online play?

It would have to be Microsoft or Sony. Both have an established historical track record of a monopolistic impulse and have attempted to exploit favorable market position to enforce anti customer changes on the industry (Microsoft’s crusade against used games in 8th gen, Sony attempting to launch a $600 console in 7th gen and telling customers to get a second job to pay for it, and then Sony again in 9th gen unilaterally deciding to raise the price of games to $70)

Idk man. They actively pushed for paid online walled gardens with Xbox Live. MS also were the very first in offering micro-transactions or DLC in the 360 era - https://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-history-of-gaming-microtransactions-from-horse-armor-to-loot-boxes and advised Bethesda to increase prices of their Horse Armor - which they did. First for timed DLC. Not to mention adverts plastered all over the dashboard (home screen). Urgh.

While they were never really on top, during their peak.. MS added some really crappy things which was later standardized for us 'gamers', that were never were a thing before. I'd shudder to think if they did make it to the top. But F MTX's though and those who pushed for that BS.

Are we all going to sit around here and pretend like Microsoft didn't try to destroy used games?

I mean yeah Sony makes really dumb decisions and can be quite arrogant, and Nintendo (also very arrogant) can be assholes legally and be overly protective of their IPs, but trying to remove an entire way of purchasing and playing games? That's totalitarian.

Nintendo move in their own lane, so by default they are always on top, maybe because of this they tend to be the most innovative/take risks

Sony and MS have always been in the same lane and are competing strongly, which makes them a bit more conservative, but in that lane really only Sony has been on top

I think it is clear that Nintendo is the most arrogant and assholish of the big 3 all the time. It doesn't matter if they're on the top or bottom, they never change their ways.

I have to say MS and it comes down to one main reason mentioned by some here and in general.

XB has never been on top and yet they acted like they had far surpassed PS2 sales when they launched XB One, beyond Sony's arrogance with PS3.

If MS screwed up that badly while barely losing 2nd place to PS3, I don't want to ever find out what they do if they truly end up a solid 1st place later.

They all suck when they get a taste of big success. Put them in whatever order you want.