I guess if MS decides to leave the console market they could very well work the servers to use different HW even more with almost all titles available on PC, but yes at this moment it would be unnecessary extra cost, but for a next gen it could make sense (not that I think they won't release a new console or that it wouldn't make sense to use it for cloud).

I know that time very well and that phrase was both poorly done and severely misrepresented. The way it was told was "This console is so great that you would be willing to work a second job to buy it", but yes I can certainly see that Sony had arrogant thought thinking at the time that allowed them to not do the right processing and direction. Still PS3 was sold at 200 dollar loss (while PS4 was 50 from release and PS5 50-100) so it was more like they were so confident they would be selling great that they burned a lot of money instead of they priced as high as possible, because even if PS didn't had a direct competitor (it did, but considering how much marketshare they had) they know that if they fuck to much a substitute product can come (just like they came when Nintendo and Sega fucked up).

I'm not saying they would make the same decisions without direct competition (MS or otherwise), I just said that the price of the console and games wouldn't go 1k USD and games 100 USD if MS stopped launching consoles.

I have no doubt that XBL really put pressure on PSN improving (even if I don't care about MP I totally credit MS for both the good things that Gold brought as well as the bad ones such as paid online, that nowadays is likely impossible to disappear). I can't be sure if PS4 architecture is a response to X360 being a lot simpler or they seeing that the type of architecture of PS3 was dead, but sure I'm willing to credit this decision from competition pressure.

And just to close I don't think MS have no direct, it certainly does, I do think that without MS moneyhatting a lot of games during X360 and even for titles they didn't the fact they gone multiplatform because X360 was a viable platform pressured Sony to rely a lot less in 3rd parties than in the past (and possible expend more on securing key marketing/temporary exclusivity deals) and power up their 1st party. That is why I said I don't need Xbox, because I'm not interested in its first parties or even the route of more GAAS (that Sony is also taking and I don't like), not that the market itself doesn't need Xbox or a strong competitor to PS.

Dunno man, MS is always aiming to be first place and dominate the market (as I would assume most if not all companies if possible would), but I agree that when they saw it was basically impossible they looked further on how to disrupt the current market and find one niche they could carve to be 1st and them grow it until it is more relevant than consoles.

Marketing rights don't prevent MS from making money off CoD.  It just sways a chunk of the sales towards Sony. Probably not even as significantly as some people think, because PS owners are going to tend to buy CoD on their system in the first place.  

I would need to see a citation for that number, and what the scope was for that number. They lost a large amount on hardware, they made money off licensing and subs, and their own game publishing. I would need to know what factors that number included.

I doubt their subs would be as sustainable without Xbox hardware.

You do realize MS gaming revenue from 3rd party content and services is a huge part it? Take away the Xbox console platform and that decreases significantly because now they rely on 3rd party platforms and Game Pass. We don't even know if other console platforms would allow Game Pass on it. Regardless of this belief Xbox isn't doing well, they're annual revenue has consistently increased year on year with very few dips. Hardware itself might not be a huge part of the revenue pie, but taking that away is taking away a means of software revenue.

To me, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to abandon console hardware. It is an integral part of their gaming ecosystem and is instrumental in driving sales for Game Pass. Xbox consoles have become synonymous with Game Pass, so it would be unwise to discontinue them. Additionally, the console should remain the best-optimized platform for playing first-party games, and it's unlikely that xCloud or any other alternative could match its performance.

If Microsoft were to abandon hardware, it's unlikely that Game Pass would be made available on competing platforms like PlayStation or Nintendo. This could result in millions of subscribers being lost, making it a risky move from a business standpoint. Therefore, it's crucial that Microsoft continues to sell hardware to sustain its position in the market and retain its loyal customer base.

While hardware may not be as important to Microsoft as it is to Sony or Nintendo, it still is essential to the Xbox brand/business, since MS makes a ton on third party sales/subscriptions.

And I do think that Sony and Nintendo would accept a GP light on their platform that only have Xbox exclusives for a cut even if MS doesn't make those games directly available on their stores, but a full GP they won't allow even if MS doesn't have a console anymore because of the loss of royalties 3rd party games would present on their platform.

You do need competition.

The thing about Valve and Steam though is that they are a privately held company.

That means they don't have to appease shareholders and drive profits at any expense.
Gabe Newell can spend money and not turn a profit on a side project and not be held accountable on failing to get a return on an investment or idea.

That definitely means that Valve can maneuver itself in the marketplace a little differently than other business ventures, but it also means they are limited in how much money they can raise to enter new markets.

We also need to remember that Steam has competition... Origin, uPlay, EpicStore, Battle.net Launcher, Windows Store and more are all competing for a piece of the same pie, which has consistently pushed Steam to remain the defacto store, even when developers/publishers tried to omit them.

Even before these other stores popped into existence, Steam was competing with consoles.


As for Microsoft and controllers... Microsoft is trying to exit the peripherals market to a degree, they have wound down their Microsoft keyboards/mice/controllers and are rebranding their premium variants to "Surface" devices.
...Probably wont get an update to sidewinder force it seems.

Their controllers will go in the same direction if they exit the console business.

Every company wants a monopoly.

...But when that is impossible, then as long as they are making a profit, then shareholders (Who these companies answer to) are happy to keep supporting the idea.

When you are managing a company you do need to spin things around from a "marketshare" perspective to a revenue/profit one.

It's why Apple is so successful, they have far far far less marketshare than Android or even Samsung, but they make the most profit.

Being first place isn't always how you win the game.

I do agree that as long as you have a healthy business not being the leader isn't that problematic. And in Apple case they are market leader in profit even if not in units sold that is still a 1st place.

The iPhone actually is the market leader in the US market, Apple doesn't care to heavily discount as much to get developing markets that require lower pricing, though even for that they've made some aggressive new model options on the bottom end of their product line at a cheaper price.