Being the best selling Xbox means little. 

Also how does this berate me as a customer?

Ryu's posted a very comprehensive show of why it makes financial sense for MS to still make hardware for the near future, you didn't refuted with evidence or analysis none of his points. So no point in keep answering you on this.

No I'm not contradicting myself. I said that MYSELF don't need MS to keep making Hardware because as a customer I don't care about them. But YOU are asking about if MS should still make Hardware from a business perspective, so my answer when looking from MS POV is that they should. They don't come anywhere near contradiction.

You ask about Business perspective and then come to the customer position to defend your point. Seems like you are confusing and contradicting yourself.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Seems quite clear that you really don't understand business even though you claim a lot you do. Sega was making lousy decisions since they started the idea of the Sega 32x, Sega CD and it only got worse on architecture decision for Saturn (like improvising the 3D chip for it), so sure Sony likely made their life even worse (as their decisions on Dreamcast show), but they were doing the bad decisions by themselves long before Sony even entered the console market and just to remember Playstation only really started to get traction with the launch of FFVII.

Personal speculation of a possible future doesn't refute actual facts and figures as to why it makes financially sense for Xbox to stay in the hardware business. I'll try to respond either way but nothing you've said has countered the actual numbers that I've provided to you, random speculation isn't a counter. I could say in 10 years Xbox hardware will sell 150m and thus it makes sense for Xbox to stay in the hardware business but I won't because that's baseless speculation with nothing to back it up.

Just like saying that Xbox going 3rd Party would suddenly turn them into the largest 3rd Party Publisher in the industry by a huge margin and suddenly all of Xbox IPs will be selling incredibly amazing and hundreds of millions will sub to Game pass and everyone will be using xCloud where they can't use native hardware, Lol.

1. You didn't counter half of what I said here, xCloud uses Xbox hardware because it's easier for developers to support it. Saying "xCloud can be on everything" doesn't mean anything to what I said. Stadia failed in part because the business model was trash and in part because it was too much effort for developers to support such a tiny market.

xCloud is already everywhere. It doesn't mean it will take off and replace Consoles. xCloud is an uncertain future and as of right now isn't even profitable for Microsoft, Fortnite on iOS xCloud was by Microsoft's own admission, a disappointment. There is a very real chance that xCloud never takes off in a large scale because there's a lot of things against it; Native hardware will always be better, internet connections and data caps, the slowness of ISPs to upgrade, the distance from a Azure data centre, etc.

2. Have any data for that? Microsoft would have to generate billions in Revenue from becoming a 3rd Party in order to replace the billions they'd lose from Xbox Live Gold + 3rd Party Content (30% Cut).

You're arguing right now that Xbox as a 3rd Party would generate more Revenue than the current largest 3rd Party Publisher (Activision-Blizzard-King) but not only more Revenue, they'd have to double them. Xbox is not going to kneecap itself from a $16bn company to a $7bn company (below Activision) or even a $10bn company (slightly above Activision's $8bn).

3. You lose both the Xbox Live Gold Revenue + Game Pass Ultimate Revenue (when subs drop down to Basic Plan) which is a $5 difference per sub.

4. Guesswork...

5. Sony doesn't have to accept Game Pass and they'd be fine without it. Xbox currently already has Game Pass, PlayStation doesn't, and you don't see that hurting PlayStation sales at all. Who would even accept it if Microsoft was out of the market? Nintendo? Which would largely be done through xCloud thus making it a lot less appealing.

Not to mention, without Xbox, the audience for Nintendo and Sony just becomes larger because it's now a 2 Console Market instead of a 3 Console Market. Nintendo could accept Game Pass in a theoretical but it won't mean nothing to Sony who will continue to sell huge amounts because the audiences are differentiated enough.

They'd both almost certainly only accept a Game Pass with 3rd Parties and both take a cut from Game Pass of Xbox.

Same logic can be used with Steam, has Steam accepted Game Pass yet since it's on Windows Store? No. Because they don't have to.

6. No they really can't. Firstly their "history" of previous games would have to be ported over, costing time, money and resources, that is being moved away from developing new titles.

Secondly, 23 Studios (1 is Mobile) so 22 Studios for Game Pass on Consoles. They can't "easily fill" Game Pass without 3rd Parties. Even the stated goal of 4 AAA's Per Quarter wouldn't be enough without 3rd Parties to fill it too, and EA Access. You're talking about losing hundreds of titles. AAA's are taking longer and longer to develop, 4-6 Years on average now, they'd need a lot more studios without 3rd Party content.

Also, studio amount means nothing, it's the employee count which is more important of a metric, and Xbox Game Studios + Zenimax have around 5,000 Employees combined...In comparison to Ubisoft's 20k and Activision-Blizzard-King's 10k. Nintendo has more employees than Xbox.

7. Throwing out 200m won't mean much without knowing how many will take advantage of it. You also never give evidence for the "billions lost on Hardware" and the "billions spent on creating Hardware" whilst also ignoring that Surface would likely also incur similar RnD costs whilst being a smaller business than Xbox.

200m+ Gamers doesn't mean anything if Xbox's IPs aren't grown into massive juggernauts, as I keep repeating, Xbox IPs would have to reach the scale of CoD, Diablo, Overwatch, Candy Crush, etc, as that is the floor. Not just match but exceed the scale, bigger and more, than ABK.

You'd have to have multiple Xbox IPs which are 30m+ Sellers, multiple Xbox IPs which can generate $1bn in Revenue in 10 Days like CoD can, I'm sure a few could achieve that, such as Elder Scrolls, but it wouldn't be enough that could achieve that to turn Xbox into double the size of ABK as a third party.

8. What? They do need to port titles to PlayStation, Lol.

"If you can't play on your Xbox, go play on your TV" is an awful solution which wouldn't be viable for millions of Gamers, Lol. In addition there are a few genres which absolutely suck on xCloud.

9. Game Pass has millions of users on Xbox and there's no telling where they will go if Xbox shuts up shop on their Hardware. They could be a large chunk who simply move to Steam, they could be a large chunk who move to PlayStation but there would be millions who would be no longer interested in subbing to Game Pass once it removes 3rd Parties, if Sony even accepted it in the first place.

As I've already said, there's a lot that Xbox would have to do before going 3rd Party, if they ever do.

• Grow more than a few of their IPs into massive juggernauts.
• Acquire a huge Mobile developer and massively expand their Mobile footprint.
• Significantly grow in size (employee headcount) and acquire a lot more studios.
• Hope that xCloud has massive improvements, hope that ISPs have huge improvements.
• Have a regular (yearly) release of a massive IP.
• Massively increase Game Pass PC adoption.

Nobody is going to be happy seeing Xbox turn from a $16bn business to a $10bn or less business, Microsoft needs to maintain the same size by going third party and that same size is double ABK, Lol.

All of the improvements above would increase Console sales too though and thus even more $$$ on the 30% cut.

But MS hardware does sell, maybe its not selling enough for you but it sells enough for MS to make a profit off that hardware so not sure about that conclusion.

Who cares if Epic was upsetting people, what Epic did do was provide competition.  With competition it also puts Valve on noticed to not become complacent.  Epic store may never become close to Valve but it doesn't matter because they are in the space and Valve has to consider the challenge and continue to update their store to remain competitive.

Don pretty much covered your Sega argument so no need to go over that history

Hell NO, give Sony the monopoly and we all have to work 3 jobs to afford the next PS system.  Sony would not need to sell at a loss which would increase the cost of the system.  Sony would not need to discount their games at a proper time it would be like Nintendo where their games can be out for over 2 years with the same price.  You give Sony a monopoly but then you believe that in the gracious heart of Sony they would allow MS to put GP on Sony platform.  Yeah that is  big reach.  That niche market is valued 64 billion dollars 

70 billion is ABK price as a company, you did not show what they make in revenue which is 7.5 billion annually.  Now you take MS gaming division annual sales at 15 billion and currently MS makes double what the biggest publisher makes currently.  The evidence doesn't support your opinion and its been pretty well laid out by Ryuu which you have not once provided any real data to dispute it. 

Instead, your opinion if rooted in best case scenarios on GP being the magic service that will double MS revenue without MS hardware.  Also your opinion is reliant on Sony allowing some form of GP on their platform and that MS will be selling more software on Sony platform compared to how much they sell on their own.  Your opinion forgets that MS selling on Sony platform will come at a cost, 30% cut to Sony, license fees for publishing rights.  Even if MS is able to get GP on Sony platform, in what form.  Definitely not any form that competes directly with what Sony offers which will make the service worse.  I doubt Sony is going to allow day one first party for GP on their platform forcing them to respond.

As a business standpoint you have not provided any real counter to the data Ryuu presented.  Most of your replies were one line sentence that basically said, GP will save the day.  No one doubts the benefit of GP currently but without hardware, you have not given any data which says it will sell outside of MS hardware and garner enough subs to make up the difference in loss revenue.

As a business standpoint Ryu is wrong, and you will see very soon who is right in the coming years when we no longer see future Xbox hardware which would make you very happy Don. 

Sega was struggling to compete because they were unable to secure 3rd party support. It was an issue when they were head to head with Nintendo which forced them to make their own titles plus go into the sport genre. Sony entered and Sega had no chance on competing as Sony took the 3rd party market away. You need to do research. Sega's downfall wasn't done due to optional accessories on the Genisis. Nintendo also had some pretty bad optional accessories as well. Sega fell when Sony entered and made the Saturn obsolete.

Sony entered the market and moneyhatted 250 Japanese devs at launch. Thats what killed Sega and almost Nintendo too.

Ryu its simple, 100m GP Subs will earn more money than everything Xbox hardware offers and their 3rd party cut from games. $1b a month, $12b a year without the expense of hardware manufacturing. This is the direction, and this is achievable. They will need to make the cut with Live and consoles to move forward which will only hurt the small fanbase Xbox has but it will be what makes them grow.

I really dont get your point with porting games? Porting isnt an issue today and if games are made with PS moving forward, they wont need to port them. 

ABK is worth $70b and they strive without making hardware. MS know this. 

What i am saying out of all of this is Subs > Hardware. Get GP on everything. Sony will want Xbox games as they also have Bethesda games and Sony wouldn't want to lose out on Elder Scrolls, Fallout etc. These are system sellers. If Sony say no, than Nintendo would love those titles which will increase Switch sales. 

Don's point of Sega is inaccurate.

I could care less what Sony sell their systems for, that's up to those who trust Sony to do the right thing.

PC doesn't didn't need competition. Nothing suggested it needed it. 

The goal is subs. GP is capable of making $1b a month and more if they can get it on more devices and not be hampered down by its own hardware. Remove the hardware, eat the losses and the upset fans, and spread GP to more and more people. It's a "lose a customer, and gain 3 more scenario."

As i stated with Ryu, 100m GP subs will outweighs everything Xbox hardware brings in. TVs, PS, Switch, PC, Mobile all capable to run GP and that is the goal. Sony will most likely accept GP if they don't have to compete with Xbox hardware and MS will surely modify it to suit Sony's needs. 

Why do people think Sony will say no to GP? The service that will be offering the next Elder Scrolls, Doom, Fallout, Halo, Gears, Forza etc? GP will only increase PS sales which is what Sony want, as long as it doesn't eat into their Store front of 3rd party games.

Sure I can see that at some point in time MS doesn't need the console making anymore, maybe in 10 years. But at this point in time it is a lot more beneficial to them than not having, otherwise guess what MS would have cut the console making 100% from their plan. GP was already on going before launch of Series (that Phil Spencer said at the time could win against PS in sales). If MS thought it would make more profit not launching Series and going 100% third party be that launching their games on PS or only through GP they would have decided. MS certainly knows their internal numbers better than you do.

I'm sure you can give proper evidence that Sony bought exclusivity from 250 developers on the launch of PS, it certainly had so many titles at launch kkkkk.

As a business standpoint Ryu is wrong, and you will see very soon who is right in the coming years when we no longer see future Xbox hardware which would make you very happy Don. 

But, I've provided actual facts and figures which back my points up, which you still haven't done, I have actual financial data on Microsoft's Gaming FY which show why abandoning Hardware would mean abandoning billions of dollars in Revenue/Profit via the 30% Cut. You keep claiming Microsoft loses billions on Hardware and losses billions on RnD but have yet to post any source for that.

Ryu its simple, 100m GP Subs will earn more money than everything Xbox hardware offers and their 3rd party cut from games. $1b a month, $12b a year without the expense of hardware manufacturing. This is the direction, and this is achievable. They will need to make the cut with Live and consoles to move forward which will only hurt the small fanbase Xbox has but it will be what makes them grow.

$12bn a Year if everyone Subbed at full price for the entire year (so, not likely). Where is the other $4bn coming from in that scenario?

100m GP Subs is a lofty goal, even fully multiplatform, that is Disney levels, Xbox simply doesn't have the brand for that, Game Pass doesn't have to achieve TV Show level subs to be a success either and Imo likely won't ever achieve that level of Subs.

You'd have to hope for an insane attach rate on PlayStation/Nintendo or a massive increase in Game Pass PC Adoption (Rather than just using Steam).

I really dont get your point with porting games? Porting isnt an issue today and if games are made with PS moving forward, they wont need to port them. 

There's dozens-hundreds of 1st Party titles available in Game Pass which aren't currently on PlayStation. That's my point, they'd have to port them all over, porting costs time, money and resources, unless they start fresh.

ABK is worth $70b and they strive without making hardware. Xbox wont be bigger than ABK straight away if they go 3rd party but its a start. 

1. We don't know how much Xbox would be worth on the market.

2. ABK's Revenues are $8bn a Year - They are the largest 3rd Party Publisher in the industry.

The 3rd Party Publishers strive but the Console Manufacturers make way more money than them.

Nintendo and Xbox bring in double ABK's Revenues, beyond ABK we have EA slightly behind, Take-Two further behind and everyone else distant far behind.

What Xbox is worth on the market would be irrelevant because we wouldn't know it.

"Xbox won't be bigger than ABK straight away"

So what you're saying is that we, and shareholders, would witness Microsoft Gaming going from a $16bn a Year business, down to a ~$8bn a Year business and that would be a good look? Lol.

What i am saying out of all of this is Subs > Hardware. Get GP on everything. Sony will want Xbox games as they also have Bethesda games and Sony wouldn't want to lose out on Elder Scrolls, Fallout etc. These are system sellers. If Sony say no, than Nintendo would love those titles which will increase Switch sales. 

Game Pass needs Hardware. Sony doesn't need them, PS5 will sell 100m+ without an Elder Scrolls, without a Fallout, there wasn't even a new Elder Scrolls in the PS4 gen and only a single Fallout and PS4 sold over 100m.

Nintendo/Sony DO NOT need Xbox's IPs to be massive successes, they will reach their thresholds without them. Again, Elder Scrolls on Switch will probably be via xCloud too which will be a largely inferior experience, not to mention, a huge portion of Bethesda's fans are on PC.

Thus Sony will have the negotiation advantage. Sony will likely demand it's 1st Party Only and a split of the Revenue which means less subs and less revenue for Microsoft.

You don't see Steam clamouring for Game Pass, why would Sony? Lol.

Xbox's 5,000 Employees isn't enough to hold interest without 3rd Parties. Xbox have already stated their goal is 4 Large Titles a Quarter. That is good for a Console Manufacturer, it's more than enough for current Game Pass which is supplemented by a dozen 3rd Parties every month too but it isn't enough if it was just 1st Parties...That would be 4 AAAs Per Year for Game Pass...What would be the point in subbing for a year at that stage. You'd just sub the month they release.

Game development is long as hell, it's unpredictable as well, one screw up and a 1st Party Only Game Pass is now left with 3 AAAs a Year.

If Microsoft wanted to increase on that then they'd have to massively expand.

Let's just keep it simple. GP right now is 25-30M subs right? To get to 100M subs it would need to grow 3 to 4 times "instantly", that certainly wouldn't come just by being available on PS and Nintendo. So the offset of losing revenues by having GP on PS+Nintendo is non-existing.

MS wont drop the Series consoles, they will obviously do what they can to get the most out of those consoles, but moving forward the hardware is not needed. MS know more than everyone in this thread and many times they wanted to cut Xbox out of the console industry. 

Sony moneyhatting 250 Japanese devs was stated in the official PS1 documentary. (PS Museum)

1) GP will make more than the figures mentions. Thats the point of it. If they market GP right and make the right deals with the right companies.

2) If porting is an issue than they will do it via streaming which means no porting required.

3) The Xbox business grows further out. This isn't just the console industry MS is targeting. We are talking Mobile and TVs etc.

4) You think Sony and Nintendo only aim to sell 100m consoles and stop there? You believe they will turn down more sales because they won't accept a modified GP with 1st party Xbox titles? Why would they turn it down? Its not weather they need it, its weather if they can make money off it and Sony and Nintendo will make money off GP.

5) Fun fact, GP is allowed on the Steam Deck.

6) GP isn't only filled with brand new games. They can fill the GP roster with previous 1st party titles and add those 2 to 4 new games every so often. 

Can you give the official link with time stamp if possible?