Nintendo was still a player. People were still gaming on a Nintendo system. Customers can choose to not upgrade and wait.
I do not care about the Sega narrative since I like to say on topic so I will leave that one alone. My point is that Sega died because of bad business decisions and since then they have not been the same even in software.
And where you and others fail to understand is it's not needed. Steam offers devs more sales than EGS, the devs make more money by taking less due to Steam's popularity. This is unnecessary competition to break up Steams PC monopoly and divide the market which PC gamers need to happen. I don't want more store fronts, I want less. I don't want to juggle my games from store front to store front. If that's what you want than your opinion is bad for the industry because you are supporting games being taking away from a popular store and force gamers to switch.
So you are trying to tell everyone that EGS is not needed, are you a developer. If Steam offered more sales than EGS why does EGS get developers to put their games on their Storefront. Why does any game get put on any other Storefront if Steam is the only one to use. I mean it just seems like you really have no real business sense if you do not understand this simple concept. It does not matter what you want. You continue to move from talking about business to your own personal wants. YOU DO NOT DEFINE THE MARKET. This is why your arguments are all over the place because the majority of it is based on your opinion but now exactly what you stated was the thread meaning. You have not provided an argument that is based on what a business want but instead have continued to throw in your own personal opinion and assumptions. The thing is EGS offer another store front whether you like it or not. It offer another store front for customers and developers/publishers. EGS continue to gain customers and developers and offer competition to Valve whether you like it or not because that is business. If Valve ever stumbles, get greedy lose site of customers, they EGS will be there to pick them up.
So be it, if Sony say no than maybe Nintendo's next system will take Elder Scrolls 6. Less sales for Sony if that's the choice they want to make. I also heavily disagree. Sony have no issue selling Bethesda games on PS to this day. So whay would that change if Xbox hardware isn't a thing anymore?
Maybe Nintendo will. All your points are maybe. Everything is just some assumption. You stated yourself, no corporation can run their business on assumptions. It's not that Sony has any issue in selling MS games, it's that Sony doesn't need MS games on their console. If Sony is the only High end Console on the market, they already getting all the games and all the customers. They would be in an even more dominate position then they are today. You think Sony will say, "Hey look at how much more money we can make selling MS games", I say "Look how much more money we can make by forcing MS to leave the market and selling their games division". Both are assumptions but the thing is, to directly state Sony will do something without understanding what Sony wants, is pure gamblig. The second point is if Sony is going to allow MS to sell their games on PS, what will MS have to give up in the process. If MS cannot sell their games on Sony hardware which mind you probably will be the only real console hardware that probably will be able to play their games, where do MS go to. You say Nintendo, but you are still playing the high risk assumption game.
You are missing my point. MS will support full streaming on all platforms, thats their push, weather gamers like it or not. If Streaming is the only access to their future line up, then gamers will have to adjust. Otherwise, they will be playing Skyrim while the new wave of gamers will be playing ES6.
Why is that point worth anything today. MS does not offer full streaming on all platforms because MS is not on all platforms. Your assumption is that Nintendo and Sony will allow GP on their platform. You are risking the business on an assumption where MS streaming directly competes with Sony and Nintendo offering. No one will understand this point because no one believes Sony nor Nintendo will allow GP on their platform without neutering it. Then you state the biggest misconception, "Whether gamers like it or not". So if gamers do not like streaming their games how exactly is MS going to grow, GP. So you believe that Gamers will just not decide to play ES6 but then ignore all the gamers who are purchasing a PS5 now and not an Xbox S/X. You seem to put a lot of importance on MS games as if they are needed by Sony and Nintendo.
Its based on business logic. MS will make more money with GP in the future, XCloud is another form of distribution (Replacing hardware) Sony saying no to Xbox games would be one of the stupidest moves a business can make, sure MS will have to abide to Sonys rules, but a board of directors wont say no to more income.
In what future, how far away is this future you keep talking about. A future where MS is dependent on other companies allowing them to put their games and GP on their platform. I see you have no clue how a board operates. If Sony is the only console in town and the only one gaining all the customers who want a high end console, they already have all the games. All the games that would be coming to MS, all the indies, new studios, existing studios and publishers all now go to Sony. For the money Sony will make with everyone coming to them, do you think the money they will be missing from MS will mean that much. I will agree with you, that Sony will probably not deny MS to publish their games on their console but GP, in what form does that happen. Definitely not in its current form but somehow you believe this is what customers will want.
They released zero games last year and 2 this year, one being critically acclaimed and one being a disaster. You cant say they cant compete when they have only released 2 major titles in 2 years. 20+ Studios are all cooking something. You literally believe 20 studios are not doing anything?
MS is not competing if all you have is one good game against just about everything Sony released last year and this year. Sony and Nintendo have not missed a beat, while MS has constantly struggled to get any game out. I could list so many exclusive high profile games released from Sony and Nintendo while from MS its been limited at best. I am not saying that MS cannot compete, I am saying because of how bad 2022 was and the start of 2023 compared to the other vendors, MS is a gen behind. This means that all MS games must hit hard for the rest of the year to even be considered in the same conversation as Sony or Nintendo. This has set back MS big time in all their future plans because it doesn't matter if GP is on everything if people do not care about MS games. First MS needs to make consumers care about their games before MS can care about how many subs they are going to be able to achieve.