I think people have an overly negative views on the current state of gaming scene. My games now cost less than they when I had the Sega Genesis. Competition has brought a lot to the scene, even the freemium model has some perks. I am not spending my money on in-game purchases yet the selection of games I want to play is only growing.

I don't disagree that there has been lots of mismanagement and poor decision making for decades, but you need to keep in mind that Microsoft sucks as a competitor in the consumers space, not just with consoles. Browsers, search engines, smartphones, headphones, laptops, app stores, smart watches, tablets and needless to add, consoles and gaming (lol). I wouldn't use MS as an example of how competition isn't good for the consumer because MS makes terrible third-grade products and has no idea how to compete in the consumer space without buying companies like ABK or coming up with subsidised business ideas like GP (which they seem to be walking away from).

I am not sure what to make of the unaddressed rumours as they seem to contradict each other, they don't seem to be existing the hardware business and only taking advantage of the current Xbox crisis like any true capitalist would. Wait and see for now.

I think you're gossly misrepresenting what I said. I never stated nor implied that a company needs to appease me, only that the existence of competition has a benefit for me as a consumer. So, it is irrelevant whether I would've bought a Series X or not. Me choosing not to buy one is not a mistake on my part, it's quite literally a mistake on Microsoft's.

So, you seem to be mistaken that ppl should've supported MS (you directly say this about me), when the reality is that the onus was on MS to court me as a consumer. It's clearer now more than ever just what a poor job MS did on that front. When it comes to hardware, software, marketing: they just simply haven't done a good enough job in any of these departments this generation. 

MS will of course survive in this theoretical where they drop hardware. They don't need hardware per se since they have strong brands. They'll sell their games on PS consoles and both them and Sony win on that front.

But that's neither here nor there, because that isn't my concern, but rather how much growth exists when they don't have their own platform to feed people into that subscription. It remains to be seen what MS will do, but we'll find out soon 

Well I see you're not missing your opportunity to display your hatred of MS this has so many things wrong that's hard to even begin to explain but since it's a an obvious flaming attempt I'll let chatGTP do it for me 

Me : can you analyse this Statement : "you need to keep in mind that Microsoft sucks as a competitor in the consumers space, not just with consoles. Browsers, search engines, smartphones, headphones, laptops, app stores, smart watches, tablets and needless to add, consoles and gaming (lol). I wouldn't use MS as an example of how competition isn't good for the consumer because MS makes terrible third-grade products and has no idea how to compete in the consumer space without buying companies like ABK or coming up with subsidised business ideas like GP (which they seem to be walking away from)."

ChatGTP :

The statement presents a heavily biased and overly negative view of Microsoft's performance in the consumer space. Here are some points to consider regarding the inaccuracies and biases in the statement:

1. Generalization: The statement makes sweeping generalizations about Microsoft's performance across various consumer products without providing specific evidence or examples to support these claims. It fails to acknowledge Microsoft's successes in certain consumer markets and overlooks its strengths in enterprise and business-oriented products and services.

2. Lack of Context: The statement does not provide context or historical perspective on Microsoft's efforts in the consumer space. It fails to recognize Microsoft's significant contributions to technology and innovation, including the development of widely used products like Windows, Xbox, and Microsoft Office.

3. Selective Examples: The statement selectively highlights Microsoft's perceived failures in consumer products while ignoring its successes and areas where it has made significant investments and advancements, such as cloud computing (Azure), enterprise software, and productivity tools.

4. Omission of Positive Developments: It ignores recent positive developments and innovations from Microsoft, such as the Surface lineup of laptops and tablets, which have been well-received by consumers and critics alike.

5. Exaggeration and Bias: The statement's tone is excessively negative and biased, using derogatory language ("terrible third-grade products") without providing objective analysis or balanced viewpoints.

In summary, while it's fair to critique Microsoft's performance in specific consumer markets, the statement lacks nuance, balance, and factual evidence to support its sweeping conclusions about Microsoft's overall competitiveness and product quality in the consumer space.

The way I see MS working GP into other eco-systems is to stop selling competitive products like Hardware. Many fail to understand the pull GP has. Sony actually gains more customers if it became an option. More people will buy PS knowing they have the option. More PS sales = more money.

PCs are living proof you don't need competition and ironically PCs offer the best value in gaming, no online paywalls, best and more common discounts, bigger variety of games and the list goes on.

We have competition now and prices have been going up. Sorry to say, competition isn't helping. 

Competition does not equal better games, and to debunk your points on pricing, look at the industry today. We have price increases across the board, in a industry with Competition. Companies will price hike regardless. Because they know when one does it, they all follow to push the agenda

Phil killed the brand. Don hurt it badly but Phil nailed the coffin. He's lied through the XBO gen. Badly managed games over and over. Bullshit apologies and broken promises. Good job phil now Sony has no competition. Idiot. At least I have the OG Xbox and 360. They were good. Not that Sony hasn't had bonehead decisions with MS as a direct competitor but they rushed to try and fix it like PS3 by 2009 had recovered.

Gamepass has lost momentum. - They have already reached market saturation.

https://gamerant.com/xbox-game-pass-growth-subscriber-count-2023-report/

And as countries face inflationary pressures, one of the first things homes are culling are subscription services to make ends meet.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2022/05/10/as-retail-opens-up-and-inflation-closes-in-consumer-subscription-fatigue-is-on-the-rise

PC has always had competition.

Steam competes with Origin, uPlay, GOG, Epic, Desura, Impulse, Direct2Drive, Windows Store/Games for Windows Live, Amazon Digital Services and more.

The reason why there are no pay walls is because you would literally bleed customers to the competition.

Actually, prices have gone up because of the LACK of competition.

You are only looking at the consumer-facing products and assumed competition and price rises are one in the same.

There is more to the chain of building consoles than what you see on the shelf.

The fact is... TSMC has the fabrication market locked down and has essentially monopolized leading edge nodes... And when everyone is scrambling for that limited capacity, TSMC can raise prices.
Eventually those costs MUST be passed onto the consumer in one way or another.

It's due to a lack of competition.

The more you know.

It does mean better games.

Let's take Sim City for example, massive shit show.

But then competition gave us Cities: Skylines which wrote that wrong.

1) GamePass has staled due to it being on the lowest selling console. Put it on others and see where it leads. GP is designed to be on everything with an exception of afew.

2) None of those PC services are anywhere near Steam to even influence the Market. Steam has always controlled the PC gaming space since its release and continues to with or without competition.

3) Prices have gone up while we have competition. Xbox and Nintendo exist aswell as PC and Mobile gaming sky-rocketing, yet we are still seeing prices rise. With or without Xbox, the results are the same.

4) building spiritual successors is not competition. Thats another taking the torch. If Sim City didnt exist, someone else would have come up with the idea, that goes for all games and devices.

Gamepass is not just on Xbox Series X consoles.

It's also on:
1) Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox one X, Xbox series S.
2) PC.
3) Android.
4) iOS.

That's more than half a billion devices... But they are struggling to grow.
https://gamerant.com/xbox-game-pass-growth-subscriber-count-2023-report/

Epic has done a brilliant job in bringing competition to Steam.

However we also need to remember that Steam is a privately held company where it's not beholden to shareholders to reduce overheads and increase profits.

Steam has competition with consoles and mobile.

You need to STOP propagating the LIE that Steam has no competition.. It literally does. It's called every gaming platform out currently.

You didn't read my previous post... Or you are trying to establish a reality distortion field where you repeat a lie so often, that you hope it ends up being true.

1) Competition doesn't exist for the components that make up the consoles which are the reason for price rises.
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20230605PD203/tsmc-2024-ic-manufacturing-semiconductor-price.html

If we take a look at TSMC's marketshare...
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/global-semiconductor-foundry-market-share/

You will see they control almost 60% of the fabrication market.
However. And this is the part you seem incapable of comprehending...

Many of those foundry's aren't producing on leading-edge nodes.
For example, Global Foundries has a 6% marketshare, but they don't produce anything smaller than 12nm.

Intel doesn't fab AMD chips, SMIC is chinese so there is a whole trade drama surrounding that, UMC tops out at 14nm with plans for 12nm with a joint venture with Intel.

So that leaves Samsung and TSMC for 7nm and smaller for the console technology. - Which means there is no competition.

Which means TSMC can get away with raising prices like they have done prior.

You can't be serious right now?

A spiritual successor is also competition.
But there was added competition with the City XL games, for it was worth.

EA fucked up... It's competition swooped in and stole their playerbase.

EA then closed Maxis.