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.

1) GamePass needs to be on more devices, not just Xbox and Cloud which is still under developed. Example: GP on Switch. That will boost sales significantly.

2) Epic is no where near Steam to influence the industry. Stop acting like services like Epic and UPlay make a difference, they dont. They may try to compete but they are so far behind the marketleader it does not matter. Only thing these competing services do is moneyhat and try to divide the PC audiences. 

3) I don't care what other industrys do. I am referring to the console industry which does not as much competition, it has enough with Sony and Nintendo. Most healthy industries are run by Duopolys. The console market isnt big enough for 3 competing platforms. Weather you agree to disagree, you are not changing my stance on that. History has proven time and time again, 3rd best selling platform exits.

4) Cool story. Games can by made by ideas, funding and dreams. you dont need competition to make a video game.

Gamepass appeals to Microsoft/Mature gamers primarily.
On a Nintendo console, Nintendo games like Mario, Pokemon, Zelda are what sells... Not so much Microsoft I.P like Doom.

- Gamepass is on PC and has literally no traction or users at all... So it's a little bit of a lie to assume, just because it's available, that it will accrue users.

I have already provided evidence that contradicts your claims anyway.

Epic has a massive influence on the industry.
It is literally the engine technology that underpins the vast majority of modern gaming.

And again... I don't know why i need to repeat things several times, but Steam isn't -just- in competition with PC store clients, it's in competition with Xbox, Switch, Playstation, Android, iOS and more. It doesn't live in a vacuum.

Epic Game Store has also taken marketshare in the PC marketplace.

I have already provided evidence that contradicts your claims anyway.

Mate. The microchips that consoles are derived from are part of the console industry, you cannot exclude the literal technical underpinnings of console manufacturers because it contradicts your lie that competition doesn't result in price drops.

What kind of false logic and lies are you trying to push here? Start being honest and people will take you more seriously.
I have already provided evidence that contradicts you here anyway.

Console market has always had 3 competitors or more. Always. And it's been fine for half a century.

1st console generation: Magnavox, Atari and Coleco.
2nd console generation: Magnavox, Atari, Coleco, Intellivision.
3rd console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Atari.
4th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Atari, NEC, SNK.
5th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Atari, Panasonic (3do conglomerates of Panasonic, Sanyo, Creative, Goldstar).
6th console generation: Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, Sony.
7th console generation: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
8th console generation: Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony.
9th console generation: Microsoft, Sony and eventually Nintendo.

The 7th console generation was probably the best example of an evenly split generation with all manufacturers selling more than 70 million hardware units and every company was healthy.

The fact that the console marker has always had 3 or more entrants. (Granted, most were of limited success) showcases that it can support more than 3 companies.

Plus... With PC now encroaching on Nintendo's portable market, it's going to blur the lines even more between PC and consoles.

Every product that sells to consumers is competing with another product.

You don't make money with just "ideas and dreams". - You actually need to compete, earning money isn't free or guaranteed.

Competition provides us with lower prices and more innovation, always has.

1) GamePass also needs more content. The potential is limitless, depends on the content it offers now, and what it offers in the future, it can drastically change. Games like Indiana Jones and CoD etc. Currently the content is okay but not enough to wow people yet, plus, like digital in the past, people are not fully ready to rely on a digital rental service, it will take time. Remember this space. 

2) And here I am repeating myself to you, multiple times.

For starters, Epic's engine has nothing to do with this conversation, don't try to spin this.

Secondly, Steam on PC has a gigantic marketshare over Epic. Epics small gain means little to nothing to the industry. If Epic vanished tomorrow, nothing will change. Hence my entire point.  

Thirdly, you have only proven my point, the 3rd console maker doesn't last, it's always been between 2, your list shows how consistent 2 stay and 1 leaves. That means the console industry isnt big enough to sustain 3 major players. 

3) I am not talking about Microchips, the fact that Competition isn't keeping console prices down shows its doing nothing. Also to debunk your take is Software sales have also gone up, how did your microchip example resolve that? It doesn't. Competition isn't the reason prices stay low, it's the consumers who speak with their wallets. Gaming is optional, not a necessary, people aren't forced to buy overpriced hardware and games. You are treating this like its food, that you have no choice but to accept and eat what these corps release. All 3 players have learnt this the hard way.

4) You don't need competition to make a video game, I could invest tomorrow with an Indy dev to make a video game. Competition isn't needed for that, and you know that's true.  

Just remember, it was competition that gave us an online paywall, ironically Steam doesn't and that's no coincidence. These companies talk to eachother, you know that right? They talk about raising prices together and if they all follow, they all get away with it, because it makes them more money and pleases the shareholders. 

End of the day, if Xbox walks out tomorrow, nothing changes, Sony will still raise their prices regardless if Xbox competes.  

Someone needs to feed ChatGPT the recent and the latest on the Surface continuous free fall, this is cute otherwise. 

Meanwhile ,there are multiple next-generation Xbox rumors now.

Meanwhile ,there are multiple next-generation Xbox rumors now.