Weak hardware wasn't the One's biggest problem, though. The PS3 was "bad hardware", but that too wasn't its biggest issue. Price/messaging/lack of early marketing (all mismanagement by the higher ups) caused a far bigger mess (like the X1), but they overcame that by pumping out high quality, exclusive experiences, eventually getting the price in check, and flipping their messaging on its head. I'm not saying being notably weaker than the PS4 didn't hurt at all, but I'd wager stronger software would have done more for lifetime sales.

The 360's early days were the Crème de la crème of console software and that was the biggest reason it was so desired then. This was despite its initial fail rate. I had several of them go bad and still couldn't live without one. It was simply that good! Constant, strong software overcame shortcomings and Xbox LIVE was top of its class — largely unchallenged by PSN. They lost the plot with the Xbox One and the hardware was a smaller piece of the how. 

Where we fully agree is with the Don Mattrick stuff. 

While the PS3 hardware took more effort to get the performance out of it, I would not say it was "Bad Hardware" as we saw during the later part of that hardware cycle impressive graphical accomplishments by multiple developers.  The thing is the 360 gained a lot of ground on Sony during that era because MS had a year head start and developers in the beginning of the cycle were having issues coding to the PS3.  I believe one of the biggest selling point for a console is what your friends are playing on.  With the year headstart and Sony struggle, a lot of 360 consoles were in people hands which made MS very competitive even still Sony was able to maintain their marketshare advantage.

Even with that example, it was the hardware that was holding back a lot of games which allowed MS to make much gains against Sony before developers turned the corner.  The same was for the Xbox one.  Weak hardware caused developers to struggle to get decent performance out of the hardware and the hardware was more expensive then MS main competitor.  Its one thing to over come having weaker hardware and still go up against the market leader.  Its another to have weaker hardware and cost more than the market leader and have any real success.

Do not get me wrong, Sony played a masterclass game in the PS4.  They took full advantage of MS misstep and their studios were able to perform with high quality AAA content.  When you look at the total picture, all games played better on the PS4.  3rd Party content, first party content and at a cheaper price.  While having the most powerful hardware does not ensure you a win, having a very weak hardware at a higher price definitely ensure you a big loss.

The PS3 was initially very hard to grasp, and in the game dev world, that is definitely considered "bad". The specs themselves weren't bad, but the extra work it took to attempt parity with the Xbox 360 was "bad" for Sony's bottom line.

Also, like it, the X1 had cards stacked against it. Unlike it, Microsoft shook very little of those issues by gen's end. Far beyond hardware. The PS3's remained a thorn in the side of devs throughout the entire gen, but as they began to figure things out, it started to see a real shift. Sony also won back so much goodwill because their 1st Party devs really kicked ass, and by the time Uncharted 2 rolled around, "$599.99 USD" and giant enemy crabs were beginning to join the dodo. The X1 never had a serious reversal like that. The Last of Us (a game that released the same year the PS3's successor did) then sealed the deal. Again, the X1 never had a moment like that. The PS3 proved that you can work with what you have (it actually set the PS4 up for a monstrous future), despite several serious fumbles in the beginning. The X1's biggest issue was software (particularly when compared to the 360, let alone the PS4), not ESRAM and DDR3. The PS3 had weaker hardware (to a degree) at a higher price and finished virtually even with its closest competitor. 

 For reference — the Series X has no hardware issue and yet, the PS5 is currently battering both it and the Series S worse than the PS4 did to the X1. LIVE continues to easily go toe-to-toe with PSN, so that can't be it. Despite the recent, temp PS5 price cut, The Series S has remained the cheapest current gen console between the two brands, so that can't be it either. Of course, the weaker hardware very well may be an issue, and this is where I would lend a little more credit to the notion in this situation, but if the Series X is the more desired of the two, and multiplats haven't suffered that bad, then the lack of compelling software is the next thing to consider (well, that and shortages, but that's more of a head-scratcher than anything we can determine definitively ). The PS5 simply has the games many more people want, and until Microsoft gives folks a considerable reason to own a current gen Xbox, they will continue to falter. Game Pass is great, but not enough. 

What's the biggest holler regarding Xbox right now? Starfield and Acti-Blizz. To me, this is good. Very good! As is this! In the end, it's all about the games. 

While the PS3 hardware took more effort to get the performance out of it, I would not say it was "Bad Hardware" as we saw during the later part of that hardware cycle impressive graphical accomplishments by multiple developers.  The thing is the 360 gained a lot of ground on Sony during that era because MS had a year head start and developers in the beginning of the cycle were having issues coding to the PS3.  I believe one of the biggest selling point for a console is what your friends are playing on.  With the year headstart and Sony struggle, a lot of 360 consoles were in people hands which made MS very competitive even still Sony was able to maintain their marketshare advantage.

Even with that example, it was the hardware that was holding back a lot of games which allowed MS to make much gains against Sony before developers turned the corner.  The same was for the Xbox one.  Weak hardware caused developers to struggle to get decent performance out of the hardware and the hardware was more expensive then MS main competitor.  Its one thing to over come having weaker hardware and still go up against the market leader.  Its another to have weaker hardware and cost more than the market leader and have any real success.

Do not get me wrong, Sony played a masterclass game in the PS4.  They took full advantage of MS misstep and their studios were able to perform with high quality AAA content.  When you look at the total picture, all games played better on the PS4.  3rd Party content, first party content and at a cheaper price.  While having the most powerful hardware does not ensure you a win, having a very weak hardware at a higher price definitely ensure you a big loss.

The PS3 was initially very hard to grasp, and in the game dev world, that is definitely considered "bad". The specs themselves weren't bad, but the extra work it took to attempt parity with the Xbox 360 was "bad" for Sony's bottom line.

Also, like it, the X1 had cards stacked against it. Unlike it, Microsoft shook very little of those issues by gen's end. Far beyond hardware. The PS3's remained a thorn in the side of devs throughout the entire gen, but as they began to figure things out, it started to see a real shift. Sony also won back so much goodwill because their 1st Party devs really kicked ass, and by the time Uncharted 2 rolled around, "$599.99 USD" and giant enemy crabs were beginning to join the dodo. The X1 never had a serious reversal like that. The Last of Us (a game that released the same year the PS3's successor did) then sealed the deal. Again, the X1 never had a moment like that. The PS3 proved that you can work with what you have (it actually set the PS4 up for a monstrous future), despite several serious fumbles in the beginning. The X1's biggest issue was software (particularly when compared to the 360, let alone the PS4), not ESRAM and DDR3. The PS3 had weaker hardware (to a degree) at a higher price and finished virtually even with its closest competitor. 

 For reference — the Series X has no hardware issue and yet, the PS5 is currently battering both it and the Series S worse than the PS4 did to the X1. LIVE continues to easily go toe-to-toe with PSN, so that can't be it. Despite the recent, temp PS5 price cut, The Series S has remained the cheapest current gen console between the two brands, so that can't be it either. Of course, the weaker hardware very well may be an issue, and this is where I would lend a little more credit to the notion in this situation, but if the Series X is the more desired of the two, and multiplats haven't suffered that bad, then the lack of compelling software is the next thing to consider (well, that and shortages, but that's more of a head-scratcher than anything we can determine definitively ). The PS5 simply has the games many more people want, and until Microsoft gives folks a considerable reason to own a current gen Xbox, they will continue to falter. Game Pass is great, but not enough. 

What's the biggest holler regarding Xbox right now? Starfield and Acti-Blizz. To me, this is good. Very good! As is this! In the end, it's all about the games.