SNY entered the market partnering with Nin, knowing it could potentially expand into something more.

MS entered the market mostly to hinder PS and SNY expansion, knowing it would protect Windows and Office, etc.

One companies main goal was to make gaming better so they could enter that market.

The other wanted to get into that same market, mostly to get in the way, to protect non gaming markets.

Gaming has become big enough business that both have a more similar interest in it now, but one company has focused more on console gaming itself and the games to accomplish that, while the other has focused on expansion and profits more so.

XB has focused on paid online and multiplayer because it means bigger expansion and higher profits. PS has focused on single player exclusives because that's where gaming's soul is, while making decent profits.

The heavy XB paid online focus shifted the market enough that PS had little choice but to follow. GP shifted the market just enough that PS had little choice but to follow. Huge and mega large acquisitions shifted the market enough that PS had little choice but to follow. Cross platform has shifted gaming enough that PS has little choice but to follow.

How many of these decisions were made because it's what was best for gaming vs expansion and profits? How many of these industry changes have been natural vs forced? How many of them have been true innovation vs being out of necessity or desperation due to past poor decisions?

MS biggest problem is that they've never been in it for the games. That's never been the main focus, and it has to be if you're going to bring the quality of games that SNY does. XB started heading in the right games direction with the 360, but then shifted and has never looked back, likely due to the success of paid online expansion and profits. MS can get away with it though, because they're one of a rare few multi trillion dollar companies through other markets.

Sad, but actually true.

The Playstation 4 and Playstation 5 dropped support for CD's.

The only downside with the Playstation 3 is that it doesn't support UHD Blu-Rays, but unlike Xbox it doesn't struggle with the whole 23.976Hz vs 24hz mastered blu-ray debacle... Meaning regular blu-ray is better on the Playstation 3.

Sony got a lot right with the media functionality on the Playstation 3.

Nice attempt at a strawman.

Platform Growth isn't just hardware numbers.

If you mean a built-in modem then yes DC was first and you could buy a broadband modem. . SEGANET/Dreamarena predate XBL. In fact a lot of what original Xbox is, was because of Dreamcast. MS used Dreamcasts in focus groups. Considered also using a VMU and being BC with DC games. SEGA had a prototype built of Saturn called the Pluto which had a modem built in but never released.  Tho many consoles have supported online and DLC since the 80s even Famicom,SNES,Genesis,N64 and such. Dreamcast also had online chat with online games esp stuff like NFL 2k or Phantasy Star Online.  360 could not do 1080P until later models because it didn't have HDMI so could only go up to 1080i with components.

This is incorrect. I played 360 on a 34" HD Ready tv with 1080p component input. The TV only had 700 lines of resolution, but the signal was definitely progressive scan and according to the 360, outputting 1920x1080. There are plenty TVs and projectors that accept 1080p over component cables, yet HDMI locked the signal to DHCP and 1080p over component was no longer supported.

It had issues though, the 360 didn't adjust for over scan so for example the current objective of Dead Rising was always out of view, too close to the edge. For some reason it was also very dark. Burnout Revenge on 360 had a lot of black crush. It did look better than on PS2, but too much contrast in places. On my projector I had separate profiles for PS3 and 360 to compensate for the build in black crush of 360 (build in gamma adjustment to add contrast to games) and that also accepted 1080p over component. Switching to HDMI later showed no difference in image quality that I could see. (The component cables for that distance weren't cheap though)

Anyway 360 did 1080p just fine over component. It just wasn't an all round supported input standard at the time.

Online, DLC, HDDs, it's all nothing new if you consider Commodore Amiga / MSX as 'consoles'. Technically they are home computers, yet their main purpose was games.

Same for wireless controllers

Vectrex and Atari 5200 had analog control before the N64

Sony started with dual analog sticks in 1997

N64 started with rumble

I with the Wii mote was the first controller with build in speaker and mic, but can't find much on that.

Motion control goes way back, Sega Activator (full body control) and Power Glove.

VR goes back to the late 60s


I mean all these things we have now are all refinements of ideas and experiments from the 20th century. The 21st century mainly added ways to monetize gaming, paying for online, MTX, season passes, adds on the dashboard (dashboards in general), gamepass and other digital rental/subscription services.

Sony did not start with Dual Analog sticks. That's on Mega Drive. This is the first dual analog controller to exist. Released only in Japan in 1989.

Oh cool, I've never seen that one before. Also already has 'shoulder triggers' I see, a year before the SNES controller.

Simple as I mentioned in another forum. Valve figured out this two decades ago and sega has done it with the sonic community. Bring the fan (modders) in-studio and start producing content that the fans have been asking for the last few years.

Fair warning: My take will probably be a bit controversial.

I think Microsoft should concentrate on PC. This doesn't mean they should drop Xbox as a hardware brand though - but they could do something like they did with their Surface line of tablets and laptops: Create a line of PCs that are specifically designed for couch gaming in a new form factor and possibly with a simplified (and cheaper) version of Windows. They could also bring this even further if they want a make a competitor to the Steam Deck if they also want to make a handheld device. With semi-custom hardware from AMD they could even bring those at prices that wouldn't be possible for normal gaming PCs (as in, more console-style prices), thus growing their brand and market if they would go that route.

That way, they could both support their core business (as in, selling Windows and associated software) and their gaming business all in one go.

And as optional peripheries, I'd offer an external drive that could also read the discs from all previous Xbox consoles and play those titles on that Xbox console, as well as the old Games for Windows Live titles that don't work correctly anymore now.

Trouble with an "Xbox as PC" approach is that it would allow other game stores to sell upon it, such as steam, which would mean no more license fees for games sold on it.. which would mean it would be necessary to turn a profit on each unit sold, rather than sell at cost or slightly below with the idea the difference is made up from license fees on software sales.

You'd probably have to add ~$200 to the Xbox price to make it work.

$149 Xbox Series S dongle
$249 Xbox Series S 512Gb
$299 Xbox Series S 1Tb
$399 Xbox Series X 1Tb
$449 Xbox Series X 2Tb
$499 Xbox Series S handheld
$649 Xbox Series X Desktop PC 1Tb
$699 Xbox Series X Desktop PC 2Tb
$699 Xbox Series S Laptop PC 1Tb
$749 Xbox Series S Laptop PC 2Tb

It would push Xbox in a direction where it has a competitive advantage which I like.
Offer a MS Office/Gamepass bundle for $20pm exclusive to the Series S & X PCs and they would be a compelling option for many.

I don't really find it controversial, because in reality, MS started off on PC, they were the PC brand (they still are with Windows that power most PC's on the planet).

Them focusing on PC means the ecosystem stays refined, stays what it is, what it should have been, rather than two split user bases, where the latter and younger userbase has to have it's branding slapped on the former and older userbase, which previously existed for 2 decades beforehand. It's make more sense for MS to stop bleeding for a plastic box and just go back to where they came from, which would also allow them to put more resources into making a client that's on Steam's level, instead of what we have now, where it's still a nothing burger of a client, still split between itself and a plastic box.

Technically what you're describing is Steam machines, but for Windows, and tbh, I know MS can make that work, because they've done it with their consoles and they know the couch gaming field well enough by now.