Getting Game Pass on every device possible and becoming the biggest 3rd party publisher is going to be their focus. They may still make hardware but it won’t be their focus and would be more like a Steam Machine approach where it’s just one of many devices you can play their games on.

Especially when it comes to business. It's about growth and how to make even more money, not just making the same amount of money as last gen. Sony is also in a tough spot with shareholders. They need to make more money than the PS4 because that's what the investors want to see, growth, and because PS4 set the bar high, we are now seeing Sony make decisions like expanding games to PC because how else are they going to top the PS4? They won't, by just doing the exact same thing the PS4 did. They need to expand to grow, otherwise the PS5 will sell exactly the same as the PS4 and not increase their shares.

All console brands today are making profits, however is it enough for all 3 to grow? No. Hence the radically shift to PCs and Mobile. 

I thought 40 mil was a bit low too, but I assumed that perhaps it was just to make a clear distinction that XBS sales will be less than XB1.

50 mil probably would've been a more reasonable ballpark guess, but then you could totally see some people saying, 'that's basically the same as the One so there's no drop in hardware.'

Unless there's a considerable change or shift this gen, XBS will sell less than XB1. The point is the hardware trend is consistently downward.

Yes.

To show MS a presentation where you make $4 bil this year, $5 bil next year, and $6 bil the year after, will get you thrown out. MS wants to see more like $4 bil this year, $6 bil next year, and $10 bil the year after, and so on. There's growth, and then there's GROWTH, and this is MS we're talking about.

Yes.

PS has become too important to SNY now, so they want big expanding profits, but it's even worse for them. They see the major backing MS is giving XB in terms of purchasing power through acquisitions, and it looks like once again, MS decided not to pull the plug and is standing behind XB going forward.

PS really has no choice but to grow and grow quickly, because if they don't, all XB needs to do is keep growing and wait and they will eventually win. Not next year, not this gen, but eventually. This also means its not all that smart for PS to build a wide variety of different hardware because it's too much time and money to waste up front for little profit down the road, until they can sell (new) games on them anyway. They have to do something just like what XB is already doing, which is port old and new games to other platforms. It's far cheaper, quicker, and makes much larger profits.

This totally makes it seem like XB and PS are just greedy, but XB did it because MS can't just bail them out every time they are in a bit of trouble, though they do have the money to easily do that. Where as PS at this point is basically being forced into it because SNY don't have anywhere near the same income or cash on hand like MS does. Not like SNY is tiny or doesn't want the extra profits, but the truth is most of those SNY profits are going to have to go right back into growing PS or eventually they're going to be in trouble because XB and MS can just wait it out as they grow.

Now there would be room for 3 if they were still just console waring and not content waring, that changes things considerably, or if size wise they were more equal. SNY could live with PS profits before, but they can't now when they're up against a giant like MS, making the massive moves they're making with XB. Same with Nin before SNY showed up. That led or even forced Nin into a blue ocean strategy eventually. The profits always matter, and do matter for XB, but they matter more now than ever for SNY. MS just wants bigger XB profits at this point. SNY needs big PS profits.

False.

The industry has matured.

Again, the Xbox One, Playstation 4 and Switch were all profitable and successful.

That's a lie.

Nintendo had a trending reduction in console sales going from NES > SNES > Nintendo 64 > Gamecube.

During the 6th generation, Gamecube sales failed to garner traction... BEFORE Microsoft entered the console space.

Every console manufacturer struggled to compete against the dominant Playstation 2, that's a blatant fact.

Not true.
Sega hurt due to poor choices they made with the Sega Saturn...

Extremely difficult hardware with it's 8x different processors (2x Hitachi CPU chips, Motorolla CPU for sound, second sound chip, 2x video processors)

It was expensive and hard to make games for.

And sales deservedly suffered as a result. Competition at work.

False. - I will only use Japanese release years as they were earlier and more consistent than western.

Atari put itself on the map with the Atari 2600 in 1977 with about 30 million hardware units sold.

Atari released the successor the Atari 5200 in 1982 and the Atari 7800 in 1986.
The 5200 only shifted 1 million units, the 7800 only shifted less than 5 million units...

Atari had already faltered before Sega came along.

Sega entered the console space in 1983 with the SG-1000 which didn't take marketshare as it sold less than 2~ millon units.
Sega released the Master System in 1985 which sold 13~ million units, but it wasn't until the Genesis in 1988 where they had any relevant market-share with 30~ million units sold...  By then it had already been years since the Atari peaked with it's successful 2600 device.

Remember this was during the video game crash. Nothing was selling, except Nintendo with the Nintendo Entertainment System which sold about 61~ million hardware units.

1) Xbox 360 was extremely profitable. - Microsoft's biggest blunders was actually the RROD which set them back.
https://www.audioholics.com/news/microsoft-xbox-360-profits

2) The Playstation 3 did end up being profitable, although was a loss-leader for a few years.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/512740/article-4244.html

So no. It didn't "almost kill them" business wise.

It was normal to loose money on hardware to make it back on games and accessories... And even subscriptions.

Xbox despite loosing marketshare in the 8th gen was still a very profitable console.

Contrary to popular belief, you do not need to be THE market leader to have a successful console.

If Microsoft did "hypothetically" take Marketshare from Sony, then yes, Sony would have lower profits and revenue... Which means... And here is the kicker...
Sony will be required to compete.

Sony will be required to invest.

Sony will be required to put the consumer first.

And the consumer wins... And this is the position Microsoft is in currently, it needs to compete, it needs to invest and it needs to put the consumer first.
Will they succeed? Who knows. But that is what competition is all about.

A healthy industry is where all console manufacturers are successful and profitable, we saw that in the 7th gen, we saw that in the 8th gen and we will likely see it in the 9th gen.

And obviously as the market is not expanding in terms of total user-base, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to think outside the box to bring in new revenue streams and potential markets.

Nintendo has achieved it multiple times with garnering the attention of casual gamers with the Wii and the Portable market with the Switch.

Microsoft has bifurcated their business plan to top-load their console offering with subscriptions and value add-ins to make up for the lower hardware install base.

Microsoft isn't a $3 trillion dollar valued company because they make poor business choices, they obviously see video games as a lucrative place to compete in... Which is also why the video gaming division is larger than the Windows division today.

Mate. Don't be daft. Telling anyone to "do your research" is logically fallacious.

1) I have checked the facts and looked up the data points and often provided evidence for my claims. (You have not.)

2) Telling others to do "their research" is not you actually wanting them to do research, you just want them to consume media until they come to the same conclusion you do.

3) You are not a researcher, you are not a scientist, you are a consumer of media. The fact is, you haven't done your research, you have just consumed media... So it's highly hypocritical to assert someone else has not done their research.

They have all been successful for decades.

Actual decades.

I can't make this up.

Microsoft's gaming division is more profitable now than it has ever been.

Switch is potentially going to overtake the Playstation 2 as the best selling home console of all time.

Playstation 5 is doing fantastically well.

...And you somehow illogically come to the conclusion it's going to come crumbling down?

Common man. You can do better than that.

Speaking of MS software, any idea what Moon Studios is working on? Both Ori games are some of the best experiences in gaming. I really love those games. I've beaten each many times.

They are working on a action RPG called "No Rest for the Wicked". Moon Studios is an independent developer and this next game will be self published I believe. IGN has a preview on the game.

I really don't think you are reading my posts correctly. I clearly said, its more than profits, it's also about growth. 

360, MS were literally about to pull the plug on the Xbox, or change drastically, which is why we saw the XB1. If it was that succesful they would have not bothered changing, but MS didn't want to lose another $3b on hardware.

PS3 lost $5b and at the time when Sony stocks were considered junk, Sony were bleeding and PS3 almost put the nail in the coffee, they were lucky to turn it around with the PS4, thanks to "not much competition" with the WiiU and XB1. 

You can make excuses as to why these brands failed with hardware, but don't ignore the fact that they pulled out due to fierce competition. We lost great brands due to competition. If the market was big enough, Sega would still be competing. Sega couldn't keep up with Nintendo and Sony. Xbox is also feeling the pressure as they cannot grow with Xbox hardware anymore. They can profit all they like but they will lose shareholder if they can't show growth. No shareholders, no brand.

You don't seem to understand how the business side works. It's not just about being profitable, it's about growing. Why do you think Xbox and PS are using PCs? To grow because the console space is either shrinking or not enough to satisfy investors. Suits want to see their stocks double, triple, quadruple, not remain the same. Thats the corporate world. 

There is good competition like Apple vs Microsoft, and there is bad competition like me trying to play Far Cry 6 on Steam, and I have to now download, update and Sign in to Ubi Connect, syncing them up and running two gaming platforms just to play a game I brought on Steam. Oversaturation isn't good. 

I am sure you would agree that you would prefer to have paid for 2 service providers than 12 service providers to watch your movies on.    

Nice.  Thanks my friend.  I'll have to check it out.  I love that studio.

Eh, I don't follow here. If all Sony copied MS. Look at it: Playstation today is exactly the vision Xbox brought into the console space: games closer to PC gaming (shooters, action games), online, patches, DLC, persistent memory (harddrive/SSD), platform achievements. Everything here was introduced with the original Xbox or early in the 360 life. Sony copied that, but combining it with the Playstation branding they got much more success. Even with stuff like motion gaming - Sony outright copied the Wii motion detectors and incorporated them into their controller. Xbox on the other hand saw it and massively changed it with Kinect. So no, MS/Xbox isn't the copycat here. The PS5 has more similarities with OG Xbox than with PS2.

If anything their biggest problem is missing consistency. OG Xbox and 360 was about convinient gaming PC, One was always on, Series about Gamepass. They aren't sticking with their guns, which alienates the userbase they have formed the gen before. And they can't rely on the extremely strong brand power Playstation has.

The thing also is, the markets are changing. Console gaming has had since at least 15 years now a ceiling of 200M users. PC gaming is stronger than ever and expanding, mobile gaming has exploded past console and cloud gaming may follow in it's footsteps. So while the console space is still big and important, it is no longer vital. And while Xbox is probably never win the console space, it actually is quite well positioned in the other areas. This overall gaming strategy - combining all the areas of gaming - this could be a massive strength of Xbox. And it is notable that Sony already knows it and struggles to follow - their GaaS-initiative, porting to PC, Playstation Now. But it all seems too little too late. How did Sony called it: MS moved past their pillars? I think that is indeed the case.