Did they even have a strategy outside of buy a bunch of studios?

That's the thing though, the OS is Steam, the OS is the store, it is your library.

Apple phones operate strictly within Apple's own ecosystem, but Valve allow you to choose with their OS, but either way, their Deck and other portable devices act as a stepping stone for their OS, and other portable systems are now allowing to support it and vice versa with Valve. 

You cannot quantify this with a sales argument. I not not arguing sales, that matters so very little with the current spectrum being the general ecosystem of an entire brand. This is why MS is so focused more on it's own ecosystem than it is a tiny...little...plastic...box.

You do realise Nintendo is already branching out to mobile, yes?. You do acknowledge they themselves see that they cannot forever be locked behind a tiny little plastic trinket for all of time, yes?. 

The sales of a small box at the end of the day will matter little, it is what you offer in terms of software and features as well as your general library of offerings that will matter to the people. Look at streaming for instance, have you noticed how subs have been dropping like flies ever since multiple companies decided to stop account sharing?. Then of course there are the companies vying for each IP they can lock away within their little service, but it all shows up to the public as a fragmented experience at the end of the day, and thus people wish for a more unified experience, an "ecosystem" if you will, that allows them access to everything. 

This is what people want today, what the normies want, what I want. What most people want is to have access to a vast library with features that provide a streamline and ease of use experience. You don't get that by locking yourself away to a single plastic box nor can you maintain that bubble forever either.

Nintendo will have to follow the others one way or another, because mankind wants this. We want to evolve and we need to move beyond the tiny plastic little box idea, that some cling onto for nostalgic reasons (I love my gameboys a lot, but those are devices that are barely even sold by the companies of today, and second hand sellers take us for rich fools, so there's that little predicament when you look at the tiny little plastic boxes called consoles).

Either way, at the end of the day, the ecosystem is here and now, and it matters more to how far it can reach and what it can possibly offer. The boxes are the shells to which the ecosystem can step onto and provide service. Again, you cannot quantify an ecosystem in sales, I just want to make this point very, very clear to you, because you seem to have an unmoving thought process regarding "system sales" of shell hardware, when talking about the Deck, and I already told you it's sales matter little, it is the OS that matters more, and that is what counts as the "biggest win". The fact you seek to quantify it is what baffles me (because I do not want to be that character, but I  also don't want to assume you are letting you "fan" side take over your judgement of being able to look at the bigger picture). 

I am not talking about the Steam OS. The post I quoted did not specify the software, it specified the device. I'm talking about apples, you're talking oranges.

Hardware sales actually do matter. More people play on Switch or PS5 than on Steam Deck by an order of magnitude. 

And people have been claiming for the last 20 years that the days of console hardware are numbered, yet here we are in 2025 and systems like the Switch and PS5 are doing great.

This is going way off topic at this point though, so I'll redirect to the subject of the thread, Xbox's stumbles this gen.

I know you are not, but I am talking about the Deck that was housing the OS, because it has acted as a stepping stone, a proving ground, and now we are seeing other devices allowing support for that same OS. 

You want to talk about it in a separate manner to justify small sales as a nothing burger, and again, I've no idea why you want to hold onto this arguing point of yours (what does it really mean to you?). 

If hardware sales mattered, then the software would be so little if everything was tied to each specific piece of hardware for all of time, and yet history is changing this time and time again. People WANT to be able to have access to their library of what they have bought, and not having to rely on a plastic box that will stop production within a decade at any given time.

You argue for hardware sales because by your own logic, it wins your argument, everyone shuts up, Nintendo lords over all, and yet none of that even matter shown you take into account PC, then mobile, because both of those DWARF that system alone. Brand awareness is also another important factor, which is why it has allowed Nintendo to even make deals in the first place.

You can point me to whatever subject you want, but I told you what I had to say, yet you want to keep us and everyone else bound to a tiny ring, for what purpose I don't know, to feel satisfied?. You know full well MS could not keep both platforms separated, so they had to combine both and buy pieces from the chess board to combine into their ECOSYSTEM, not their BOX alone.

You talk about failure as if life depends on that piece of plastic and again, I've no idea why. You realise MS is one of the richest and ever reaching corps in the entire world yes?. Look at Nvidia, do you think either of those two care about their respective original core markets?, no they don't. One cares about their OS and ecosystem and what they can buy and control, the other Data centers and AI, not failures of a piddling plastic box that some people on this planet happen to buy out of BILLIONS on this rock (yes, there are far, far many more people that still don't own those little boxes your argue for, but there are many that own a PC, a mobile device like a phone or a tablet, and now even a portable device with a Linux OS on it too). 

Also you posted in response to them about Steam Deck sales and it not mattering's, so why did YOU go off topic then?. You could have simply not quoted and carried onto the main topic, but you didn't, you had to debate it because it was a portable system that just so happens to be in the same market as the Switch.

Once again, yes, a small win, not a large one, but the OS, the ecosystem is the one that will truly matter at the end of the day to the people (otherwise Nintendo wouldn't be marketing BC in their latest Switch 2 trailer if you didn't care about an ever lasting ecosystem now would you?). 

We're simply talking about separate things here, and we're kinda derailing the thread.

To bring it back to Xbox, one of their mistakes was betting so heavily on Gamepass when it's not the killer app they hoped it would be. Sony and Nintendo's more traditional proposition of "buy our console to play our games" worked much better.

Are you really sure "exclusives" are so important, like many say?

I DO NOT.
I'm convinced: if MS payed a lot of cash (and they could) to japanese developers to have its triple A games, for 1 year, exclusive to its Xbox consoles... that will not change the results they are getting in Japan too much. And it will barely change in Europe.
Maybe it will change something in US. Maybe.

Take the PS5 situation in Europe: Now, after 5 years, they are selling machines very good. Why? Many reasons, but NOT its EXCLUSIVE games (fuck, no XD). People, there, basically just use PS5 to play online with EA FC, and CoD. And a lot of young people play FREE games as Fornite. Or the "centennial" GTAV/Online (old AF) by 2024 (yeah yeah, I also love GTA Online, but it's very old. So old, is now very very cheap to get, so it helps to sell in huge numbers). That is the crude reality. Young people want PS5 for social interactions, to play with its real live friends. Aaaand free games, like Fornite.

One of the most obvious criminal facts about the reality of the AAA games situation,is Final Fantasy VII Trilogy remake.
I recently was panned in a news commentary with lots of negative votes (so, I must certainly put the finger in the sore spot) for telling what I will defend here: PS5 exclusivity has heavily damaged FFVII brand.

Some even wanting a free crossover between Fornite and FFVII Remake XD

All those AAA games wanting to sell good... They don't. They just crash in the real world, after being expensively developed and hyped in the media.

(and btw, that FFVII remake has to be EPISODIC, don't even try to tell me the most expected triple AAA REMAKE in the whole history had to be 1 single game: Ona game? it would have been a crap: extra-short, or another DQ3 Remake ultra cheap-style release).

When PS5 have the exclusive for one year of the FFVII remake episodes and they don't sell that well... it means not even "A GOD" in PS history, sells well if you pretend people to pay for it. So, PS5 users, at least in Europe, only want to pay 60 or 70 bucks for the same expensive "SHIT" of FIFA, and the yearly CoD release, year after year after year. Why? to play with friends. They are trapped, and they are disgusted by that, but they feel they have to do it.

And that is the problem Xbox have against PS (at least, I repeat, in the european market): Playstation has been rooting in the media, to be "the console", the only one, almost for 30 years. I remember very aggressive and dumb Sony Fanboys saying clearly that PS2 had to be the ONLY console in the market, "the standard", insulting everyone who buyed other domestic consoles. It was the GTA era. And they got 3 GTAs.
That is why now, the same kind of people are expecting so hard the GTA VI launch: they believe they NEED that game to save Sony and PS5. And for sure it will boost PS5 sells... but PS5 will not be saved for one GTA, and much less in Japan, where that game will be... a good seller curiosity, nothing else. Although, in Japan this march PS5 will get the new Monster Hunter Wilds, and for sure it will sell EXTREMELY GOOD and it will boost the PS5 sells for, at least, 1 month.

So, Xbox is always playing against a long history of heavy branding propaganda in the media that caused a full generation to be PS fans during the PS1 and PS2 (btw, 2 machines very affected by huge piracy numbers, and carefully hidden in the written press of that era. I only saw ONE editorial against piracy all those 10 years, and was AGAINST NDS R4 cards!! And a very insulting one against the users. That editor always was a corrupted clown ). That is a trend hard to change. Nintendo some times won there, but, Europe is a hard PS territory nonetheless. Also... is the less important in development companies, by far XD.

Meanwhile, Sony destroyed its PS reputation in Japan the last 20 years. This last Christmas season numbers were agonizing for PS5. And no "digital sells" excuse will save that: Japanese companies know which total numbers are they selling in every machine, and they still preffer Switch, cause it sells games.

The Xbox philosohy this generation was to offer good games to everyone, BUT, they do not spend a penny to buy the media. So, many media sites, as before the paper magazines, have a tendency to help PS trademark. But let me tell you one thing: the GamePass is by far better than AAAAALL the PS5 "exclusives" had so far. PS5 barely have "exclusive" interesting titles, and when they apper, they even sold bad, like FFVII trilogy. 

What MS has to do, is continue with that idea, continue to offer good GamePass experiences, launch a new hardware soon, and force Sony to develop more game for other platforms because they won little money in its actual situation, as they already do, not only for PC, but for Xbox and Switch with "MLB The Show" every year, or even with their Horizon brand, using a "LEGO excuse" to sell brand new games, developed by PS Studios, to its rival platforms. .

Playstation can now, finally, sell a lot in western countries, after 5 years of mediocre exclusives at a big price. But the PS5 future depends on what MS will do now. If MS launch a new generation console before 2027, SIE is toasted and, i'm mostly sure, they will abandon the console-hardware business earlier than many expect. They will not launch another new expensive console for them, if they see the "Horizon" not that clear and "Forbidden" in cost

They needed a reinvention of Halo that sparked the franchise back to massive blockbuster status (ie: the way BOTW did for Zelda) on day 1, they needed a new Elder Scrolls game (Skyrim 2) instead of Starfield, and they needed that Indiana Jones game about 2 years prior. Eveything was too little or too late.

There is about 5 first party games from Xbox you are not including but whatever. These list comparisons always seem to exclude games. 

Innovating is rarer and harder these days, 343 Industries was never a top developer, and the 1st person shooter competition on console is too fierce for Halo to realistically explode in popularity. A bigger miracle was needed than BotW. One reason Gran Turismo remained strong despite inconsistent quality and Halo didn't is that GT still has no competitor on console (like Halo didn't in the 6th generation). Xbox One and 343 destroyed Halo's momentum and now it's very difficult to return.

Starfield isn't Microsoft's fault, and Bethesda's main problem is their deteriorating quality. A new Elder Scrolls wouldn't have performed that much better if the quality is comparable to Starfield and it also skipped Playstation.

Xbox's biggest weakness, by far, is day 1 PC support. The longer MS does that, the deeper they will bury the hardware. And if Sony follows suit, they will face the same fate but at a slower rate.

The Xbox Series X|S was doomed from the outset because MS dropped the ball twelve years ago with the announcement of and build-up to the Xbox One. That system's troubles started with early rumors that it would be required to be always online in order to function, which led to concerns that were promptly dismissed by Adam Orth's infamous tweet where he said "Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an 'always on' console...Every device now is 'always on.' That's the world we live in. #dealwithit." Then there was the official announcement of the system, which was roundly mocked for its focus on its multimedia functionality rather than it being a game console.

Microsoft later confirmed the existence of system-wide DRM, including mandatory online check-ins every 24 hours and limits on used games. The backlash to this led to what I still consider the biggest mic drop moment of E3 2013:

While MS would later backpedal on this in the weeks following E3, the damage to Xbox's reputation had already been done. It also didn't help things that MS still insisted on bundling Kinect with the console, making it $100 more at launch than the PS4. Furthermore, Xbox was already struggling in the exclusive software market late in the 360's life cycle, as they had been mostly whittled down to Halo, Gears, & Forza for notable first-party titles and third parties were increasingly less likely to forgo releasing on the PS3. Between the damage to the brand's reputation and the fact that the PS4 was the better value proposition, the XBO struggled out of the gate. Even the release of Kinect-less SKUs and various price cuts couldn't make Xbox competitive with PlayStation anymore.

And that was the worst possible generation for that to happen. The increase in adoption of digital downloads meant that more and more people had their software library tied to their accounts and thus less likely to change brands again in the following generation. While the Xbox Series was in a vacuum in a much better position at launch than the Xbox One was, it still couldn't compete with the PS5. In an alternate reality where they didn't drop the ball with the Xbox One, then assuming the Series X|S were exactly the same in this alternate reality as they are now Xbox would still be in a strong position. Xbox may have even remained the #1 brand in North America. It might've been a bit closer given how Sony improved things on their side with the PS4, but we wouldn't be seeing Xbox sitting in a distant third on its home turf.

And no, I don't think MS's original plans for the XBO were somehow vindicated by history. There's a difference between people voluntarily relinquishing their property rights going all-digital and keeping their systems constantly connected to the internet and people being forced to do so.

As for the way things stand now, it's been increasingly clear that MS is positioning Xbox as a hybrid first-party/third-party entity, still offering their own hardware but with a focus on pushing their games on PS and/or Nintendo platforms rather than just Xbox & PC. That's even less incentive for anyone besides brand loyalists to consider buying an Xbox console (and I may even consider forgoing Xbox next generation if I can get all their games on PS6 or Switch 2/3), but given the hardware itself has never been profitable, it could be a viable strategy. MS is banking on making more money on maximizing their software sales, thinking that will make up for likely continued declines in Xbox hardware sales. Considering how they've spent considerable sums of cash buying out two large third-party publishers, they certainly have a big enough portfolio of IPs at their disposal to put on PlayStation, Switch, Xbox, and PC.