I think the question is more, was the Xbox console business even salvageable? 

I do not think so. I mean, Xbox took a real beating because of Mattrick leadership; it was a blood bath lol

70% of the market share is locked down; those people bought so much during the PlayStation 4 era, earned trophies, etc., that making them switch back to the Xbox ecosystem would be a miracle. This is true for any ecosystem.

And based on that, I believe it was best for Microsoft to focus on something else if they wanted to stay in the gaming industry (which is what they did).
I think Spencer had the choice between failing big time while pushing for Xbox to stay super relevant in the console market or pivoting and trying to make something out of this. 

Like I said, I did not see the "console" in the thread title, so let's focus on console sales; this is fine by me. And that's my bad.

But just to be clear, I am not implying anything. I'm straight up saying that you care much more about your plastic box and how Sony is winning everything in the so important console wars of yours than any numbers/sales/or whatever we're talking about here. 

The Series consoles were never going to track better than Xbox One because Sony owned the last gen by a huge margin.  Not only that but Sony didn't make any mistakes, they secured multiple exclusives while MS were still trying to get something decent to market.  GP basically saved Xbox from crashing, but the real issue was the Xbox One.  The momentum MS had coming into the Xbox One era was actually pretty good even with the issues with the RROD.  The fact that the Xbox one was more expensive, less powerful and had a peripheral that the majority of the user base did not want was crippling.

At the end of the day, Sony had the games, the cheaper system and the library and nothing short of Sony screwing up big time would MS ever even see the light of day.  Once you get to a certain userbase, people will buy the system their friends play on and it becomes a domino effect.

The Switch 2 is not a traditional console and Xbox Series+PS5 is selling notably worse than Xbox One+PS4 so what he said is accurate.

Even though I also believe the Switch shouldn't be classified as a console but as a handheld instead, the fact is, is that we are on VGChartz and the Switch is listed alongside the PS5 and XBSS/X as consoles. So when we talk about "traditional consoles" here on VGChartz we have to include the switch.  

That has zero bearing on what a traditional console is. The Vita was irrelevant by 2017 and the 3DS in its Twilight years so if you had to pick one then listing the Switch alongside the more relevant PS4 and Xbox One made more sense.

Most people view the switch as a handheld that you can plug into your TV. Heck, there was a switch lite which is a dedicated handheld gaming device and nothing more which is included in switch's total sales. Therefor it is not a traditional console, which isn't me being mean or anything. Just not comparable to Xbox series or PS5 consoles.

PS5 according to this site was tracking below PS4. Maybe GTA6 will overcome that but with game development getting more expensive it is no wonder Sony is putting their games on PC and maybe Xbox if we go by hell divers 2.


I personally don't see why companies don't put their games on other platforms after a certain time frame. Who is buying Xbox or Playstations for Halo and God of war anymore? Might as well double dip at this point. Same with Nintendo and their older games. Would you rather have PC emulate your games for free or make it easier for us to support you with our money? Seems like an obvious choice.

The ecosystem argument is nothing more than a convenient excuse for Spencer's failure in management. Do you know why? Because before the PS4 launched, Xbox fans talked about how Microsoft had locked down the USA due to the Xbox 360's significant lead over the PS3 and the ecosystem argument. But it turned out that the ecosystem didn't matter.

And let's not forget that Nintendo went from losing badly with the Wii U to win the following generation while having no ecosystem whatsoever carry over from the Wii U and 3DS to Switch. How did Nintendo pull this off? They fixed the hardware and released great games on a consistent basis. Spencer only fixed the hardware side for Xbox with Series, but the software side was full of failure and disappointment and that is what can be called to account for 90% of the issue with this generation; most of the rest is the decision to strip the Xbox console business of exclusive games. What Spencer has created is a completely redundant box in the console market and he hammered the final nail in the coffin with his decision to release Microsoft games on the PS5.

If Mattrick didn't get fired as you say, that only makes things look a lot worse for Xbox management decisions. What you are saying is that they would have kept him if he hadn't left on his own.

The 8th generation is far different than the 7th generation in terms of games. Digital libraries and GAAS became the norm in the 8th generation and a lot of people didn't want to give up their game libraries they bought. That is why a lot of people said losing the 8th generation was the worse generation to lose. Playstation and Xbox bread and butter are third party games. Their exclusive don't even chart that well in comparison (DS 2 for example sold only 1.5 million). According to newzoo, there isn't even a first party exclusive in the top 20 most played games.

Source 
Xbox : https://newzoo.com/resources/rankings/top-xbox-games-series-s-x-global

Playstation: https://newzoo.com/resources/rankings/top-ps5-games



Nintendo isn't competing against Playstation or Xbox because hardly anyone buys a Switch for third party games.

Microsoft strategy is a sound one to put all their game on all platforms and turn Xbox into a console/pc hybrid. Microsoft's future is secured because all the acquisitions they were able to make under Phil Spencer (Minecraft, COD, Bethesda RPGs, WoW, and more). That is why Phil Spencer is a great leader in my opinion.

Indeed, Nintendo doesn't need to convince anyone to buy their console for third party games, because Nintendo's own games are convincing enough. No PS gamer had to give up their PS library when buying a Switch, because there are no laws against multi-console ownership.

The reason why we are seeing combined PS+Xbox sales decline this generation is because there is a decreased incentive to own both of these consoles and that's because Xbox has no exclusive good games anymore. I don't view the decline as an indicator that console gaming in general has become less interesting, rather it's that Xbox specifically has become less interesting due to its lack of exclusive games.

Spencer put Microsoft on track to become a third party publisher. It is a sound strategy if you find it too tough to compete in the console market, but at the same time it's a death sentence for Microsoft's console business. Hence why Spencer is the clear choice for the question posed by this thread.