"Artful writer" - is it alright that I take that as a compliment?
I'm not denying the impact the Xbox brand has had so far. What I am saying is, that what they're trying to do now seems more like opportunistic but unguided exploration of potential, rather than focused delivery of new experiences (which is actually the one thing you could credit their attempt at Kinect for).
They aren't doing much to innovate as opposed to simply integrate all sorts of functions into their system. Having Windows apps on your Xbox doesn't actually make for a better gaming experience. Sure, it makes the Xbox a system with more to offer besides gaming. That's alright. It may work, but I doubt it, seeing as they're just entering a new competitive market (their attempts at trying to differentiate themselves from Sony, by offering the same value proposition as a PC, but on a closed platform, is pretty damn risky and I don't get it)
I don't believe that their efforts can work longterm. Unless they manage to fool people into thinking that regression is somehow a good thing in terms of what they offer (remember that Microsoft OS is far more open than say Apple, and it's a reason a lot of people like it - there's more stuff!) Microsoft has really tried to make a closed PC platform for years. Several professionals have clandered them for that. They do that not to avoid piracy (or whatever people think), but because a closed platform creates that interdependent relationship I'm talking about and creates monopoly like status; this is why Microsoft succeeded with Windows in the first place - also, see case United States v. Microsoft Corp. 2001. You might think I'm out of my mind for making these assumptions, but it's irrational to run a business and not want monopoly profits. This is a legal way of getting it. Playstation nows this. Nintendo had it, if you believe they don't compete with Playstation and Xbox (I personally don't)
It's why Apple prefers a closed ecosystem; gives them monopoly like profits. The sole difference is the fact that Apple offers you hardware too, and not just the operating system. Take a guess as to why Microsoft would want to try an build hardware like the Surface - sure as hell isn't because billions of dollars in R&D and distribution is a fun expense; They really want to create a closed platform and ecosystem, but they can never achieve that in a million years, unless they fool people into thinking that the current state of Windows is worse than what they can build for the future. And maybe they can people a better OS, but they will have to convince us to compromise.
But yeah. It's the very reason why Playstation is avoiding crossplay; if you're the bridge between customer and developer, you get the big bucks.
Xbox could undercut Playstation (it tried to by making all Xbox consoles a devkit, although that turned out to be a rushed idea that they couldn't afford), but once you undercut, you automatically reach a point where it's not affordable anymore. Both are already forced to sell at a loss, so this isn't a strategy they can keep going for.
My initial point was simply that Phil Spencer and Xbox knows that 4 years of straight competition hasn't proved itself of any value. I don't know what the future brings, but I would argue that their biggest issue is in fact the lack of games offered on the console. They have zero grip on the Asian market, which by default gives Playstation a huge advantage. But the fact that they can't push out a wide variety of games, that seems to also be a crucial factor to this whole fiasco. Even if Xbox manages to sell consoles, then they will still have to have people buy a couple of games before they profit. I know all too many people who bought an Xbox One only to play Forza and Halo. Financially this isn't good enough for Xbox.
And then you write that none of this has an impact on the fun you have with Fortnite. But that's the point. You don't need a Playstation specifically to play Fortnite. The game is even free to boot up! The only barrier to entry would be the actual ownership of a console and there for a platform; any newcomers will have to pick, and so long as the player base is radically larger on Playstation, there's a chance your friends (or future relations) might own it, there's probably more games and variety (there is) and the prospects of a better future on the platform is there. Both companies know this, but Playstation managed to serve the customers with what they wanted - games! There are people who want other things (like television and Windows apps, and of course hardware design), but that doesn't really seem to influence overall and it never has.
The vast majority of people are persuaded to buy your system, if you can offer them games. So it's of crucial importance to Playstation to catch people and keep them on their platform playing. By offering exclusives, they can manage to do this effectively. And now that Fortnite is so popular, it just wouldn't make any sense for Playstation to offer crossplay, seeing as that game trumphs the popularity of any of their own titles (however, these can play into the equation when newcomers are to pick consoles - and it will)
It's not just jank I'm throwing out there, although I'm not really doing a good job a crediting those I should (I know - look up the book called Business Model Generation by Alexander Osterwaler and Yves Pigneur. It's some introductory material, but it's really insightful and co-created with the help of 470 other people from around the world!)
I mean, we always go into great detail when we discuss and analyze the success of consoles here on ERA (or that other place we used to do it). Talk about hardware design, PR, time of execution so and and so forth... However, many of these factors needs to be excused to explain the failure or success of certain consoles. One thing that's very true of all the best-selling consoles however, is the fact that they have a vast and expansive library of games.
And by the way, I'm not denying your preferences, or the fact that choice is often of better value to the paying customer. I'm just saying that this is what it is about. And I'm not for this specific thing, but that's because it doesn't change the game at large, but I believe it can impact the industry more than people like to think (as stated in my previous message)