...?
You specifically mention potential revenue.
MS are much more progressive in changing their business to be service focussed though, that's not debatable.
They don't, but I'd argue Xbox owners are more dedicated and enthusiastic users who generate more revenue than the other user groups you listed. I own a Windows PC, but I've never used the Windows store. I got Win10 for free. Not sure where they're making money off of me, tbh, especially when compared to the fees they collect from Xbox game sales.
You are still not getting the point.
You're misunderstanding my post though. I didn't say sales don't matter, nor that they aren't one of the most important. I don't know where you got that from, and you said that my post showed misunderstanding for saying MAU was one of the most important, despite you then saying the same thing.
I agree with the second part, it's a business decision, but I don't agree that what drove that decision is just that it's behind Ps4. For one hiding the low Win Store numbers seems far more likely. Ms was being outsold 2:1 when it was reporting sales numbers, unless the ratio become way higher than that there's no reason for them to try and hide those numbers.
Well, you actually said it was:
TehPotentialz said:
They were behind 2:1 when they were reporting numbers, and stoped reporting numbers when that fact didn't change.
? Where did I say sales weren't on of the most important or that they don't matter?
This isn't an argument, I'd call it a discussion :-)
This is all true. At the moment, sales are the most important, though, and we aren't hearing about them because MS is not doing as well in that department as they were last gen. While eventually the others may catch up in importance, that is not the case today.
Ok, but again - the post of mine that you said shows misunderstanding was just saying that MAUs are one of the most important metrics and not PR spin. I don't think there was any misunderstanding there at all. It was essentially just saying that last part of my last post.
I was responding to the part where you said it was possibly "the main metric for success." If you posted that in error (or have reevaluated), then yes, we are on the same page.
They definitely do, though, because it's the most important thing that drives revenue generation.
I'm not talking about now or the immediate future.
Who are you talking about? Who is saying that install base isn't the most important at the moment? Or is this just shitposting to try and paint people as fanboys? I don't think I've seen a single person say what you're accusing people of saying lol.
Then your post wasn't very clear on that. You said, in present tense, that they don't care about X, they care about Y and Z.
No I didn't. I said ultimately they don't care, as in end goal. Sorry if that maybe isn't as clear as it is meant to be.
Dude, I didn't miss anything, that's why I said "possibly." And, again, I was responding to the idea that it could possibly be the most important metic. Because no, in no way is that possible today. Not even close, not even worth consideration.
I just find this so hard to believe seeing how they are still heavily invested in making hardware and that isn't changing. Which they continue to make that very clear even with a shift to services. Maybe I missed some statement or such from Microsoft.
I'm sorry, but again, I'm not talking about right now and only right now and only with these current consoles. Current sales figures and console brands etc are irrelevant to what I was saying.
I don't think you have been misinterpreted, I think your argument would be better served in a thread that isn't explicitly about the MS CEO commenting on the current situation with their current platform. But, I agree, lets let that be the end of it.
While this is true, DLC wasn't the insane source of revenue that it is now. That said, it's not like Nintendo can't leverage that.
Yes, and DLC is a revenue generator for all platform holders, so as you said, it's not really a differentiator.
Look at the surface line of hardware as an example. Their goal wasn't to become the best selling laptop/tablet. It would have been nice if it did, but that wasn't the goal. The goal of the X isn't to become the best selling console.
Sure! But the user base difference is so massive in this case that other small contributing factors can't possibly compete.
Well that's just wrong.
That ... What the ...?
Maybe in 5-15 years when we've moved on to platform agnostic game streaming and average consumer behavior moves away from console gaming and higher spending on console gaming, but for now this is completely inaccurate. This thread is about the now, not the unknown future.
Once again, no, that's completely untrue, and brining up the PS2 is frankly a pretty ridiculous straw man.
You have already been warned for your behavior in this thread, so I would advise you stop.
Yes, that is all correct.
Yeah, for sure. It's just that hardware sales alone no longer cut it for them. In fact, I remember Phil specifically saying something along the lines that they don't really benefit financially from Xbox hardware sales.
They don't really benefit from the Xbox sale in and of itself, that's true. But an Xbox does need to be sold for all the other benefit to come.
