[The Infographics Show] The REAL Reason Xbox is Failing

I made it halfway through, do they ever address the Xbox One or the end of the 360 era? That's where they failed.

So far they've just made a big deal about major third party games skipping Xbox, which isn't even reality.
 
If this was accurate the video would be 3 seconds long. It would consist of someone looking directly into the camera, says "Lack of quality exclusive software" and the video would end.
 
640px-66-Mattrick.jpg
Absolutely not.
 
Xbox is where it is because they destroyed their momentum going into the most important generation ever.
Starting with the ps4 and xbone, Sony and MS began the foundation for the digital ecosystem that will carry on from gen to gen going forward.

It's almost impossible to convince someone to switch from one ecosystem to another when it means leaving an entire library of games behind.

Just look at Steam as an example.

MS has tons of good momentum going into the last gen and lost almost all of it with their poor hardware, marketing, and development decisions.

People flocked to the ps4 and established large digital libraries which have now carried into the current gen and will continue into the next.

This gen, they got the hardware and marketing better but lacked the exclusive catalog that would have been needed to get people back. It would have been slow and hard but they could have done it. Instead they now have the good exclusive catalog but instead decided to make it available everywhere. Great for keeping money coming in but not great for getting people to buy your systems.
Why would anyone with a ps5 want to buy and Xbox when you know you are going to get the MS games ?
This is a HUGE reason. Despite me not loving the PS5 generation and Sony's output in general, I'm completely locked into their ecosystem (for better or worse) as a I have several 100s of games tied to my account.
 
The start was the end of the 360 when they abandoned their audience to focus on casual games. It brought in casuals for kinect but soured the core gamers.
Sony did the Move controller pivot around the same exact time and released all kinds of casual games. Kinect and Move both fizzled out within a couple years. It's got nothing to do with it, to the extent that Sony's not had any long-term damage from Move.
 
People who see kinnect as the start of the downfall don't really know history, the 360 will end up selling as much as the Xbox One if it wasn't for kinnect which gave it a huge push.

MS's mistake was to believe this push meant people were willîg to pay 100$ more than the competition for it. And also to promote the architect of the Kinnect push during the One era as the head of Xbox
 
there is no one single reason. It's decades of utter mismanagement and lack of focused direction that crippled the brand. They were always chasing trends and misreading the market. It began way back in 360 era, where they squandered any lead they had with the RRoD and focus on Kinect. Even though Sony also reacted with the move controller, it was never a core focus as they knew software drives hardware sales. Look at Nintendo also. It's all about their first party titles.
 
People who see kinnect as the start of the downfall don't really know history, the 360 will end up selling as much as the Xbox One if it wasn't for kinnect which gave it a huge push.

MS's mistake was to believe this push meant people were willîg to pay 100$ more than the competition for it. And also to promote the architect of the Kinnect push during the One era as the head of Xbox
This is 100% the case.
 
This is a terrible video that gets a lot of the facts wrong. Makes me less likely to watch videos on their channel in the future, but yeah, a lot of people will see this video and consider it the gospel, especially in 10 years.

This video had to be generated by AI...
 
Last edited:
Xbox is failing because bad management, since Don Mattrick. No need to watch some random video to know that.
 
Xbox is where it is because they destroyed their momentum going into the most important generation ever.
Starting with the ps4 and xbone, Sony and MS began the foundation for the digital ecosystem that will carry on from gen to gen going forward.

It's almost impossible to convince someone to switch from one ecosystem to another when it means leaving an entire library of games behind.

Just look at Steam as an example.

MS has tons of good momentum going into the last gen and lost almost all of it with their poor hardware, marketing, and development decisions.

People flocked to the ps4 and established large digital libraries which have now carried into the current gen and will continue into the next.

This gen, they got the hardware and marketing better but lacked the exclusive catalog that would have been needed to get people back. It would have been slow and hard but they could have done it. Instead they now have the good exclusive catalog but instead decided to make it available everywhere. Great for keeping money coming in but not great for getting people to buy your systems.
Why would anyone with a ps5 want to buy and Xbox when you know you are going to get the MS games ?
I wonder though, how many PS4 users got a significantly large digital library. Large enough to dissuade their owners to "switch" ecosystems. I mean, we know from marketing research most people buy 3-4 games per year tops. Most of them buy games that have yearly releases like sports and COD.

On top of that people started playing F2P on PS4, games like Destiny, Fortnite, Apex Legends, etc. All those games don't amount to any kind of library you care to hold on to. Physical media was also still fairly strong during that gen. And if you made the switch to Xbox or PC is not that big of a loss to get some of those games like your staple GTAV again for cheap like $15.

So I don't entirely buy that belief which Phil Spencer himself holds that Xbox lost the console war when people built their digital libraries on PS4. I mean, you don't have to make people "switch" and abandon anything, you just need to give them a enough compelling reason to also join your ecosystem, buy your console, your games. Gamers buy multiple devices, they're attracted to what each of them provide.

Xbox never gave players franchises to get attached to, or even expectations of getting some great games down the line. After the first year year, year and a half of Xbox One, despite the troubled launch and bad publicity they still released some good exclusive games.

They released nothing to make people interested in Xbox since then. Xbox Series is a bigger failure. Consider they launched with zero (0) exclusives ( a first in consoles history!), and a whole year later they released Halo Infinite which failed to live up to the name and expectations, that franchise was already dead to be any kind of ace for Xbox. Then absolutely nothing in 2022 (it was over by then despite the usual vocal minority saying otherwise), then who knows why they were hoping Starfield would correct the course, talk about being out of touch. And the last hail Mary was putting COD day one on GP. See how that one worked out.

In short, their problem always was they didn't have great exclusives, even if they were only "console exclusives" a lot more people would have joined Xbox.
 
Last edited:
I feel like the "real" reason has always been games. From the end of the 360 era all the way to maybe the last year, Xbox has released nothing that could capture mindshare with the general public. Everything else is secondary because people will put up with all kinds of nonsense for must play games.
 
Well at least they didn't just blame mattrick and also blamed Spencer. Something the gamea media nowadays shy away from for whatever reason, or atleast alot of the big ones do.
 
Last edited:
Xbox consoles have been a meme in normie circles since the start of the generation. At least across the middle east anyway.

I live in the middle east and i've never seen what you said, where do you live?

BTW xbox here is more popular than the switch
 
Last edited:
It's almost impossible to convince someone to switch from one ecosystem to another when it means leaving an entire library of games behind.

Just look at Steam as an example.
People don't buy new consoles to play their old games. Even without backward compatibility, the PS5 would've been a success, not the Xbox.

If the digital libraries were this important, Nintendo wouldn't transition during the same generation from their biggest console flop to the soon to be the best selling console ever, without any kind of digital library carried over.

And Steam is a good example: there is more steam user now than 10 years ago.

So during the same timeframe Nintendo went up, Steam went up, and Sony transitioned its old users and got new users (30% at the begining of the generation), and Microsoft lost users.

But somehow it's because of the old digital libraries. Sure.
 
I live in the middle east and i've never seen what you said, where do you live?

BTW xbox here is more popular than the switch

Dubai at the moment and I've lived in various places across the region over the last decade.

It's defiantly not more popular here than the switch, you're talking out of your arse. Nintendo are very successful here.

You can go on amazon and look at the sales rankings. You have to get to number 86 before you see an Xbox console ranked in videogames (the only Xbox console ranked in the top 100):

GuPQymJ.jpeg




And also dubizzle for the number of transactions/systems available:

DDYyKFf.jpeg


So the bigger question is, where the hell do you live?

Edit: seen the post history. Better question, who do you think you're kidding?
 
Last edited:
I feel like the "real" reason has always been games. From the end of the 360 era all the way to maybe the last year, Xbox has released nothing that could capture mindshare with the general public. Everything else is secondary because people will put up with all kinds of nonsense for must play games.

Ultimately, it's exactly that. They largely abandoned their core audience in the waning 360 years to chase the casual crowd with Kinect, then they didn't have much for years in the Xbox one generation since most of their games were either delayed numerous times (like CD3), cancelled (their partnership for Scalebound), or released and were not very well liked (Halo 5, CD3….)

You had exceptions like Forza releasing pretty solid titles, Forza Horizon, and Gears, but their other games people associated with them? Long gone and abandoned. It's why I'm so very much looking forward to Fable, as it's one of the reasons I fell in love with the 360 back in the day and it blew my mind how they just….stopped making them.
 
People don't buy new consoles to play their old games. Even without backward compatibility, the PS5 would've been a success, not the Xbox.

If the digital libraries were this important, Nintendo wouldn't transition during the same generation from their biggest console flop to the soon to be the best selling console ever, without any kind of digital library carried over.

And Steam is a good example: there is more steam user now than 10 years ago.

So during the same timeframe Nintendo went up, Steam went up, and Sony transitioned its old users and got new users (30% at the begining of the generation), and Microsoft lost users.

But somehow it's because of the old digital libraries. Sure.

Digital libraries being a key vector is one of the biggest lies told in gaming...

It barely even matters.
 
Sony did the Move controller pivot around the same exact time and released all kinds of casual games. Kinect and Move both fizzled out within a couple years. It's got nothing to do with it, to the extent that Sony's not had any long-term damage from Move.
Sony kept releasing hardcore games, being the difference. Microsoft had Gears Judgement in 2013 and that was all. PS3 kept getting games after Move like Resistance 3, Killzone 3, Uncharted 3, TLOU, Gran Turismo 6, God of War, etc. 2012 and 2013 were barren for core 360 games.

People who see kinnect as the start of the downfall don't really know history, the 360 will end up selling as much as the Xbox One if it wasn't for kinnect which gave it a huge push.

MS's mistake was to believe this push meant people were willîg to pay 100$ more than the competition for it. And also to promote the architect of the Kinnect push during the One era as the head of Xbox
TThat isn't the point. It sold more due to kinect and was a big shot of life at the end of its life but it only attracted customers who weren't repeat customers while not giving their legacy customers any bones.
 
Last edited:
Hello. Former Xbox user here. I had all Xbox consoles from 2009-2024 with a interlude from 2012-2015.

The Xbox One was a great console. I got it with Forza 6, which was at the time much better than what Gran Turismo were offering. The other exclusive titles were okay as well. Enough to justify purchasing it.

I was going to stick with the Series X this generation, and purchase one on launch fay. And it looked off to a good start, although I simply played mostly Xbox One games on it first.

Then Forza Motorsport came round, the main game I bought Xbox in the first place for. And it is by far the most boring and tedious game I have ever placed hands on. I got it on game pass and still felt scammed.

That was basically my final straw. There is 0 exclusives on it, it has a marketing team consisting of doom and gloom personality and the user interface is somehow less intuitive than Roblox. Several games on it feel empty because the online service hasn't evolved since 2014.

I no longer have a Series X and most people I know have jumped to Playstation for similar reasons
 
Last edited:
Sony did the Move controller pivot around the same exact time and released all kinds of casual games. Kinect and Move both fizzled out within a couple years. It's got nothing to do with it, to the extent that Sony's not had any long-term damage from Move.

What kind of analysis is this?

Microsoft went all in on the Kinect, while Sony only dipped their toe in the Move. Ignoring this and the lack of long term damage from the Move is just silly. And that isn't to say that there hasn't been long term damage.

Had they not wasted resources on the Move, maybe they could have better supported the Vita and had they, things would probably be very different for them today in the handheld space.
 
The real reason is most of their games are Soy fests and the studios are full of incompetence and woke shit

Glad to help.
 
Hardware is tanking but the software is flourishing


Im sure ms is happy with that seen as theyre a software company
I'll never understand this "b-b-b-but I'm sure 'company x' is happy!" type statements.
Are you a videogame fan or a corporate cheerleader?
What difference does it make to you personally if a company is happy or not with their performance in the market?
 
What kind of analysis is this?

Microsoft went all in on the Kinect, while Sony only dipped their toe in the Move. Ignoring this and the lack of long term damage from the Move is just silly. And that isn't to say that there hasn't been long term damage.

Had they not wasted resources on the Move, maybe they could have better supported the Vita and had they, things would probably be very different for them today in the handheld space.
I think you're way over-analyzing it. There's no way of knowing what would have happened to the Vita if it had gotten more support from Sony. Sometimes platforms just don't work out. Nintendo breathed mouth-to-mouth into the Wii U and put dozens of games on it, and it did nothing. Sometimes it's just not meant to be.

More to the point, my comment was about the Kinect, not the Move. I briefly mentioned it only to bring it up because it seemed prudent because people usually don't remember it even existing. You're trying to extract info out of a comment that wasn't even meant to be about the Move. If you want to analyze it, surely you have internet access, you're free to go research it and come up with whatever analysis you wish. I'm neither here to satisfy nor not satisfy some rando on a message board who doesn't like that my comment doesn't meet some expectation they invented.

That's entirely your problem, not mine, I assure you.
 
Sony did the Move controller pivot around the same exact time and released all kinds of casual games. Kinect and Move both fizzled out within a couple years. It's got nothing to do with it, to the extent that Sony's not had any long-term damage from Move.
Uh....the XBO launch was clearly MS going all in on Kinect.

Sony repurposed Move into the DS4. That and the Vita back pad.

Then there's Move use for PSVR. Which isn't the main focus for Sony.

One of these things is not like the other.
 
Last edited:
I think you're way over-analyzing it. There's no way of knowing what would have happened to the Vita if it had gotten more support from Sony. Sometimes platforms just don't work out. Nintendo breathed mouth-to-mouth into the Wii U and put dozens of games on it, and it did nothing. Sometimes it's just not meant to be.

More to the point, my comment was about the Kinect, not the Move. I briefly mentioned it only to bring it up because it seemed prudent because people usually don't remember it even existing. You're trying to extract info out of a comment that wasn't even meant to be about the Move. If you want to analyze it, surely you have internet access, you're free to go research it and come up with whatever analysis you wish. I'm neither here to satisfy nor not satisfy some rando on a message board who doesn't like that my comment doesn't meet some expectation they invented.

That's entirely your problem, not mine, I assure you.

The problem with that argument was that you equated the move as being the same situation to Sony as Kinect was to Microsoft. Sony responded differently and Sony did not abandon hardcore games for casuals after the launch of Move, in fact their hardcore game releases got even strong leading up to PS4.
 
People don't buy new consoles to play their old games. Even without backward compatibility, the PS5 would've been a success, not the Xbox.

If the digital libraries were this important, Nintendo wouldn't transition during the same generation from their biggest console flop to the soon to be the best selling console ever, without any kind of digital library carried over.

And Steam is a good example: there is more steam user now than 10 years ago.

So during the same timeframe Nintendo went up, Steam went up, and Sony transitioned its old users and got new users (30% at the begining of the generation), and Microsoft lost users.

But somehow it's because of the old digital libraries. Sure.
Nintendo, Sony, and MS started their digital ecosystem in conjunction with the move to a standard cpu architecture like x86.
This allowed for them to build standard libraries which would make it much easier to allow for multiple generations to run the same software.
Nintendo couldn't have carried over the wiiu ecosystem because it was still running PowerPC architecture which had carried over all the way from GameCube. They had no way to continue progressing with the specialized hardware which IBM wasn't going to support anymore. They chose to move to arm based cpu instead of x86 because it is much more power efficient.
 
Everyone here is correct. XBOX damage was done with the horrible garbage crap they put out last gen. This gen they have [very recently] had a stellar gen. Too late.

Now they moved into a gamepass and software sales model. A bad idea? No. However. They kept moron Phil Spencer onboard… How does that make sense?
 
Phil's face says it all, he knew he was making a Saturn E3 1995.
To be fair that's just the public facing aspect of it.
Xb1 lead up to launch was every bit as bad as ps3 had been internally, software infrastructure was a mess and then trying to backtrack it last minute, it's a miracle launch even happened when it did.
 
I didn't mean it in that way, just saying that while their last year has been great, it doesn't make up for everything before that and I stand by my statement that Phil Spencer would have been fired by any other company by now, which is what happens when there is a strategic shift and the guy at the helm was a catastrophe during the prior business model.
 
Last edited:
It's the console demographic, 360 players play Activision, Bethesda, CDProject, R* games and other western/Eastern games. Fortunately MS can't change that and they don't need to. What Sony is doing is hard and expensive, we should stop lying to ourselves and think what Sony is doing isn't based on merit.
 
Digital libraries being a key vector is one of the biggest lies told in gaming...

It barely even matters.

Not according to Phil Spencer. He believes the Xbox One generation was the most important generation for Xbox because it was the one where people started to build digital libraries.


It makes sense. If somebody had built a large digital library on PS4, which would be accessible on PS5 from day one, then why switch to the Xbox Series consoles?

There are other reasons for the Xbox hardware business collapsing, including putting out their games on PC day 1 with consoles, but digital libraries from the previous generation was absolutely a factor.
 
Top Bottom