PeteBull
Member
no new good games, nuff said (hi-fi rush is amazing but its on gamepass aka free, and only launched 25th jan
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD January 2023: Small decline in general YoY, both PS5 (1st) and Switch (2nd) up YoY.
PeteBull
Member
he praised gamepass and was sure sony has to implement their own gamepass alike service to stay competetive, by that time it was obvious its gonna be big bust if pachter is loving it;D
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
PS5 - Impressive but they'll have to maintain massive/record sales as they have an unprecedented shipped target (I think they need to ship 6m) to hit their revised (revised up) forecast for the quarter. ROTW is going to be where we will see massive numbers of hardware sales as many regions here have had pitiful supply until now.
Switch - Continues to surprise how it's maintaining to sell so well and stay second. At this point Nintendo has several juggernaut titles that cross over into mainstream and are evergreen charters.
Series S/X - Obviously a disaster to continue it's decline. Series S was a mistake, consumers clearly are not that interested in a machine barely more powerful than last gen's old hardware. On the other side, Series X totally lacks exclusive hardware to justify its price. You need more than A and AA titles.
Switch - Continues to surprise how it's maintaining to sell so well and stay second. At this point Nintendo has several juggernaut titles that cross over into mainstream and are evergreen charters.
Series S/X - Obviously a disaster to continue it's decline. Series S was a mistake, consumers clearly are not that interested in a machine barely more powerful than last gen's old hardware. On the other side, Series X totally lacks exclusive hardware to justify its price. You need more than A and AA titles.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
Mibu no ookami
Member
Imagine for a second that Sony and Microsoft could make about as many units as each other.
Now imagine Microsoft is making 50-60% Xbox Series S, leaving 2 PS5s for every XSX. Yeah, when the Series S has no demand, and the Series X doesn't have supply to keep in line with the PS5, you're going to have a problem.
Throw on top of it that Sony built their own factories and yeah... they're going to outproduce and out-assemble Microsoft. Microsoft is the bigger company with more resources, which helped them early, but Sony is an electronics manufacturer and that played out in the long run.
Mibu no ookami
Member
Series S doesn't have the games to set it apart from Xbox One and PS4, no big exclusives. That's been a huge reason the Series S has failed. It's not enough to be a gamepass machine. So 100% agree here.
yazenov
Member
Last edited:
But Series S tho.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
I'm actually hoping the S gets obsoleted in a couple of years, this half-step machine holds back multiplatform releases. It's possible if sales of it are struggling so much even when discounted to $170.
FalsettoVibe
Member
I understand what you're saying but we don't really know for sure until we get official numbers. Also, looks like it's doing fairly well on PSN. Saying it's a disaster might be a stretch.
Last edited:
Woopah
Member
But why MS would pressure NPD? The per platform chart is compring Xbox games to other Xbox games, so its not like MS benefits from it disappearing.I wonder why?
Hint: Gamepass
The numbers from PSN would be included in the NPD report. Its an okay ranking but don't think we can say it did "fairly well".
SneakersSO
Member
The expectation at 3 big Western publishers, as of today, are that by March 31st, 2024, Sony will be over 60m, and MS will be ~24m, maybe less.
Can't stress enough - this is an abject disaster.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
24m by early 24 sounds impossibly low. Maybe you mean 24m in the US alone?
SneakersSO
Member
MS has had a historically hard time moving 10m units in a year since the X1 launched. The expectation is that MS is going to opt to save on costs by lowering production to meet demand and not eat shelf rot costs. We're already seeing this with MS essentially forcing the FH5 XSX bundle in its strongest markets nearly exclusive (effectively rendering it a price hike), with abundant supply in several of their key markets.
Say we give MS the benefit of the doubt on estimates and put their current sell through figure somewhere between 14m-16m: they would need to over perform in the next 11 months by historic levels to reach 25m by March 31st. Even if we say that Starfield is a big system seller set to drop, the chances of it causing them to overperform on HW units by that much is pretty low; its a new IP and available day 1 on PC.
Last edited:
TheAmazingSpiderMan
Member
Mibu no ookami
Member
They would have a class action lawsuit on their hands and they would definitely lose.
DrFigs
Member
It's not actually impressive for Japan, given how poorly ps5 games seem to be selling. But it is better than not being in the top 10
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
It is simply for Microsoft to permit games to be a stuttering near unplayable mess on Series S, just like with many PC games with their "minimum hardware requirements" being that the game boots properly.
Buyers would complain, but MS would legally be in the clear as long as the game runs. No one said it had to run WELL.
They just had to be careful about braking any legally binding promises in advertising. Otherwise they get another "Windows Vista Capable" disaster.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
Whether it's a problem depends on your point of view.
I'm sure jim ryan for one, is quite pleased with the xbox's stock/sales situation.
Last edited:
yazenov
Member
We already know that Gamepass negatively impacts buy to play games, therefore its not in MS best interest to show the results of multiplatform games on their platform or even exclusive games.
Recent examples of this for exclusive game is High on Life which was no where to be found in their individual charts and the combined charts, clearly indication that the game underperformed due to many factors including Gamepass which didn't increase the games sales contrary to their initial claims.
Now we have Hi-Fi Rush a game that again released on day one on Gamepass that didn't chart on the cumulative charts again which indicates the game underperformed. And if it didn't appear in the top 10 Xbox individual charts then it won't look good for MS and Gamepass, hence the need to hide the details.
Other examples of 3rd party games are Star Ocean, which was released on Playstation and Xbox. The game appeared on the total combined charts which indicated the game sold well. However, going into more details in the platform specific charts, the game charted on Sony platform while no where to be found on Xbox's platform. Clearly showing that the Playstation's version was the one doing the heavy lifting. You could aslo associate this with Gamepass effecting consumers purchasing habits of waiting for games to come to the service, instead of buying it, amount other factors such as the total player base.
Clearly less information is best suited for the platform that is under preforming.
Last edited:
I know it might be small, but there's something to be said about Xbox naming conventions. When you have Xbox One X/S/XSS and Xbox Series S/X, this shit is confusing af for consumers. I had a friend over last week and I still have no idea what console he has. He says it's S, so I say, Series S? and he's like no, Xbox One S.
They really should have named it better.
They really should have named it better.
TheGodfather07
Member
Xbox only sells around 7 to 8 million a year now. It could be at only 17m right now worldwide. Which would put it somewhere around 25m in early 24.
TheUndeadGamer
Member
Ummm do you have receipts for this number? 25m in early 24? Really?
TheGodfather07
Member
Yes really. It's not hard to figure out using the NPD leaks. I can't give you official numbers from Microsoft. You know the reason why.
Last edited:
akaFullmetal
Member
Just shows that Microsoft needs to release tent pole aaa games. Even with gamepass, if they don't have any aaa games it doesn't cause fomo or big exciting events to cause word of mouth. People have that with Nintendo and playstation games. See what's happening with Hogwarts next month.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
25M might be just about right. I think it's only slightly lower than my own estimate.
But both
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
and I did our calculations (estimates) and kept arriving at somewhere around 17-19 million XBS consoles sold LTD. So assuming it's 18 million (mid-point) in 26 months, which means less than 9M per year. With sales dropping fast, it could be ~7.5-8M this year, which would put the (estimated) XBS LTD data around ~26 million by early 24.
TheGodfather07
Member
25M might be just about right. I think it's only slightly lower than my own estimate.
But both
17-19 million is too high for xbox.
the NPD have the US total at 8.7m as of 22 nov 2022. lets be generous and round it up to 10m beginning this year. lets be generous again and say 65% of all xbox sales are in the US. that would put xbox at around 16m sold worldwide. if that US percentage goes up, then xbox worldwide total is even lower than 16m. doesnt that sound about right?
Last edited:
El Pistolero
Banned
That would be catastrophic. I expect a "smaller" gap...60ish to 30ish sound more reasonable, no?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
So you're thinking Xbox only did 300K in December? TBH I think that's too low; to be safe would say they did roughly November's numbers for December, so probably around 10.4 million US by January.
And we know PS5 & Series were close in UK for 2022, by some 60-80K going by Christopher Dring's comments. But that's just 2022 to be fair; they could be like 250K difference between them taking 2020 & 2021 #s too. I just figure they're between 1.65 million - 1.8 million UK.
US is probably less than 65% of all Xbox sales, but it & UK combined are probably like 70% - 75%. I'd say as of January they were at best like 17.8 million, so
Heisenberg007
is right, somewhere between 17 - 19 million as of January this year would have been a safe bet. Would say under 18 million; no reason for Microsoft to not share sales comparisons to XBO at the earnings report if they were actually tracking ahead, because it could have offset the other bad numbers (the Game Pass numbers weren't even given, Game Pass "offsetting" revenue drops means virtually nothing). In any case, they're being outsold almost 2:1 by PS5 globally and that's the biggest takeaway. All the BS stories last year about the gap closing, or Xbox being "well above 20 million" were just that: BS. At best very American-centric and only for the few months Series was selling more in U.S (thanks in large part to PS5 shortages). We should start seeing what the real demand looks like when supply is available, and MS can't simply "make more" Series X units because of how they have their wafer pipeline set up. It's 3:1 Series S chips for every X chip produced, so if they increase X chip production by say 200%, S chip production also increases by 200%.
And it's the S with the sharply declining demand. Dunno how MS can fix that without buying another wafer, and TSMC would have to provide it for them that's even if they have the space to do it. MS are stuck with what they have for the foreseeable future. They gambled big, and now they've lost big.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I didn't know about the rigidity of this pipeline. What's up with that? And why must it always be 3:1?
Any links where I can read more about this?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yes, but the FAAAAR majority sell on Playstation. It's still viewed as a Playstation franchise.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It's all just estimates, but ...
9M = US
1.6-1.8M = UK
400K = Japan
That's 11-11.2M. The rest of 6.8 could have come from the rest of the world, e.g., Brazil, India, EU countries, etc.
SneakersSO
Member
Excellent analysis post btw, and i'm glad to see some thought put into deriving some estimates and forecasts on here.So you're thinking Xbox only did 300K in December? TBH I think that's too low; to be safe would say they did roughly November's numbers for December, so probably around 10.4 million US by January.
And we know PS5 & Series were close in UK for 2022, by some 60-80K going by Christopher Dring's comments. But that's just 2022 to be fair; they could be like 250K difference between them taking 2020 & 2021 #s too. I just figure they're between 1.65 million - 1.8 million UK.
US is probably less than 65% of all Xbox sales, but it & UK combined are probably like 70% - 75%. I'd say as of January they were at best like 17.8 million, so
In any case, they're being outsold almost 2:1 by PS5 globally and that's the biggest takeaway. All the BS stories last year about the gap closing, or Xbox being "well above 20 million" were just that: BS. At best very American-centric and only for the few months Series was selling more in U.S (thanks in large part to PS5 shortages). We should start seeing what the real demand looks like when supply is available, and MS can't simply "make more" Series X units because of how they have their wafer pipeline set up. It's 3:1 Series S chips for every X chip produced, so if they increase X chip production by say 200%, S chip production also increases by 200%.
And it's the S with the sharply declining demand. Dunno how MS can fix that without buying another wafer, and TSMC would have to provide it for them that's even if they have the space to do it. MS are stuck with what they have for the foreseeable future. They gambled big, and now they've lost big.
Based on the numbers you and
Heisenberg007
are discussing, it seems that the bigger pubs are even more bear-ish on MS' ability to sell HW this year than even we are.Your last 2 paragraphs citing the production line issues MS has with having to produce wafers at a 3:1 split between S and X chipsets could be why: if demand for the S is tanking, and MS has no choice but to produce X chipsets this way, then that means they are virtually handcuffed on their ability to move units.
That actually makes MS' leadership look EVEN WORSE.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Excellent analysis post btw, and i'm glad to see some thought put into deriving some estimates and forecasts on here.
Based on the numbers you and
Your last 2 paragraphs citing the production line issues MS has with having to produce wafers at a 3:1 split between S and X chipsets could be why: if demand for the S is tanking, and MS has no choice but to produce X chipsets this way, then that means they are virtually handcuffed on their ability to move units.
That actually makes MS' leadership look EVEN WORSE.
And how is this even possible in the first place? Like what? Did they think Series S would fly off the shelves?
MasterCornholio
Member
Correct and they predicted it would be their biggest seller.
They had a lot of confidence in that lower price point combined with gamepass as the ultimate value package.
SneakersSO
Member
Yeah, luckily for us, Spencer was willing to make clear that their long-term goal was that the Series S was going to be the larger selling console for them in the end, but the untold context seems to be "because we have to produce far more S' than X's".
They needed to get someone who understands the complexity of successfully launching HW to run Xbox. Spencer is out of his depth.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yeah, because this doesn't make logical sense to me. No hardware launch ever had a weak version that sold better than the "real" version. Do you guys remember the gimped PS3 and Xbox 360 Arcade options?
Daneel Elijah
Gold Member
When I first heard the name "Series" X and S I feared that Microsoft wanted to drown Sony under hardware revisions. If they put a S and X on 2020, and a Pro version on 2023/2024, they could have made the console market closer to PC and made the advantages that a closed system gives to developers weaker, nullifying some of Sony advantages and coupled with Gamepass made them the choice to have for most casual and "hardcore" gamers. It is probably bullshit but maybe the pandemic changed their plans?
Not to take his defense but Xbox seems to often use their conclusions of the last generation to prepare for the next. The Wii and the Switch have often be seen as the perfect 2nd console to have as a companion to the main one. So I can see the appeal to try to profit from that with a low cost console of their own. The fact that the Series S already have prices reductions when the PS5 has raised its price in most markets outside the USA is crazy and never happened in the console market.
What was the plan for Xbox ? Go and push hard in new markets like India and China? Or did they really believe that Gamepass would be adopted so fast that Sony would find games like GOW ragnarok not giving them the returns they have planned? For me Xbox always do not make the same efforts in Europe that Sony and Nintendo does. And they should if they want to compete.
For the Series S I think that Xbox dit not anticipate the PS5 digital edition. It make the S less attractive and the Playstation Collection was a good stopgap VS Gamepass. The pandemic then changed all plans and harmed Xbox more than Sony. And today when it seems that the pandemic will be finally behind us the demand for PS5 is higher than ever. I hope that Xbox games shown in 2020 arrives this year( Fable, Avowed...) They will need them.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
Well, I've read it from here (some other write-ups on the wafers for the systems are here as well, though this source seems to estimate more Xs than Ss at least for the time period the article was written), and it sounds like they know a good bit about the production process. The way MS have their wafer setup is allocating space for the S and X on one wafer to save costs, rather than having one wafer for S chips and another for X chips. Plus, each wafer has to be provided by TSMC, and they're in limited quantities varying depending on the node.
So basically, the wafer is taped out for 3x as many S chips as X chips; if Microsoft wanted to change that, they'd have to get a new wafer (whether a replacement or just an additional one) and have it taped out for a different ratio. Unfortunately for them, chiplets aren't a thing for RDNA2, otherwise I'm guessing they could have just arranged the wafer for CPUs (since the two systems basically use the same CPU) and GPU chiplet tiles where say Series X has 3 or 4 and the S just has one. There would still be logistical production issues to contend with, just not as early in the pipeline, so they'd of had more flexibility.
Sony doesn't have this problem because all PS5s use the same APU, so it's just a matter of making sure they have enough wafers (and I'm pretty sure Sony paid for more wafers than Microsoft did). MS's setup favors the S but it also means it's pretty inflexible; now that it seems S demand has been tapped out, they would have to increase Series X volume but it doesn't make sense to only use 25% of a wafer, now does it? So then they either eat the costs on not using 75% of a wafer, or they eat the costs putting that 75% in systems that don't have a lot of demand so they have to cut the prices on and lose out in revenue anyway. It's a lose-lose situation.
Or, they buy more wafer and use it solely for X chips, but now that'd be an extra cost in production. Do they then shut down the old wafers that have mostly S chips? They'd still probably have to make something to replace the Series S; even if they don't, they'd still have to maintain support for it through the rest of the generation for the people who purchased one. The logistical production problem for Xbox at the wafer level is even worst than I ever gave thought to before maybe a week ago.
Excellent analysis post btw, and i'm glad to see some thought put into deriving some estimates and forecasts on here.
Based on the numbers you and
Your last 2 paragraphs citing the production line issues MS has with having to produce wafers at a 3:1 split between S and X chipsets could be why: if demand for the S is tanking, and MS has no choice but to produce X chipsets this way, then that means they are virtually handcuffed on their ability to move units.
That actually makes MS' leadership look EVEN WORSE.
Yep, more or less. Always had doubts about this X & S approach right off the bat; even aside the production issues it's now causing, it just really confused the messaging that was more or less (IMO) pretty on-point from when they revealed Series X up to that May "gameplay" showcase. Which was the first big blunder for their messaging, but at the time to me it seemed like a footnote.
There's also the potential development problems the approach could have on more ambitious 1P & 3P AAA games in the next few years; not everything scales down easily the way resolution or textures do. Game scope could be pared back due to Series S; there are non-graphics uses (general purpose tasks, physics, logic, AI etc.) for the GPUs that we may never get to see fully utilized on Series X because the Series S exists, and Microsoft still mandates all games support them both with native builds.
They really need to figure something out with Series S; if demand remains low as-is, could be in their best interest to just use the chip for the cancelled Project Keystone. Bring out that Game Pass xCloud streaming box, give it like 4 GB RAM, some cheap eMMC internal storage, downclock the chip as necessary, market it as a Roku & Apple TV competitor with "custom" Game Pass xCloud functionality. Throw in a controller & universal remote, sell it for $150, get some deal with Disney+, HBOMax, Netflix whoever with 6 months free bundled in the package. Maybe that would actually work.
The current strategy they have is leading to a death spiral for Series S. So they either have to scrap it altogether, hope to generate some big demand for it, or spin the chip into a product that can have the costs cut down a lot & maybe actually see more demand. They could maybe also put some of those S chips into Surface laptops but, Surface sales dropped a ton last fiscal quarter too. Hardware in general just isn't looking very good for Microsoft.
Those indeed didn't sell better than the "genuine" versions, but they had a big difference: the performance specs even in those systems were the same as the "premium" versions. Same CPU, same GPU, same RAM, same Southbridge, same cooling. They had different storage capacities and I/O, but those affected more so QoL features for the end user, and didn't necessarily impact game performance between models.
Series S has a completely different GPU to Series X, different RAM capacity, different CPU clock (everything else CPU-wise is probably the same though), alongside different storage capacities and some difference in I/O. The GPUs being so vastly different, along with the RAM being so different (both in capacity & speed) have very real impacts on games across the two systems. Stuff like GPGPU is going to be negatively impacted if software has to run natively on both systems at acceptable levels.
MS & Sony both knew that production costs reduction was going to slow down this gen compared to previous ones, but Microsoft once again lacked patience, they rushed to a solution that looked great on paper in the short-term but is actually an albatross holding them back long-term. Sony designed the PS5 so that they could still find ways to lower production costs after an initial amount of time, including moving to 6nm (are the Series X & S even on 6nm yet? Can they move their wafer design to 6nm without needing to do significant re-designs of the wafer tapeout?) and other stuff.
So I guess once again, Sony made the right call. The funny part is how most of last year and in 2021, some people were shouting at the top of their lungs the complete opposite. They spoke too soon.
Last edited:
SneakersSO
Member
Fundamentally, its quite clear that the outlook Xbox higher-ups had on the console market is that the hobby had far too high of a price requirement on it, and that by thus focusing and investing on lowering the price threshold, they would be rewarded by an influx of new users. They probably also imagined that by creating lower-cost value propositions, they might be better situated to grow in their underperforming markets (China/JP/KOR/India/Etc.). When looked at from this perspective, things like big pushes into xCloud, GamePass, Series S, or the payment plans they provided for the Xbox Series S or X all make sense.
I'm sure them disrupting the perceived value of $70 games with their big cost-subsidizing that they were doing would also help weaken the PS5's value. If Xbox were the only ones willing to offer brand new games at effectively $10 p/month, or $1 p/month when the gen started, and Sony wasn't willing or able to reach that price cause they just did not have the financial means to, then thats just a bonus.
I mean, I can tell you right now - those two games are not gonna be the type of hits MS needs right now. None of this answers the user loophole that MS just can't really fix: how do you convince users to adopt your console when you're also giving one of the biggest userbases in core gaming right now (Steam) the ability to buy your games on day 1 without GP. Thats the problem.
I don't think the PS5 Digital Edition factors into this market reality at all - this isn't a situation of users measuring the XSS against the PS5 DE and choosing the stronger one. The XSS exists specifically to offer a device for folks who are cost-conscious and who couldn't really care just what sort of power they are getting for the price. Its for users who may be curious about the Xbox eco and want a low-cost way of trying it out.
And the pandemic helped Xbox tremendously. Without the pandemic boost, who can really measure just what sort of GP growth MS would've had; everyone, including MS, is aware that the pandemic boosted GP adoption in a way that they simply wouldn't have been able to hit had 2020-2021 hadn't happened. You remove the pandemic out of the equation, which removes the supply issues and GP boost, and we are probably having these conversations about Xbox in 2022 instead of 2023.
Yeah, microsoft's Trojan horse lol, absolutely hilarious in retrospective.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The bolded is soooo insane to me that it makes me honestly wonder how smart Phil Spencer is. Not as a human, but as an executive. What's Phil's background? Like Mark Cerny was the architect of the PS4 and PS5. He is an engineer and a a programmer and a software designer. At 18 he helped program a game called Marble Madness. That was in 1985!!!
What is Phil known far before he took over Xbox? Like......what did he ever do?
Last edited:
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Nintendo is/was the second console for some because of the exclusives only not price... why would anyone that not already loves the xbox to buy an xbox as a second console for exclusives ?? If this was their thinking is way to stupid and disconnected from reality to comprehend
And further more, I think MS as much as a lot of people on this board gives the "mainstream" buyer too much little credit, thinking they are stupid, dont know/care about specs and/or are always looking for the cheaper deal ... xbox S is the proof that , games/brand/specs matter much more that price (console/gamepass)
graywolf323
Member
Phil Spencer (business executive) - Wikipedia
he got his start with Encarta & Microsoft Money and then Microsoft Works before he came over to Xbox in 2001 and was the general manager over their European studios (Lionhead & Rare) before he took over all of first party in 2008
he has been with Xbox since the launch of the OG console
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
I'm not even sure how much of this decision was Spencer's call TBH; he is the one that sold Game Pass to Satya, and Series S is meant to be the Game Pass box, so it's fair to assume this dual approach was his idea. No way to say for sure, though.
Regardless, even if it wasn't his call, if it ultimately came down to his approval and he gave it the green light, then it was a bad call. He was thinking like an executive and not a game developer, because he doesn't have a background as a game developer. So, he doesn't have that innate experience to draw upon the way a Mark Cerny, Herman Hulst, Shuhei Yoshida, or Shuntaro Furukawa. He also has never been in charge of a gaming division that was leading the market in a particular territory, the way Jim Ryan headed PlayStation's European branch before being promoted to head PlayStation globally.
Actually I take back a bit of what I said; Phil Spencer does have some experience on software in the technical side, but it's almost all PC software and few of which can be considered actual video games. He was a technical lead on the Encarta CD-ROM titles, and was involved with Microsoft Money as a development manager. He also worked on Microsoft Works and Microsoft Picture It! Thing is, these are ALL either edutainment or pure productivity software products...these aren't actual video games! So his skillset with that software doesn't translate very well to video game development, and I think over the years that's proven itself obvious.
Phil Spencer (business executive) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
he got his start with Encarta & Microsoft Money and then Microsoft Works before he came over to Xbox in 2001 and was the general manager over their European studios (Lionhead & Rare) before he took over all of first party in 2008
he has been with Xbox since the launch of the OG console
Beat me to it
but yeah, he does have some software experience.Problem is none of it is really with video games; it's all productivity, business & at best "edutainment" software on PC.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Okay thanks. And the bolded is why I think we see Xbox where they are today, versus Nintendo and Playstation. Phil just doesn't have the skillset to push Xbox where it needed to be. He didn't seem to learn the proper lessons during the Xbox 360 era at all.