I don't think multiple skus are the issues its the branding MS is using.
Anyone walking into a store to buy a phone is going to know the Iphone 11 is better then the Iphone 7,8, 9 or 10.
Anyone buying a new Playstation for little Timmy at Christmas is going to know the PS5 is better then the PS4.
Now when mommy walks into Walmart and there are the Xbox One S which is the entry level.
Xbox one X which is stronger then the S.
The Xbox Series S which isn't as strong as the Xbox One X but newer technology so should perform better then the X.
Then of course the Xbox Series X that rules them all.
People who read forums like us will know where each system will stand.
People buying consoles for others will not.
These are just my 2 cents.
But this is where the analogy kind of falls apart; there are very few "little Timmys" who have parents that'll be buying them a next-gen console at all this year. This is the time where the little Timmys' parents buy them the much cheaper current-gen system for a Christmas present, by and large.
From the looks of it MS's clearing out X and arguably S stock as well, so if Lockhart is a thing and it launches later this year alongside XSX, there'll be just those two systems on retail shelves. I still have my own issues with Lockhart but they lean more into the logistical/economics side of it being a long-term proposition to people who may not even be there at next-gen launch period, and it maybe impacting XSX production capacity and pricing negatively.
Messaging wise, though? I don't see as much of an issue there especially since, again, they seem to be phasing out the XBO X and S.
The burden of proof does not lie with me as I did not make the initial claim. An argument is true when it's conclusion logically follows it's premises and in this case, there is no data to support the premises. An absence of evidence argument does shift where the burden of proof lies.
It doesn't, but that's also kind of a cop-out IMO. If you feel your position is strong enough, you can basically control the flow of that discussion by backing it up with data that proves your point, even if the other side has not done so. Otherwise you are still conceding control of the discussion to their terms.
Neither days gone(71 Meta) nor Gears 5(84 Meta) are what I'd consider high quality titles in 2019.
These are your own personal opinions, but if anything you're just reinforcing my own Metacritic data references in my first reply to you. So both Sony and MS had 'weak" 2019s by your logic, yet by large at least by MC scores MS's publishing efforts still ranked 3x higher than Sony's in that same year both of them had "weak" 1st-party output.
Furthermore, when I discuss quality, I'm referring to the barometer set by the industry. In terms of quality games delivered this generation, Microsoft has 2 IPs that have delivered critically acclaimed entries. The two IPs are Ori and Forza. The rest of their output has ranged from good to downright terrible.
That's an awfully selective and limiting definition of quality, because now you're using your own definition of "high quality" to infer "quality" in general. It doesn't work like that. You're also only going by critic reviews, that eschews fan acceptance of these games and the critics are not always right (which, yes, would put my MC 2019 top publisher scores into contention but I only mentioned that as a thing which exists and happened, not that I personally use it as my own perspective for valuation in the companies' output that year).
Never mind the more questionable aspects of the games review industry which doesn't necessarily honor games based on their actual merit, not exclusively anyway, but that's getting into a different tangent.
Honestly, I don't even want to get bogged down in the quality debate because like you mentioned, it's entirely subjective. Regardless, you've still failed to explain why a low tie ratio user would find gamepass appealing and support that argument with data. The discussion has been side-tracked to focus on semantic arguments and list wars which I don't really care much for tbh.
Who said my purpose in responding to you was to explain the low tie ratio aspect and support it with data? IIRC you placed that stipulation on the person you were originally responding to, who is not I. Now, you can infer that, in my responding to you, the responsibility would fall onto me to debate that point, but that's an implied inheritance of a responsibility that can be easily waivered since there was no agreement beforehand for me to oblige by that point of the discussion.
If anything, for how little you feel I've managed to debate the low tie ratio bullet point with data to support it, you have failed in providing a counter-argument with any data on your own end and, IMO, that counter-point doesn't need a counter-point to it with data behind it, to refute your point. There's as much plausible deniability in your discussion as you seem to think there is with what I've mentioned!