That's simply how you choose to look at it.
Go look at EA's annual report for 2010. When talking direct sales to retailers, EA's report breaks out GameStop and Walmart individually generating between 16 and 12% of annual revenue of EA business from 2008 to 2010 which means EA generated about 30% of its sales through those two stores over that three year period.
Now look at EA's annual report for 2017. GameStop is only generating somewhere south of 10% of EA's annual sales and has so for the last three years. There is no mention of Walmart. So who are retailers EA chose to breakout in their report?
The store fronts of MS and Sony where EA generated 17% and 19% (a combined 36% and on a path of growth) of their annual revenue for fiscal year 2017. MS has generated at least 15% for the last three years. You think any other publishers breakout of retail sales data would produce something to the contrary of what EA has experienced?
Sony and MS are effectively becoming the two biggest retailers for console gaming software. You think from a business perspective anyone at MS considers the XB1 a failure in contrast to the 360 with the prospect of XB1 storefront in the future generating more PS4/XB console software sales revenue than GameStop and Walmart combined if it hasn't done so already?
The biggest reason you don't see Sony and MS patting themselves on the back, popping champagne and twerking to Drake songs on YouTube is because their growth is shrinking the business of all their retail partners. But Phil elevation to senior leadership didn't happen simply from turning around the XB1 with a targeted lifetime unit sales of approx. 20 million less than the 360. Keeping the XB platform relevant and allowing MS to become a major retailer of console software is probably what encouraged that promotion.
Yes in terms of console system wars where unit sales as a metric is king, the XB1 is "losing". In terms of XB platform as a business where $ as a metric is king, the XB1 is winning.
This is all fine & dandy, and I agree for the most part. However, Microsoft's "dollar metrics" from the growing inroads into digital content (movies, games, apps, etc...), is more so of consumers switching from physical content providers (GameStop, Walmart, Target, etc...), to digital content providers (STEAM, PSN, Origin, MSO, etc...). And yes, MS (Sony and Nintendo included) will soak up the greater shares of these sales compared to physical retailers as we push along through the digital age of things.
With XB1 userbase sitting between 35-37 million users, I could see Microsoft still having the greater share of digital content downloads/dollars than say Sony, even with it's 76 million userbase. Not only factoring in Microsoft XB1 userbase, but also the PC userbase that has access to Xbox Play Anywhere games and/or XBO ported titles. So yes, this would be a success in Microsoft's book. However, companies/corporation also looks at what wasn't gained or the losses "that shouldn't have happened." Yes Microsoft made greater revenue across it's software stream, but it also failed to capitalize [maximum potential] from a smaller Xbox userbase. In other words, yes Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are effectively cutting out the physical content middlemen when it comes to software sales and getting greater returns ...but it's also valid not to lose any customers from previous generations that could maximize those streams.
My post was simply pointing out the failure of the XBO unit sales, first party content and third party exclusives, when compared to the XB360. Not that it didn't make money. Hell, PS3 made Sony money, but it still was a failure on so many levels.
