It's not that Teams has more integrations with the rest of Office, it's that it is bundled for free with Office.
But as was mentioned previously, as a paying Office/Microsoft 365 customer I expect them to add features to the suite, including real-time communication and collaborative tools. That and they already had many of the features of Teams in other apps, Teams just better integrates them.It's not that Teams has more integrations with the rest of Office, it's that it is bundled for free with Office.
This isn't actually true, though. Microsoft has a dizzying array of levels of subscription, but Microsoft 365 Apps for Business – formerly known as Office 365 and, essentially, the Office suite we all know and talk about as "Office" – does not include Microsoft Teams. You have to pay more for a tier that includes Teams.It's not that Teams has more integrations with the rest of Office, it's that it is bundled for free with Office.
I think these are better arguments than the typical exclusivity one. But neither of these are absolutes. Consolidation doesn't necessarily lead to any change in worker's rights at all. In many plausible scenarios, it even improves their absolute situation and their relative power. My guess is that you're envisioning a specific thing when you say "consolidation" and you're lumping all acquisitions into that mold. But consolidation to the point of lack of choice in publishing or working elsewhere is not a reasonable fear in gaming - not with this acquisition, not with any other single acquisition. The gaming market is extremely fragmented right now. The idea that fragmenting it less in certain ways is going to fundamentally destroy the industry or workers' right is a logical leap that is not self-evident.Is it really that hard to understand ?
Consolidation is not good for workers rights, big corps dominating the industry means less independent studios/pubs.
I actually think this is well argued and you're pulling in some of the concerns from CMA, especially. And I won't treat it dismissively, but some of these same points are also why people are arguing that this doesn't meet the standards set forth by regulators. You are right that regulators are looking at the future. They didn't use to. This is a pretty recent shift in thinking - and one that isn't even legal in some jurisdictions yet (really, possibly only the CMA is supposed to look at this at all because of a recent change in the law). You and the CMA suggest that streaming is a growing market that MS could corner and stifle competition in. CMA's Theory of Harm 2, I believe.So much this. I see so much of this 'but they're protecting the current market leader' or 'the regulatory bodies don't know what they're talking about' or 'but Sony buys exclusives!" or shit like that and I can't help but look at that with a dumbfounded look on my face because it's such a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire thing. Or at the very least an incredibly naïve and narrow view of it. It's sort of just boiling a much larger multifaceted thing into essentially just one thing at this exact moment in time.
This isn't about the now; it's about the future. What does Microsoft gain in the years to come as it relates to other aspects of the industry and as a result, what do others lose? How much will this corner the growing streaming market? How will it stifle competition in those spaces? Can other companies, whether it be Sony or Nintendo or Apple or someone else, even create a new service that is in anyway competitive if Microsoft already has a stranglehold over them as a result of this? Would Microsoft, being a tech titan and mega rich, be able to loss lead within new and emerging markets when others can't? These are absolutely valid concerns and absolutely should be scrutinized to hell and back and right decision made for the benefit of the future of the industry. Not just the present. Not just because you want Call of Duty on Game Pass. Not just because you're mad at Sony because they cut deals with publishers for an exclusive game here or there. Not because Sony bought Psygnosis back in 1993 and this is fair game!
It's also strange when I see people say or at least heavily imply, that Sony doesn't compete right now because they're the current market leader or that Microsoft owning Activision would suddenly make Sony try harder or some shit. Again, that is such a fundamental misunderstanding of everything. Or probably just willful ignorance. They're always competing! Competing for dollars, for mind share, for market share, for social media space, for clicks, for user engagement, etc. That is literally why they're going out to get marketing deals, to get exclusive games, to change and enhance PS+, etc. The games industry can be up and down and we've seen market leaders rise and fall. We've seen that during the PS3 / Xbox One era when Microsoft made substantial gains in market share on the backs of strong investment in games and services and aggressive pricing and content. We saw Sony come close to their Icarus moment and nearly killed their entire brand as a result. We've seen Nintendo go from heights of the Wii days to low lows of the Wii-U to the monster success that is the Switch. There is so much more to this than trying to "protect" the current market leader, because current is not "forever". It shouldn't even have to said, but this thread is such a mess but... just because Sony is the current market leader doesn't mean they always will be. The market is also changing rapidly from what it currently is and Microsoft, especially because of their size, money, and technology, is uniquely positioned to succeed in that and even dominate it and this type of acquisition just make it that much more of a probability.
But again, this much bigger than just Sony. For a company as rich as Microsoft, with a history of aggressive M&A's, foreclosing rivals, etc, it makes sense to peel back the layers of this to make sure it's not ultimately going to make it difficult in the future for other companies, from current industry players, to future players like Apple, to compete and be successful in the gaming industry.
This isn't actually true, though. Microsoft has a dizzying array of levels of subscription, but Microsoft 365 Apps for Business – formerly known as Office 365 and, essentially, the Office suite we all know and talk about as "Office" – does not include Microsoft Teams. You have to pay more for a tier that includes Teams.
By this logic, Slack now being bundled into the incredibly popular and even ubiquitous Salesforce package should be Illegal™?You can make them interoperable, but you cannot bundle Teams in for "free" or for way below market value in order to make it the defacto market leader and to kill off your competition merely because you have the most money. This is what Slack has been complaining about - that Microsoft chose to bundle Teams with Office because Office is a popular product that sells gangbusters because almost everyone needs it, so everyone has Teams be default for "free" making it the go-to piece of software instead of Slack, which isn't bundled on a PC.
Let's all get back to the derail that matters.
I speak, of course, of Microsoft Kart Racer.
If the first crossover game isn't a Microsoft Dating Sim where the Forza car can have a meaningful relationship with Bastion, then we as a society will deserve every ounce of the coming punishments for our sinful sicknesses.Let's all get back to the derail that matters.
I speak, of course, of Microsoft Kart Racer.
I am obviously in a lucky and not super common situation because I play on Switch, Series X and PS5, but I am all for Microsoft buying publishers, and most of all studios, left and right because of Game Pass.
I don't think I will ever need to buy a game on my Series X because Game Pass gives me more than I want and every month new releases are added there, I don't see how can that be a bad thing for Xbox users, so I obviously see them go all for it like me.
I do see how it is unfortunate for players whe don't have a Series console, a deecent PC or enjoy cloud gaming on a phone or PC because of bad internet and many others things.
Only if he is driving the Tony Hawk: Ride controller.Only if I can be guaranteed that Tony Hawk will be driving a skateboard. I fear my words were not heard. Driving. Not skating.
I mean they wouldn't be able to buy another big one. They should be able to buy this one though because as was mentioned multiple times the playing field is uneven everywhere not named America or the UK and even then Sony trounces them in both of those areas.Seems to me that a lot of members here are rooting for Microsoft to acquire studios and publishers left and right. For the last 20 pages or so, lots of Era members are rooting that if this deal with Activision goes through that Microsoft should go on to attempt to buy Sega, Namco, Take Two, Valve, Square-Enix, Capcom, and the biggest prize of all that Microsoft tried to buy 20 years ago, Nintendo.
In a hypothetical scenario, let's say the Activision deal goes through and Microsoft succeeds in buying some or all of the other publishers and developers. As a consumer how is this good for me? And most important of all, how is this good for the industry to have so much consolidation?
BTW, I have no dog in this fight. I'm mostly a PC gamer with Switch as my only console.
Seems to me that a lot of members here are rooting for Microsoft to acquire studios and publishers left and right. For the last 20 pages or so, lots of Era members are rooting that if this deal with Activision goes through that Microsoft should go on to attempt to buy Sega, Namco, Take Two, Valve, Square-Enix, Capcom, and the biggest prize of all that Microsoft tried to buy 20 years ago, Nintendo.
Microsoft has been saying many misleading things to try to get this acquisition through. They likely counted games that just skip Xbox and have nothing to do with Sony like many Japanese and indie games did last generation.
If you count permanent third party deals Sony has nearly none at all
If MS were to start doing anti-competitive things in the future via their ownership of Activision, then it should be addressed at that time. But it's not right to protect the status quo in order prevent a company from improving their non-monopolistic position and product offering via acquisition.
Blocking this would be anti-competitive. Think about it, the arguments against it are "the value of Gamepass and xcloud might becomes too attractive for consumers to stick with the market leaders". The arguments should be that market leaders should improve their product offering in the face of lesser competition improving.
the day regulators seek to ensure market disrupting innovations don't get too good, so that they can protect market leaders who are resistant to changes that benefit consumers… they've completely missed the call of duty. Pun intended
Because it will be the same company. You don't need two inflated HR departments.
So would you equate to stealing a chocolate bar to robbing a bank? It's almost like scale matters along with other details.
You're still not grasping it. If someone bought a company controlling 40 percent off the market now, it would be a big deal. Just like it was twenty years ago when Sony did it.
Did you somehow forget the entire second party of the comment you just wrote preciously accusing me of being biased with insults? And yes you are defending a trillionaire company trying to swallow up every studio/publisher they can get their hands on. Literally what you are doing here.
Size has everything to do with it which is why the thread exists and why there is an issue... No one would care if they were buying someone like Moon Studio.
And no there is no reason to believe Sony would try to acquire Acitvision if they could. They have many billions of dollars and can afford many of the smaller sized publishers yet dont go around buying them. They clearly have a preference for who they acquire and that is studios they help build and fund for many years
As for the Wall Mart/Amazon comment. Look, people are entitled to their own beliefs on this but when you control supply chain, have a massive existing e-commerce platform with less overhead, and can come in with massive amounts of capital to offer that convenience and pricing to your customer - it's obvious what will happen next... Is that the way the world should work? That's a whole other debate
The whole doom and gloom is blown out of proprtion. We see new startups all the time. There is so much selection out there but people are focused on key titles and playing on only certain platforms.
Hope this deal gets axed. I think it's bad for the industry, especially for us actually working in it.
Is it really that hard to understand ?
Consolidation is not good for workers rights, big corps dominating the industry means less independent studios/pubs.
Is there fewer independent studios/pubs than there was, like, a decade ago? It seems to me that people in the games industry have more choices of whom to sell their labor to then at any point in history, and the studios owned by one big conglomerate instead being owned by a different even larger conglomerate doesn't seem like it meaningfully reduces that.
I just don't even get that whole thing at all.
So MS is not allowed to integrate Teams into Office, because it competes with Slack?
Is Office supposed to stay stagnant forever and never add any features just because there might be competitors that sell said features?
The crime is using your market power to push others competing with you out of the market by undercutting them/bundling your product with other necessary higher-performing products.
It's the same reason MS got in trouble for Internet Explorer and is absolutely an abuse of power.
The odd thing is that Microsoft spinning up Teams instead of just buying Zoom or Slack is, like, exactly the sort of thing regulators would have wanted them to do. That's the whole argument against Meta buying Within; they should just build their own.
But if they make their own product, and then make it work with other MS products in the way that people expect, that's bad too.
There's sort of this idea (you see it in this thread even) that it's not fair for a company with a ton of resources to have any sort of advantage in the market for having so many resources. Which, like, good luck enforcing that.
They should be barred from being predatory or anticompetitive, of course, but they're going to have advantages. Success breeds further success, and making your second million or billion or hundred billion is going to be easier than making the first. The problem is sort of that a lot of antitrust law was written before the rise of software as an industry and so people are stuck using concepts like bundling and dumping and trying to apply that to things like "our software is designed to work well together" in ways that don't really make a lot of sense.
Well said.So Devils's Advocate... how would MS integrate Teams then without "abusing their power"?
So much this. I see so much of this 'but they're protecting the current market leader' or 'the regulatory bodies don't know what they're talking about' or 'but Sony buys exclusives!" or shit like that and I can't help but look at that with a dumbfounded look on my face because it's such a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire thing. Or at the very least an incredibly naïve and narrow view of it. It's sort of just boiling a much larger multifaceted thing into essentially just one thing at this exact moment in time.
This isn't about the now; it's about the future. What does Microsoft gain in the years to come as it relates to other aspects of the industry and as a result, what do others lose? How much will this corner the growing streaming market? How will it stifle competition in those spaces? Can other companies, whether it be Sony or Nintendo or Apple or someone else, even create a new service that is in anyway competitive if Microsoft already has a stranglehold over them as a result of this? Would Microsoft, being a tech titan and mega rich, be able to loss lead within new and emerging markets when others can't? These are absolutely valid concerns and absolutely should be scrutinized to hell and back and right decision made for the benefit of the future of the industry. Not just the present. Not just because you want Call of Duty on Game Pass. Not just because you're mad at Sony because they cut deals with publishers for an exclusive game here or there. Not because Sony bought Psygnosis back in 1993 and this is fair game!
It's also strange when I see people say or at least heavily imply, that Sony doesn't compete right now because they're the current market leader or that Microsoft owning Activision would suddenly make Sony try harder or some shit. Again, that is such a fundamental misunderstanding of everything. Or probably just willful ignorance. They're always competing! Competing for dollars, for mind share, for market share, for social media space, for clicks, for user engagement, etc. That is literally why they're going out to get marketing deals, to get exclusive games, to change and enhance PS+, etc. The games industry can be up and down and we've seen market leaders rise and fall. We've seen that during the PS3 / Xbox One era when Microsoft made substantial gains in market share on the backs of strong investment in games and services and aggressive pricing and content. We saw Sony come close to their Icarus moment and nearly killed their entire brand as a result. We've seen Nintendo go from heights of the Wii days to low lows of the Wii-U to the monster success that is the Switch. There is so much more to this than trying to "protect" the current market leader, because current is not "forever". It shouldn't even have to said, but this thread is such a mess but... just because Sony is the current market leader doesn't mean they always will be. The market is also changing rapidly from what it currently is and Microsoft, especially because of their size, money, and technology, is uniquely positioned to succeed in that and even dominate it and this type of acquisition just make it that much more of a probability.
But again, this much bigger than just Sony. For a company as rich as Microsoft, with a history of aggressive M&A's, foreclosing rivals, etc, it makes sense to peel back the layers of this to make sure it's not ultimately going to make it difficult in the future for other companies, from current industry players, to future players like Apple, to compete and be successful in the gaming industry.
Phils gone on record to say if this deal doesn't go through then it's doom for Xbox. There are peoples jobs at steak here.
It's sets a precedence. You want to focus on struggling publishers, but what protecting any other publicly traded, healthy publisher from a hostile takeover?
While that would be awesome. It'd also require Slack to integrate with Teams in order to pull it off. Software isn't just as simple as waving a magic wand and suddenly you have integration. If you want integration on this level you need both sides to cooperate over it. And to cooperate that means both parties have to actually want it and work towards it. And security also has to be decided upon because you have to remember, these are corporate tools filled with confidential information; and any weakening of security will result in both products having their throats slit by companies and governments.
In reality, Slack is going to want to make it harder to leave slack, just the same way that Microsoft would make it harder to leave Teams. So its going to be hard to get cooperation. And thats the exact reason the EU had to recently legislate in their Digital Markets Act that gatekeepers are forced to integrate their platforms.
In a hypothetical scenario, let's say the Activision deal goes through and Microsoft succeeds in buying some or all of the other publishers and developers. As a consumer how is this good for me? And most important of all, how is this good for the industry to have so much consolidation?
Let's all get back to the derail that matters.
I speak, of course, of Microsoft Kart Racer.
The crime is using your market power to push others competing with you out of the market by undercutting them/bundling your product with other necessary higher-performing products.
It's the same reason MS got in trouble for Internet Explorer and is absolutely an abuse of power.
Tony Hawk belongs in the lightweight class. I want The Lost Vikings to be heavyweights and their inclusion makes it so shields are thrown just like green shells.Only if I can be guaranteed that Tony Hawk will be driving a skateboard. I fear my words were not heard. Driving. Not skating.
Which should be done. But also, why can't slack team with another "office" competitor and have the best Slack integration there? Wouldn't that incentive more of a movement from MS Office's dominance entirely? If I were Google I'd be offering a branch right now.
Did Microsoft have another legitimate option other than honoring the contracts for Deathloop and Ghostwire?I'm not optimistic that this deal will be approved. And I'm okay with the rationale behind it.
However, I am perturbed by some of the embellishments and statements made in Sony's response to the CMA Issues Statement. It says things like Microsoft will raise prices of consoles if they become dominant - something that Sony themselves has done. It says Microsoft should not be trusted when they make claims about games being multiplatform - something that seems very disingenuous, given Microsoft has honoured the Deathloop and Ghostwire timed deals, has continued to support pre-existing multiplatform games (like Doom Eternal or Fallout 76), given they have never lied about their intentions to make Starfield and other similar new games exclusive, and given their support of Minecraft being multiplatform. Just seems ridiculous to me.
Did Microsoft have another legitimate option other than honoring the contracts for Deathloop and Ghostwire?
While it might make sense. Slack is owned by Salesforce, which is another major corporation making software and products for enterprise. Enterprise is also a market that Google themelves are trying to break into with varying levels of success. Salesforce directly competes with Google in some areas and Google isn't going to give away their Office Competitor for Slack integration when they can just improve their own versions of Enterprise Communiations Tools (Chat/Meet).
Basically, even if it makes sense on a surface level. Everyone is in it for themselves and nobody wants to share such a lucrative market and give corporations who generally love to throw money around, a reason to throw their money at anyone but themseleves.
100 people dude. The stupidest argument on the net. Activision(10k) square(3k or more) UBI(10k)
You are citing a magazine from 1996 that says that in 1995, Psygnosis games accounted 40% of game sales. In 1995, Psygnosis was already owned by Sony.The more important figure is that Psygnosis accounted for 40% of all game sales in the European market
https://archive.org/details/maximum-the-video-game-magazine-issue-7-june-1996-uk/page/72/mode/2up
This is a lotta words to try and circle back to "Sonys organic growth model is virtuous" lmaoYou are citing a magazine from 1996 that says that in 1995, Psygnosis games accounted 40% of game sales. In 1995, Psygnosis was already owned by Sony.
Sony acquired Psygnosis before they entered the video game console industry, before they had even established Sony Computer Entertainment.
Now, as for that article, it says that PlayStation had launched in September 1994 in the US and EU, and per that article, had already become the market leader in one year since release. Well, that's incorrect, because the PlayStation launched in December 1994 in Japan and September 1995 in the US and EU. So already, the article is misrepresenting easily verifiable information, so I'm not certain why we would place an emphasis on the 40% figure cited.
But taking that at face value, let's assume that Psygnosis titles (which were already under the Sony umbrella for 2 years at that point) accounted for 40% of game sales in Europe in 1995. What was the market share of Psygnosis prior to the acquisition (so 1992)? That would probably be more of an apt comparison. Now I can't really ascertain the best way to go about looking it up, but 1995, Psygnosis had three titles in the top 10 games sold in the UK (a proxy for EU): Destruction Derby, Discworld, and Wipeout. Good year for them! But in 1992, I can't really find any of their titles on any best selling list in UK or Europe, in an admittedly quick glance. But given SF2 and Sonic 2 were released that year, I will say it's unlikely that they held a 40% market share.
So long story short, not really sure how comparable Psygnosis is to Activision, in many ways, such as the one plato pointed out.
I mean they wouldn't be able to buy another big one. They should be able to buy this one though because as was mentioned multiple times the playing field is uneven everywhere not named America or the UK and even then Sony trounces them in both of those areas.
And here they are using the tools at their disposal to make better games, grow studios, create new business models, create new genres and games, make more compelling hardware, plan for the long term, and yes also buy some valuable studios and IP that will allow them to sell better, make more money, and grow their brand.And who's fault is that? Who had a big part in that after a successful Xbox 360 generation... going into the Xbox One generation? Who chose the approach they did with the Xbox One? Chose to let Sony get a bunch of marketing deals to start that gen going into the middle of that gen? Allowed them to jump out to a big lead.
We didn't get here with just bad luck.
The whole organic vs inorganic debate is funny when Jim Ryan said Sony is pursuing inorganic growth earlier this year.This is a lotta words to try and circle back to "Sonys organic growth model is virtuous" lmao
During the Q&A section of the company's recent business briefing section, Ryan said: "In terms of future M&A [mergers and acquisitions] activity, the answer to that is we are not at all finished with our strategy of trying to grow PlayStation Studios inorganically."
I mean that's different leadership.And who's fault is that? Who had a big part in that after a successful Xbox 360 generation... going into the Xbox One generation? Who chose the approach they did with the Xbox One? Chose to let Sony get a bunch of marketing deals to start that gen going into the middle of that gen? Allowed them to jump out to a big lead.
We didn't get here with just bad luck.
Edit- and I'm just saying one of the largest corporations already bought one of the largest publishers (which includes many studios and bunch of storied IPs...and a few game engines)....and again plans to buy another of the largest publishers with more studios and a bunch of storied ips....and one of the best game engines. I thinks some look over that, when the focus for some reason is only COD.
But what I don't see basically anyone addressing is why it's illegitimate. Why is this tool off limits legally or logically?
The whole organic vs inorganic debate is funny when Jim Ryan said Sony is pursuing inorganic growth earlier this year.
Sony 'Not at All Finished' Growing PlayStation Studios via Acquisitions
Inorganic growth not done yetwww.pushsquare.com
I feel it's bad long term because I feel it will change the approach to how games are made..... and the product we would get, in comparison to what we are accustomed to....which I enjoy currently.
"anyone addressing is why it's illegitimate. Why is this tool off limits legally"
I don't feel some need to.... many here are not legal experts on the matter.
I mean that's different leadership.
Having Mattrick was the embodiment of bad luck every time he opened his mouth.
What does virtuous organic growth have to do with pointing out the inaccuracies of an article cited to minimize the differences between Sony's purchase of Psygnosis and Microsoft's purchase of Activision? LolThis is a lotta words to try and circle back to "Sonys organic growth model is virtuous" lmao
Is the point being made that Xbox fucked up (duh) and certain ways to right that ship are off limits to them because of that?And who did Mattrick work for? The company knew what was going on... they have meetings. Mattrick has folks to answer to as well.
Is the point being made that Xbox fucked up (duh) and certain ways to right that ship are off limits to them because of that?
Otherwise, I don't even understand why you'd bring up how they fucked up in the past as something relevant to the Actiblizz acquisition.
There's a lot here that seems unrelated to the topic but the overuse of ellipses make it really hard to read.When some in the forum (and Microsoft themselves) bring up their "3rd Place" status...or how far they are from PlayStation...as a reason why something like this is need... for competition, I don't have sympathy. They got themselves in that scenario with decisions they made for Xbox One..and after that imo.
They have money to start as MANY studios as they want...and start and fail...and keep going until they get successful stories like Playground Games. How many times have we seen Sony shut down studios every gen (as much as I hate it)... then start again, or invest to eventually buying studios they have worked with.
As much as I love Ninja Theory's games... I wasn't too mad when they were bought. Felt I could finally see what they can do without feeling constrained by money.
But buying a huge Publisher with a bunch of studios? Then a second Huge Publisher?
I'm probably one of the few folks that thinks about game engines.. but I still feel the disappointment of when EA bought Criterion along with RenderWare (felt EA should have had to sell off the engine, especially if they weren't going to use it)... many game series used RenderWare...and more would have that gen, if EA didn't have the rights to it.
idTech and IW Engine are some of the best first person game engines... they run great and look great on both consoles, and did on last gen consoles. But they would be under one console manufacturer going forward.
When some in the forum (and Microsoft themselves) bring up their "3rd Place" status...or how far they are from PlayStation...as a reason why something like this is need... for competition, I don't have sympathy. They got themselves in that scenario with decisions they made for Xbox One..and after that imo.
There is an argument that slack had to sell to Salesforce because they couldn't take on Microsoft by themselves after Teams started being bundled into Office.By this logic, Slack now being bundled into the incredibly popular and even ubiquitous Salesforce package should be Illegal™?
Edit: I wanted to participate in the derail before we all got tired of it.. But I was held up by trying to figure out how to make the ™ show up. Not to worry, I figured out why my AutoHotKey script wasn't working. Now I can spam ™ without having to look it up on Google™ (actually Bing™) anymore!
I'm probably one of the few folks that thinks about game engines.. but I still feel the disappointment of when EA bought Criterion along with RenderWare (felt EA should have had to sell off the engine, especially if they weren't going to use it)... many game series used RenderWare...and more would have that gen, if EA didn't have the rights to it.
idTech and IW Engine are some of the best first person game engines... they run great and look great on both consoles, and did on last gen consoles. But they would be under one console manufacturer going forward, and I feel that's unfortunate.
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire console market.
The Original Xbox came in last place by the end of the generation at 24 million compared to the PS2's 158 million
The Xbox 360 came in last place by the end of the generation with 84 million sold compared to the PS3's 87.41 million
The Xbox One came in last place at the end of the generation at 58.5 million compared to the PS4's 117.2 million
The Xbox Series in all likelyhood will come in last place at the end of the generation
Microsoft has never once won a console generation. And even when Microsoft did its absolute best at the height of its sales. It was still being outsold by Sony in several regions. And the only reason the gap wasn't larger was because the PS3 came out a full year later than the Xbox at a higher original price.
So yeah, blame Microsoft for fucking up with the Xbox One all you want. The actual data shows that their market position and mindshare has never been one of being on top.