Thirty7ven
Banned
A discless XsX would make more sense.
Price it 100 bucks less, make some gamepass offer with it and it would sell like crazy.
Remove the disc = 100$ discount?
Some of you really are clueless.
A discless XsX would make more sense.
Price it 100 bucks less, make some gamepass offer with it and it would sell like crazy.
I mean it's not that I don't enjoy games anymore, it just comes with a bunch of bullshit lol. Part of me loves looking up benchmarks and stuff but the other part wishes I didn't care.Sorry to hear that man. My biggest issue is staying focused and seeing a game through to the end. Work and life are usually the things that get in the way for me. I've been a single console player for a long time now, mostly because I haven't had enough time to really sit and play more than one console at a time. But, that's changing. I might pick up a PS5 and a Series X this gen, depending on how those Xbox studios do. But, I have high hopes that those studios will push out some good stuff. They acquired some good studios.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. In some ways I think it will confuse customers, but at the same time I think if you find a way to undercut Sony it could work out for them.Still not convinced this is even a real thing
Not him, but as I posted before removing the disc drive, and having a lower cost GPU can cut costs in many ways outside of BOP when you factor in manufacturing, shipping, floor space, and packaging.Remove the disc = 100$ discount?
Some of you really are clueless.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. In some ways I think it will confuse customers, but at the same time I think if you find a way to undercut Sony it could work out for them.
Lockhart just seems so pointless. I say just make the Xbox One X the replacement.If Lockhart exists I don’t think its purpose is necessarily to undercut Sony. It doesn’t sound like Lockhart is really a PS5 competitor. The XsX is PS5’s competitor, they’ve said they are ready to be “agile” on price with it, we will see how agile they are capable of being.
I think Lockhart is just a side option, a casual entry
Remove the disc = 100$ discount?
Remove the disk, cut out 4GB of memory and switch to GDDR5 (if possible), downsize the powersupply, reduce the size of the case and cut down on the cooling system. On top of the cost savings from going with a smaller APU die.Remove the disc = 100$ discount?
Some of you really are clueless.
Why is anybody in the right mind suggesting that?Lockhart just seems so pointless. I say just make the Xbox One X the replacement.
I'm not convinced this isn't the case. Given the incredible success that Nintendo have had with the Switch - and it really is incredible, at this point - it would make sense for others to pay attention. From my perspective, offering a second SKU that occupies the same product space, but less than 1/3rd the local-compute horse power, for a middling USD$100 price difference doesn't make any sense. If Lockheart really exists, there's an element to it we just haven't got the info on. A portable Xbox One? I'd legitimately pre-order that hardware in an instant. However, cramming an Xbone into a Switch form-factor for USD$299.00? I don't like those odds...I think instead of a cheaper XBox, Microsoft should have a handheld Switch competitor at that price point - $299. The idea of having the Switch-type hardware running all the Game Pass games is very compelling!
A Switch competitor would likely only be able to match PS4 performance (it would have something like a Ryzen 4000 APU), so you would be extending the cross-platform period over the entire generation.I think instead of a cheaper XBox, Microsoft should have a handheld Switch competitor at that price point - $299. The idea of having the Switch-type hardware running all the Game Pass games is very compelling!
I'm not convinced this isn't the case. Given the incredible success that Nintendo have had with the Switch - and it really is incredible, at this point - it would make sense for others to pay attention. From my perspective, offering a second SKU that occupies the same product space, but less than 1/3rd the local-compute horse power, for a middling USD$100 price difference doesn't make any sense. If Lockheart really exists, there's an element to it we just haven't got the info on. A portable Xbox One? I'd legitimately pre-order that hardware in an instant. However, cramming an Xbone into a Switch form-factor for USD$299.00? I don't like those odds...
I'm not convinced this isn't the case. Given the incredible success that Nintendo have had with the Switch - and it really is incredible, at this point - it would make sense for others to pay attention. From my perspective, offering a second SKU that occupies the same product space, but less than 1/3rd the local-compute horse power, for a middling USD$100 price difference doesn't make any sense. If Lockheart really exists, there's an element to it we just haven't got the info on. A portable Xbox One? I'd legitimately pre-order that hardware in an instant. However, cramming an Xbone into a Switch form-factor for USD$299.00? I don't like those odds...
Bit of an odd take, there is plenty of remakes this gen not limited to switch and lots of dodgy unscrupulous dlc tactics employed on the other platforms who's audience laps up.You cannot base ANYTHING around the way Nintendo fans spend their money, They get excited and pay $ 60 for remakes, throw dollars at plastic figures that are enabling DLC that is already shipped with the game....and are in a world of their own, it would not work on anyone else.
I also dont believe it will launch this year, as we have seen no hardware leaks at all this late in the day, and lets face it you dont need a cheap option in first 6 mnths of a generation, everything sells anyway.
Bit of an odd take, there is plenty of remakes this gen not limited to switch and lots of dodgy unscrupulous dlc tactics employed on the other platforms who's audience laps up.
It's not just Nintendo fans buying the Switch, if that was the case it would have ended up like the WiiU or GameCube.
If xbox lockhart is 300 dollars and PS5 is 500 dollars, I can say safely that Xbox Series will outsell PS5 in NA and UK easily.
PS5 will be 600 dollars total when you include taxes and online membership. This is without games mind you.
Xbox lockhart will be at 400 dollars with online membership, taxes and game pass with hundreds of games ready to go.
It isn't too hard to see which platform will sell more if this is the case in those regions.
$300 for that is too much
There's zero reason for MS to even want to do this. This is like fantasy world where us gamers can just say anything and believe corporate execs will follow through.
The only reason I can imagine Lockhart is something Microsoft is pursuing is because it has enhancements with things like Ray Tracing that are not on XBox One X. So they might position Lockhart as being able to do everything XSX can do but at lower resolution & textures.
That’s possible I suppose. For me, it comes to: the Series X needs to have something to justify its existence. $100 cheaper for 1/3rd the power doesn’t make much sense to me. I guess we’ll see soon enough.Having the lower spec included as part of the developer target gives them a lot of options. I'm not sure they could get 4TF into a mobile package just yet, at least at a price that most would be willing to pay, but in the future it could definitely be an option. A laptop with native Xbox functionality as a feature could also be something to look at, would be a nice option for the back-to-school buyers.
Consumers expect a price reduction in exchange for removal of access to physical games.Remove the disc = 100$ discount?
Some of you really are clueless.
Branding and marketing wise it's going to be difficult anyway when they release two systems. We'll know more in June, if they don't show it there I don't think it will launch for the coming holiday window. I would actually think it's pretty late to show this console anyway, not sure how they would handle this properly.It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
The branding choices they’ve made leave me doubting the existence of a mythical, less powerful, differently named SKU. They introduced this butt-ugly emblem to signpost next gen games:
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
The branding choices they’ve made leave me doubting the existence of a mythical, less powerful, differently named SKU. They introduced this butt-ugly emblem to signpost next gen games:
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
Like you have enhanced for Xbox One X games? Makes sense.Good point.
It’s possible for the emblem to be a differentiator for the entirety of next gen, and not specifically for cross gen games.
Isn’t it a bit weird for a next gen console to need a badge saying games are optimized for it?
This is a leap of faith strategy to sort of try to sandwich Sony by siphoning the 30-40M casuals that fled Xbox after the Xbox 360. Makes no sense to hold back the Series X exclusives that push and contrast with PS5. The idea that you can just "scale" things up, and even more so with the huge gap these two consoles will have (6tf rumoured vs. 12tf) is the same problem gamers complain about with multiplats all the time but on a much bigger scale. So the question is, is the Xbox Series X another Xbox One X situation where the console is mostly a trophy for those that want to play multiplats on their couch in higher settings? Cause first party definitely did not support it. Not to mention the PS5, by all appearances seems to be the default platform to develop for. Any developer that even entertains taking full advantage of the PS4's SSD solution to push the boundaries and create something new will have to weight whether it's even worth it to release on an Xbox Series X, much less an S. I guess everything will come down to sales, cause developers do understand that stat extremely well. If the generation turns out sales wise similar to this gen, those Series S owners will be worse off than Wii U owners (former self).
this is assuming you absolutely need the ps5 i/o for that.
One thing is for sure, games would be made for the most popular machine and ported to all the others.This is a leap of faith strategy to sort of try to sandwich Sony by siphoning the 30-40M casuals that fled Xbox after the Xbox 360. Makes no sense to hold back the Series X exclusives that push and contrast with PS5. The idea that you can just "scale" things up, and even more so with the huge gap these two consoles will have (6tf rumoured vs. 12tf) is the same problem gamers complain about with multiplats all the time but on a much bigger scale. So the question is, is the Xbox Series X another Xbox One X situation where the console is mostly a trophy for those that want to play multiplats on their couch in higher settings? Cause first party definitely did not support it. Not to mention the PS5, by all appearances seems to be the default platform to develop for. Any developer that even entertains taking full advantage of the PS4's SSD solution to push the boundaries and create something new will have to weight whether it's even worth it to release on an Xbox Series X, much less an S. I guess everything will come down to sales, cause developers do understand that stat extremely well. If the generation turns out sales wise similar to this gen, those Series S owners will be worse off than Wii U owners (former self).
The primary console for third party to develop games on, would be whichever that has the biggest install base. It isn't about who has the strongest or weakest hardware, but who is most dominant and thus is your primary customer. This is why console wars are a thing, why it mattered at all. Having a game developed on your hardware as the base is a massive advantage. Yes, most games are built on PCs, but PCs that had to eventually run on the console. FFX was very different game when it was originally developed on PC, but Square did remake the game once they realize the PS2 hardware was far weaker than they predicted.this is assuming you absolutely need the ps5 i/o for that.
Don't you think that 3rd party games that is released multi-platform always uses PC as the benchmark then? Why would they choose a console, if the PC market is the biggest install base? Or better yet, if they also build it for PC, does it even matter what the primary console is for development? They have to increase the visual capabilities anyway for high-tier PC's.The primary console for third party to develop games on, would be whichever that has the biggest install base. It isn't about who has the strongest or weakest hardware, but who is most dominant and thus is your primary customer. This is why console wars are a thing, why it mattered at all. Having a game developed on your hardware as the base is a massive advantage. Yes, most games are built on PCs, but PCs that had to eventually run on the console. FFX was very different game when it was originally developed on PC, but Square did remake the game once they realize the PS2 hardware was far weaker than they predicted.
Yes, in general multiple consoles could co-exist. But that assumes they are different enough to both be worth owning together. Ironic that if Xbox and Sony were sufficiently different, there would be no console Waring.
We will see if the promise of Gamepass is enough to change how the entire gaming industry had worked for decades. Is it really true that it doesn't matter how many consoles you sold? We will find out in the next year.
The PC is NOT a benchmark, because the PC is not the biggest market.Don't you think that 3rd party games that is released multi-platform always uses PC as the benchmark then? Why would they choose a console, if the PC market is the biggest install base? Or better yet, if they also build it for PC, does it even matter what the primary console is for development? They have to increase the visual capabilities anyway for high-tier PC's.
That’s possible I suppose. For me, it comes to: the Series X needs to have something to justify its existence. $100 cheaper for 1/3rd the power doesn’t make much sense to me. I guess we’ll see soon enough.
One thing is for sure, games would be made for the most popular machine and ported to all the others.
The primary console for third party to develop games on, would be whichever that has the biggest install base. It isn't about who has the strongest or weakest hardware, but who is most dominant and thus is your primary customer. This is why console wars are a thing, why it mattered at all. Having a game developed on your hardware as the base is a massive advantage. Yes, most games are built on PCs, but PCs that had to eventually run on the console. FFX was very different game when it was originally developed on PC, but Square did remake the game once they realize the PS2 hardware was far weaker than they predicted.
Yes, in general multiple consoles could co-exist. But that assumes they are different enough to both be worth owning together. Ironic that if Xbox and Sony were sufficiently different, there would be no console Waring.
We will see if the promise of Gamepass is enough to change how the entire gaming industry had worked for decades. Is it really true that it doesn't matter how many consoles you sold? We will find out in the next year.
I would love to accept this, if you could proof this... In 2019, Steam had 95 million monthly active users. This is only Steam, monthly and active users. So not sure if PC has less gamers than PS4 for example.Yes, there are more PCs on the planet, but the number of people who buy and play any particular PC game is far smaller than consoles. This is something I need you to accept;
let's be honest only 2-3% will be able to match or be near next gen settings at launchI would love to accept this, if you could proof this... In 2019, Steam had 95 million monthly active users. This is only Steam, monthly and active users. So not sure if PC has less gamers than PS4 for example.
How is this debatable? Is anyone actually debating that XSX and PS5 won't have an impact on PC's minimum required specs for multi platform games going forward? It has always been like this before, what has changed exactly?
One word, Fortnite. Those almost 2B yearly hauls have developers on notice that software that is enjoyable on an average (non-gaming specific) laptop and smartphone is the new growth sector. In light of that, moving the baseline forward to a position that can't include most of these people (exclusionary via hardware cost) isn't the only way forward.
With that said, I think we will see a big jump in minimum requirements on most of the traditional AAA titles. The big money makers (free-to-play) like Fortnite and CoD WZ will aim for a much broader audience. Should streaming ever catch on, than devs will jump to the highest hardware level with impunity.
I don't know about ubi, Guillemot seems really fired up about the potential of millions of laptop iGPs hitting the market with performance levels comparable to PS4. The potatoes are getting a lot more capable, that changes things quite a bit.
Yes mobile games make a ton of money, but did I go back in time to 2013 or something when the industry had declared console gaming to be over and mobile future to dominate?
The problem with smartphones isn't power, it's interface. Nobody wants to connect a controller to a smartphone, it just ain't gonna happen. So you need to make games that are meant for smartphones, which is what the industry is doing and making bank at it.
You're mixing markets and target audiences. Maybe there will be more games made for average laptops, like Valorant, but it's not going be Assassins Creed or Grand Theft Auto.
You mean the console that launched quite sometime afterwards and was marketed as the "optional, more expensive, premium experience"? Look around - no one's scratching their head, wondering why the PS4 Pro didn't outsell the base model. It was never intended to. Why do you think that is? When it launched, the PS4 was marketed as the "world's most powerful console", and it was cheaper than the competition. Both of dot points mattered. A few years removed, the PS4 Pro is released, and it sits above the PS4 - but it's additive to the base experience and Sony wisely positioned it as such. In contrast, this is not the same situation with Lockheart, if it is real. I think you're looking at this situation incorrectly. Xbox Series X is the base experience, and Lockheart sits beneath it - it's a subtraction to the base experience, not additive like the Pro was, and it offers a compromised version of what the Series X offers. That distinction is incredibly important for a product. For example, compromised versions works out fine for the Switch, but that's because it has a unique selling point: you can take the game anywhere. Unless Lockheart has something more to offer than just a marginally smaller price point, all it has to offer is just the worst possible versions of every game. Saving 1/4 of the price tag to get 1/3rd of the final experience just won't add up to the majority of consumers. Just like the Xbone not adding up when it launch $100.00 more expensive, with worse visuals and performance in virtually every game. So, either the price point has to be stupidly low - for example, if Lockheart was $99 it would fly off shelves faster than they could manufacture it - or Lockheart has to have more to offer that makes it appealing, like being portable. That's my take on it, anyway.That logic would have made the PS4 Pro the immediate best seller for Sony from the day it released. That didn't happen, most users just wanted access to the games and didn't care about playing the "best" version.