mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yes, that was to save the Xbox brand. But will they be willing to do that just to undercut the price of the PS5?
-
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.
Xbox Series S / Lockhart Details To Be Revealed Soon; Console Will Be Priced At Around $300 – Rumor
- Thread starter sonomamashine
- Start date
- Rumor
Yes, that was to save the Xbox brand. But will they be willing to do that just to undercut the price of the PS5?
Heck no. But to take an early lead on units sold and word of mouth among enthusiasts???????????
Maybe.
sobaka770
Banned
I don't buy thiese Lockhart rumors anymore really. It's a weird strategy to announce a second SKU so late but moreover the solutions for a low-powered model just don't seem appealing. There are two ways to go about it:
1. A less powerful/gutted console. Microsoft cannot make compromises on performance because it would set a standard for all their future games. So instead of having Xbox Series X exclusives competing vs PS5, they'd have Lockhart 4Tf machine as a target. I know Microsoft doesn't believe in console generations as much as Sony, but the backwards compatibility will make their offerings appear worse than the competition.
2. They could opt for some form of streaming box or a subscription-based model gutting just the drive and other peripheral parts while keeping the GPU/CPU high, and maybe reducing the storage space. However, this is a much more of a niche proposition and things like Stadia are just not ready for prime time yet.
The only viable option is a XboxOneXS console - a cheaper old-gen console for reduced price replacing the big box as a way to prolong the shelf-life of those SKUs at a much cheaper price point considering that Series X will probably be understocked for at least half a year anyway. In any case if Microsoft will release something like that we will know soon enough because if it's not there during their June blowout, then they might as well not bother.
1. A less powerful/gutted console. Microsoft cannot make compromises on performance because it would set a standard for all their future games. So instead of having Xbox Series X exclusives competing vs PS5, they'd have Lockhart 4Tf machine as a target. I know Microsoft doesn't believe in console generations as much as Sony, but the backwards compatibility will make their offerings appear worse than the competition.
2. They could opt for some form of streaming box or a subscription-based model gutting just the drive and other peripheral parts while keeping the GPU/CPU high, and maybe reducing the storage space. However, this is a much more of a niche proposition and things like Stadia are just not ready for prime time yet.
The only viable option is a XboxOneXS console - a cheaper old-gen console for reduced price replacing the big box as a way to prolong the shelf-life of those SKUs at a much cheaper price point considering that Series X will probably be understocked for at least half a year anyway. In any case if Microsoft will release something like that we will know soon enough because if it's not there during their June blowout, then they might as well not bother.
BusierDonkey
Member
That's a good question. I'm no expert on anything but I have my own theories on what Microsoft might be planning.
I do think they want to pile as many people into Gamepass as they can and get that revenue stream growing bigger and bigger. I think they stand to make more money from subscription users over the life of the console and beyond than they would lose selling the console for $400. Gamepass is cheap to maintain and an easy sell. Even people that despise subscription models can't really argue it's value, If they were to undercut the PS5 price, especially if it was significant, it could pull a lot of the casual audience they lost after the X360 back and that audience is filled with disposable income looking for that good value.
They have been making moves over the last couple years to expand their fanbase that must have cost them revenue up front. The PC market is a good example. Five years ago I would never have dreamt of seeing their games on Steam when they have their own store built in to Win10 but here we are playing a Steam version of MCC packed full of crazy mods. They make less on each copy sold on Steam, but that's another pair of hands on a controller that might look at what Gamepass has to offer if they enjoyed what they played. They also don't charge for online on PC because they know the market won't stand for it, so instead they lose money on that service while the newly re-found PC market takes a look into Gamepass.
I think both consoles are probably $500-$600 consoles at retail and I think both will cost more than $500 to manufacture for awhile. I think Microsoft is in a better position as a whole financially and would be more willing to spend a lot now for dividends later. That's their entire business model as a corporation. Microsoft builds things with future revenue as the end goal. Azure costs over $20 billion a year to maintain and upgrade. It was started with no promise of being profitable but chances were there for a big payoff and the gamble paid off as other companies are signing up to use Azure. I don't think it would be a stretch for them to implement that into one of their other divisions. The same goes for their software suite. They don't sell you Microsoft Office anymore. You subscribe to access it and are always updated with the newest version. It cost them hundreds/copy up front, but will easily pay off. If they lost $100 on every console, but got the customer into Gamepass, they will make that back several times over the console gen and beyond. Being locked and invested into the Xbox ecosystem owners will be more likely to stick around barring another large scale fuck-up like the Xbone. By taking even a decent loss on the hardware side the potential to grow their revenue stream is huge.
Whatever happens I'm pretty interested to see how it all goes down.
oldergamer
Member
MrS
Banned
If devs have to make games for 2xbox consoles with wildly different capabilities, that's a problem. Longer dev time and the quality bar will be lowered.
oldergamer
Member
ZywyPL
Banned
If the devs can scale down games from 4K to 1440p, I'm pretty sure they can scale them down to 1080p as well. We currently have 4 different systems running the exact same games (not to mention billions of different PCs) so I really don't get why it's some sort of alien concept to just drop down the resolution... With those "logic" PS5 and XBX should aim for 1080p, or better yet 720p, so they wouldn't waste their power for 4K, which will be in your understanding holding them back.
48086
Member
I might be misunderstanding what you're saying, but yes Microsoft has been pouring millions and millions into the Xbox brand the last few years. Outside of new studio purchases and new gaming service development, they've done things like sign a deal with Ninja for 20-30 million per year. Also, when the 360 launched, Microsoft was losing around $125 per console sold. Remember the red ring of death? Instead of scraping the Xbox program they shelled out 1.5 billion to keep things alive.
That's completely different lol. The vast majority of their Office 365 revenue comes from businesses. It's also a service with little to no competition.
Who is going to buy an Xbox One when the new consoles are released?? Also, do you not think they are currently taking a huge loss on all of the $1 GamePass subs? When businesses earn millions in revenue every quarter, they are happy to take short term losses in exchange for long term gains. That's not specific to Microsoft. That's a normal occurrence lol.
diffusionx
Gold Member
The $1 GamePass sub would be an example of a good loss leader, actually, although no, I don't think they're taking a huge loss on it. Like I said above, just because a company is losing money right now, doesn't mean they are engaging in a good strategy. For example - Mixer is still irrelevant, despite Ninja.
My point is, what is MS' primary goal? It is to become a services company. GamePass is more important than Xbox Series X. Obviously, Xbox Series X can be an effective way to sell GamePass, but strictly speaking it's not necessary. So I don't see where the urgency to push XSX comes from, to the point where they will eat billions of dollars right now to push consoles. I think they would rather sell less consoles and more GP subs than the other way around.
48086
Member
I never claimed their strategy is good. My point, which you seem to agree with, was that they aren't immune to throwing out millions for gaming. Taking a loss on the Series X wouldn't be shocking at all.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I, personally, would be very surprised.
48086
Member
Why? It' more common for companies to take a loss on hardware than not.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
diffusionx
Gold Member
I thought I explained it - because there's simply no reason to. PS4 proved you can have a successful system and a fast launch without subsidy. So has Nintendo, too, over and over.
Last edited:
48086
Member
Ahh yes, I forgot Microsoft had a first party line up that rivals Nintendo's line up. I also forgot that Sony will make as many mistakes with the ps5 launch that Microsoft made with X1 launch.
It's hilarious you're arguing that Microsoft doesn't need to be completive on price or is willing to take a loss on each console.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Of course they’re going to be competitive on price. Competitive doesn’t mean taking a giant loss on each unit sold.
BlueHawk357
Member
This does intrigue me a lot.
Will the Series S match the One X, but with an SSD, and no BluRay drive?
I'll personally be getting a PS5, and am finding it real hard to justify getting a Series X too, so I'm keeping an eye on the Series S.
Will the Series S match the One X, but with an SSD, and no BluRay drive?
I'll personally be getting a PS5, and am finding it real hard to justify getting a Series X too, so I'm keeping an eye on the Series S.
48086
Member
You don't know that.
If it costs Microsoft $475 to build each console and Sony prices the PS5 at $399 than yeah Microsoft would have to take a loss to be competitive. Honestly, at this point I think you're just trying to make up ways to argue.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I don't know anything. Neither do you. This whole thing is speculation. We simply disagree.
48086
Member
That's right, I don't know. Once again, my very basic easy to understand point was that it wouldn't be surprising based on historical context for Microsoft to take a loss on the Series X. Sorry if that somehow offends you lol.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I really don't know why you keep responding to me. My point is that it would be surprising. That's it. Nobody is offending anyone.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
DeltaPolarBear
Member
"This would just be another option" is insane.
We are talking about hardware here. Making multiple hardware massively inflates production costs. You can do this for software, sure, because once the software is made you send it to the consumer the same way no matter what is the contents. But multiple hardware?
Remember that Microsoft is a Software company, so it just may be possible that they would be stupid enough to actually have that many hardware releases, due to lack of experience.
MasterCornholio
Member
Jez Cordan : It's never about the hardware sales, it's about the amount of users you have.
But don't the users need hardware in order for them to use those services?
It's why I don't understand this mentality that hardware sales don't matter.
Logically the more hardware Microsoft sells the larger the user base they will have which will lead to more subscriptions.
Also when it comes to Xbox most of their users game on their consoles and don't buy software from the windows store.
And the purpose of Lockhart is to increase the user base by selling hardware at a much lower price.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
Hardware sales matter but it's not the entire picture. Just a part of it. If for example, XCloud gets millions of people into the Xbox eco-system where as they never would have before since they weren't going to buy the console anyway, that's a massive win for Microsoft and Xbox.
I believe that the Series S is 100% real but in no way, shape or form do I believe that it will be a handheld/hybrid of any kind. Nintendo owns that market. Always have and most likely always will. No reason to enter the handheld market especially when XCloud will basically do it for them.
My prediction has always been the same - Xbox Series X as the superior power console for $500 while Series S will be the 1080P console but gives you better performance than the current being phased out Xbox One X for $300.
What I believe that Microsoft should do however is release Series X at $400 and in Fall 2022, release Series S for $200 once the Xbox One Slim/All Digital consoles are no longer manufactured and completely off store shelves. But since this is highly unlikely, I see both consoles launching on November 6th.
Sony has said they won't have as many PS5 consoles between launch and March 31st, 2021 as they did with PS4 so imagine if in December, PS5 is sold out and doesn't get restocked until January which is a definite possibility, a $300 Xbox Series S that can play all the next gen games with BC, Game Pass, Smart Delivery, etc. but at a lower resolution and visual effects but still giving you all the extra benefits like 60FPS, an SSD, etc. It would sell at least 2m in the month of December because casuals will go for the cheapest console and that would be Xbox Series S.
Plus, as of the end of 2019, only a reportedly 30% of gamers own a 4K TV. So even if you say 50% by the end of 2020, that's still 50% of gamers that don't own a 4K TV and don't need to spend the extra $200 on Series X when they can buy the cheaper $300 Series S.
I understand why people don't like the idea but it's no different than PS4/PS4 Pro and Xbox One/Xbox One X. The only difference is that instead of years later, they both launch on the same day. Hardcore like myself buy the Series X while the vast majority which are casuals buy the Series S. And if Sony decides to take a loss on PS5 and sell it at $400, Xbox has a $100 cheaper model and a $100 more expensive model.
Series S wouldn't be for me or those who own or will own a 4K TV this year but for those who won't but still want a next generation gaming console at a cheap as possible price, Series S will be for those consumers.
I believe that the Series S is 100% real but in no way, shape or form do I believe that it will be a handheld/hybrid of any kind. Nintendo owns that market. Always have and most likely always will. No reason to enter the handheld market especially when XCloud will basically do it for them.
My prediction has always been the same - Xbox Series X as the superior power console for $500 while Series S will be the 1080P console but gives you better performance than the current being phased out Xbox One X for $300.
What I believe that Microsoft should do however is release Series X at $400 and in Fall 2022, release Series S for $200 once the Xbox One Slim/All Digital consoles are no longer manufactured and completely off store shelves. But since this is highly unlikely, I see both consoles launching on November 6th.
Sony has said they won't have as many PS5 consoles between launch and March 31st, 2021 as they did with PS4 so imagine if in December, PS5 is sold out and doesn't get restocked until January which is a definite possibility, a $300 Xbox Series S that can play all the next gen games with BC, Game Pass, Smart Delivery, etc. but at a lower resolution and visual effects but still giving you all the extra benefits like 60FPS, an SSD, etc. It would sell at least 2m in the month of December because casuals will go for the cheapest console and that would be Xbox Series S.
Plus, as of the end of 2019, only a reportedly 30% of gamers own a 4K TV. So even if you say 50% by the end of 2020, that's still 50% of gamers that don't own a 4K TV and don't need to spend the extra $200 on Series X when they can buy the cheaper $300 Series S.
I understand why people don't like the idea but it's no different than PS4/PS4 Pro and Xbox One/Xbox One X. The only difference is that instead of years later, they both launch on the same day. Hardcore like myself buy the Series X while the vast majority which are casuals buy the Series S. And if Sony decides to take a loss on PS5 and sell it at $400, Xbox has a $100 cheaper model and a $100 more expensive model.
Series S wouldn't be for me or those who own or will own a 4K TV this year but for those who won't but still want a next generation gaming console at a cheap as possible price, Series S will be for those consumers.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Isn't it interesting that everyone who support the existence of a lockhart, also don't want to buy one?
Is there anyone, anywhere, who would say they would buy one?
Self
Member
I would definatly think about it. Seriously. 1080p is good enough for me.
PS5 as powerhouse and lockhart for BC and exclusives.
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Microsoft doesn't need their own hardware to play Xbox games on. PC and mobile (xCloud) are also Xbox users of they play their games on those systems.
turtlepowa
Banned
This is not interesting, this is logical. I support the idea of a Lockhart as well, but would never buy one.
You have to understand one thing: On the internet and sites like NeoGAF you will find core gamers and hardcore gamers. But 80% of the console buyers are casuals and Lockhart is for those players. They don't care about Netflix 3rd person action adventures or Ori/Cuphead, they don't discuss on the internet about gaming. They just want some (cheap) console for their FIFA/COD/BF/Madden/GTA/RDR. Many people don't even have a 4k tv and/or don't need 4k.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
See, what Lockhart supporters don't understand is that the casual players have an easier solution than buying a Lockhart; they just stay in the current gen.
There are people who still haven't bought a PS4, because they are waiting for a Superslim next year. These people are not going to buy a Lockhart instead, because they have no desire to spend a cent more than they had to, Lockhart has no appeal because it isn't going to be cheap enough and its hardware performance is irrelevant to casuals. And if it doesn't matter then they stay in current gen for 3 more years.
turtlepowa
Banned
Casuals also want new stuff, same thing as with smartphones that many people buy yearly or more often.. PS4 sold like crazy even though most big games could also be played on Ps3 until 2015. Guess we have to wait and find out if a Lockhart exists at all and how well it sells.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
If Casuals want new stuff, and they haven't already bought a current gen console by now, they are not going to by a next gen machine no matter how cheap.
If someone can hold out this long without playing current gen games, they are not going to be in a hurry to buy into next gen.
The venn-diagram of people who haven't bought a current gen machine and will buy a next gen machine at launch, is basically two perfect circles.
Last edited:
And what will happen when Activision eventually stops making CoD for old gen? Also new Battlefield is rumored to next-gen only. And i can go on and on and on
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
And when they do decide to jump in, Lockhart will be even cheaper. The market of every major electronic has shown a cheaper alternative to get a consumer into an ecosystem is always preferred by the mass market consumer.
Last edited:
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Gamers are excited to see new consoles,
DeltaPolarBear
Member
I doubt a Lockhart would be cheaper than a PS4 Superslim.
Someone who hadn't bought a current gen console yet, isn't going to worry about missing out on games that are yet to come out. They have a Mount Everest sized backlog to dig through. Why worry about the new Battlefield when they haven't played the old one?
Last edited:
Yeah. Because it's common thing for people to buy old-gen in droves after next-gen release.
I think you failed to realize, that Lockhart will play same games as Series X. Not with that high of resolution/framerate but same games. Call of Duty 2025? Yup, Battlefield VI? Yes! FIFA 24? You can bet
That's why your "Lockhart won't be cheaper then PS4 SuperSlim" argument is pointless. Because PS4 SuperSlim won't be able to play those games
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Actually, YES.
Sony proved it with both the PS1 and PS2 Superslim sales. PS3 was abnormal in that the Cell couldn't be made cheap enough, so it never did got the long tail of sales the other consoles enjoyed. But PS4 Superslim should restore the balance once again.
That market exists, and is PROVEN to exist. The fact that PS3 messed up the cycle doesn't change it.
Anyone who waited this long to buy a current gen machine isn't after the latest games. Once again you are mixing what you want with what the Casuals want. Casuals are quite happy with previous gen games because it is new to THEM.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
Those latent sales are in major markets?
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Who said it would be? It would have exponentially longer product life support. Price is the number one factor but the other reason the price conscientious consumer waits is because they want their product to last.
PS4 has a year, if that, left for new software (first party) and Lockhart will have a minimum of 5 years likely more.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Yes. This is compounded by the Superslim being held together with bubblegum and duct tape, thus could be sold at massive profit margins despite being dirt cheap. The people who buy a Superslim don't care that the hardware is flimsy and fragile, because they know what they are paying for. And the software bundles are insane value.
Yes, markets like South America are suitable for such hardware, but every nation on Earth have people who don't play current gen games in the current gen; they play them once the next gen has arrived and they can get old gen games at a massive bargain. It is the reason the Superslim exists. Hot garbage carboard builds that sold like hot cakes, at bargain basement prices.
I hate repeating myself...
But people who haven't bought a current console yet after all this time, clearly don't give a damn about "new" software. Please try to avoid thinking like a hardcore gamer.
Last edited:
Yes. I'm sure plenty people bought X360/PS3 after PS4/XOne, but it was what? few % of all consoles sold?
Lockhart, with right price (299€ when XsX and PS5 will be 499€) have huge chance for success.
Why do you think Xbox One S and Playstation 4 are selling more consoles even after Xbox One X and PS4 Pro? Because price matters and not everybody is willing to pay 499€ for new console
DaGwaphics
Member
Looking back at the sales data, I just don't see that much happening in major markets for the PS1 & PS2 slim models post next-gen release. I see those exploding in markets where due to economy tech is frequently behind. Could you post numbers for the US, UK, and Japanese sales of these slim units post next-gen launch. Things were a bit stronger for PS1, than PS2, but I'm not seeing a huge market for these.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
First off, stop presenting your opinions as facts and then get butt hurt when someone argues with you.
Your super slim argument is one sided and doesn't look at the mountain of other things that were going for it at the time. The PS2 super slim not only sold because it was insanely cheap but also because the PS3 lacked BC for most models. People that had invested a ton into their libraries were not willing to jump into the PS3 day 1 with its massive price tag and lack of being able to play their libraries. By the time it did hit a sweet spot it lacked BC. Also the ps2 super slim was bought by people replacing PS2s as it was not exactly quality hardware.
PS One your argument holds a bit more weight but the PS2, PS3 and PS4 Super Slim will never reach its price point. It could be argued the $50 price tag is why the PS One sold so many units.
Second, saying that consumers don't care about new software is flat out dumb. They sure as hell care about new software, but what they dont care about is paying $60 for new software. Very big difference. They don't want to or don't have the disposable income to spend on games the way the hardcore do.
Which is where Lockhart and Game Pass come in. New software regularly, from the franchises they have heard of for a low price.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Just a random news report back in the day...
PS3 Sales Down, But The PS2 Lives On!
Some strange news out of Sony’s latest financial earnings release: sales of the PlayStation 3 are down, while sales of the PlayStation 2 are steady and the PSP is making a late-life comeback! The release covers the three months between April and June this year. In that time, the PS3 sold 1.8...
www.kotaku.com.au
DaGwaphics
Member
Just a random news report back in the day...
PS3 Sales Down, But The PS2 Lives On!
Some strange news out of Sony’s latest financial earnings release: sales of the PlayStation 3 are down, while sales of the PlayStation 2 are steady and the PSP is making a late-life comeback! The release covers the three months between April and June this year. In that time, the PS3 sold 1.8...
That's from Sony's financial statements (looking at their business as a whole). I'm talking about major market sales only.