Support NeoGAF

[DarthFeanor]

I still don't understand why so many of you guys think the PS5 and XSX won't cost more than $499.

The very existence of PS5 digital edition shows us Sony is afraid of pricing the complete console too high.
Add to that the fact that the PS5 is the largest console in more than 20 years.
History shows that the larger the console the pricier it is.

Here are my predictions:
XSX - $599
PS5 - $549
PS5 DE - $449 (Sony loses money)
XSL - $349
XOX & PS4 Pro - $279
XOS & PS4 S - $199

 

[Metnut]

Series X will be challenges for sure. Why would anyone pay twice as much to play only the same games?

I think if Series X gets outsold by Lockhart you’ll see the first-party developers focus more Lockhart. Yikes.

 

[DonkeyKong]

Interesting, i'm pretty sure the current One S and X will disappear quite quickly leaving just the Series S and X, not quite sure how the Series S is going to work though, lower res 1080P but everything else the same? fps, ssd etc? I don't know...

I predict the Series X will at least have to match the PS5 digital

 

[sonomamashine]

Here are my predictions:
XSX - $599
PS5 - $549
PS5 DE - $449 (Sony loses money)
XSL - $349
XOX & PS4 Pro - $279
XOS & PS4 S - $199

Lol they will make more money from Digital sales than a regular PS5.

 

[prinz_valium]

Xbox One X was $499
I don't see a world where Series X is $399

Just won't happen.
But Series S at $249 is also way to cheap.

It's Series X at $499 and Series s at $299

 

[Deleted member 775630]

We expect them to price it at $500 to break even, they price it at $400 take a $100 hit per console, $300 million in the race to the first 30 million where manufacturing and pricing would of come down by this point... It's nuts to think $400 price at all I just can't see it. But... $300 million at the end of the day if they think it will give them 50/50 market share against Sony for an entire generation is peanuts to Microsoft when you take into consideration improved gold and gamepass numbers.

It's crazy, but not outside of the realm of happening crazy.

Think of this way, as a company with over $130 billion just in cash reserves sitting around doing absolutely nothing would you spend $300 million up front to guarantee billions more in return for that $300 million over the span of 8 years? I would.

Yeah, but not all of the $130 billion is allocated to the Xbox division. I believe Spencer has more leeway than Xbox used to have under Ballmer and Mattrick, but not sure if they can take a $100 hit per console IF that's really the hit. Because the BOM might be more than $500 though...

 

[T_LVPL]

Microsoft must just about recoup on this entire Xbox project especially post 360. It’s just a massive vanity project because when you’ve got that much money you need to do something with it. For what it’s worth the Series X looks great and I love the design and the business model they have by giving half their stuff away for free won’t lie I wish Sony was richer then I could have all that free stuff too with stuff I want to play. While it lasts it’ll be unreal value for their consumers.

 

[Bruno_Arrais85]

at $300 bucks, their competitor will be the Switch Pro.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I still don't understand why so many of you guys think the PS5 and XSX won't cost more than $499.

The very existence of PS5 digital edition shows us Sony is afraid of pricing the complete console too high.
Add to that the fact that the PS5 is the largest console in more than 20 years.
History shows that the larger the console the pricier it is.

Here are my predictions:
XSX - $599
PS5 - $549
PS5 DE - $449 (Sony loses money)
XSL - $349
XOX & PS4 Pro - $279
XOS & PS4 S - $199

We don't think so because the last BoM estimate put PS5 at a little over $450 and the SeX at around $500.

 

[Nikana]

Yeah, but not all of the $130 billion is allocated to the Xbox division. I believe Spencer has more leeway than Xbox used to have under Ballmer and Mattrick, but not sure if they can take a $100 hit per console IF that's really the hit. Because the BOM might be more than $500 though...

It really depends how much growth they expect to see in services. GP is growing and if they see the potential there to break even on the console hit in a year then they could take it.

 

[Nikana]

I still don't understand why so many of you guys think the PS5 and XSX won't cost more than $499.

The very existence of PS5 digital edition shows us Sony is afraid of pricing the complete console too high.
Add to that the fact that the PS5 is the largest console in more than 20 years.
History shows that the larger the console the pricier it is.

Here are my predictions:
XSX - $599
PS5 - $549
PS5 DE - $449 (Sony loses money)
XSL - $349
XOX & PS4 Pro - $279
XOS & PS4 S - $199

Because even with inflation a $599 price tag is extremely off putting to most consumers. It's just too much for a lot of people that deem it as disposable income. Consoles haven't reach the mindset of being a necessity and probably never will.

 

[cormack12]

Think those price points sound a little low unless MS really go for loss leaders. But there's no reason why they can't limit that price for the first manufacturing run to get market penetration, then bring it upt to $249 on the next shipments. I don't even think they are going after the premium market too heavily. If they have a Lockhart, their launch/release strategy is pretty impressive in my opinion.

They have the Xbox All Access upgrade programme already for existing customers/players and anyone jumping on the Xbox train late.
They have their traditional console which is in competition with the market leader.
They will have Lockhart which will sell a premium/nextgen experience at an affordable price.
They'll likely have gamepass with them included so more than the usual two new games.

I think they're basically attempting to tier the premium market, or broaden it on a 'class' system. There are loads of parents on that line who want the latest and greatest for their kids but just can't afford it at launch. If they can bring home the newest Xbox for Christmas for their kids bedroom they'll be heroes to those kids. They won't be bothered about 1080p or Legion has a shorter draw distance without RT. People like us care about that shit, but if you can attack two markets then why not? Having said that the marketing and messaging (especially to retailers) needs to be bang on.

Let's say both the XsX and PS5 come in at $550 for arguments sake. That's a lot of cash to drop on the back of the last year. Oh wait, we can't afford these but we can get this new Xbox with the latest Fifa and Cod young Chad - is that OK? Too right it will be, especially when the premium boxes have all been swallowed up in the first few days.

For people like us, not a problem. I'm sure we have our pre-orders and we'll be fine with any price under $600 - but $200 is almost at gift impulse level, especially in Holiday season

 

[Lone Wolf]

Series X has to be $500. Maybe if they make a series X with no disc drive, then that could be $400. Lockhart should be $250.

 

[tryDEATH]

People are really underestimating GamePass and the absurd amount of money it makes MS for a service.

Lets just entertain the idea that the 10 million subscribers are split as following 90% use the $1 for a month deal and 10% actually pay the real price of $10 per month, which is an absurd split, but even that sort of split gets them 19Mil a month and 228Mil a year and this would be on the extremely low end.

A 60/40 split would $46Mil a month and $552Mil a year and a 40/60 split would make the $64Mil a month $768Mil a year.

Now imagine those splits with 15-20 million users across 2 console generations + PC, your easily looking at around a billion a year from this service. It is going to easily be able to fund multiple AAA games in a single year, to the point where they really could be churning out AAA titles every couple of months. The only problem they would have then is not having enough studios to develop games.

 

[Nikana]

People are really underestimating GamePass and the absurd amount of money it makes MS for a service.

Lets just entertain the idea that the 10 million subscribers are split as following 90% use the $1 for a month deal and 10% actually pay the real price of $10 per month, which is an absurd split, but even that sort of split gets them 19Mil a month and 228Mil a year and this would be on the extremely low end.

A 60/40 split would $46Mil a month and $552Mil a year and a 40/60 split would make the $64Mil a month $768Mil a year.

Now imagine those splits with 15-20 million users across 2 console generations + PC, your easily looking at around a billion a year from this service. It is going to easily be able to fund multiple AAA games in a single year, to the point where they really could be churning out a AAA titles every couple of months. The only problem they would have then is not having enough studios to develop games.

99 percent of gaf doesn't understand the subscription model at all.

There's a reason Disney built their own platform and was able to price it near half as much as Netflix and still expect to make more money.

 

[sinnergy]

People are really underestimating GamePass and the absurd amount of money it makes MS for a service.

Lets just entertain the idea that the 10 million subscribers are split as following 90% use the $1 for a month deal and 10% actually pay the real price of $10 per month, which is an absurd split, but even that sort of split gets them 19Mil a month and 228Mil a year and this would be on the extremely low end.

A 60/40 split would $46Mil a month and $552Mil a year and a 40/60 split would make the $64Mil a month $768Mil a year.

Now imagine those splits with 15-20 million users across 2 console generations + PC, your easily looking at around a billion a year from this service. It is going to easily be able to fund multiple AAA games in a single year, to the point where they really could be churning out AAA titles every couple of months. The only problem they would have then is not having enough studios to develop games.

Bingo, but most old gamers won’t comprehend there is change in the air.

Ms made a bet and it’s Starting to look it has been the right one.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

$200 Series S/ $400 Series X is absolutely insane if they manage to hit those prices. Almost sounds like fantasy; I'm personally expecting $250 Series S/ $450 XSX. But hey, if they actually do hit those rumored prices, that's a big get for them.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

I wouldn’t take anything eastmen says too seriously when it comes to Xbox

Yeah, hes a MS homer.

 

[cormack12]

Can someone explain game pass to me please? There's so much stuff about it's free or $1 for the year etc. I think you just get a catalogue of games that you can play for 2/3 months right then they disappear? So it prevents you needing to buy any first party titles? But if you miss the rotation you're fucked?

 

[MilkyJoe]

If thats true then the Series X is DOA

 

[unknownphysicz]

Lockhart $250 XSx $400 to $450 is my guess

 

[BlitzerRadic]

99 percent of gaf doesn't understand the subscription model at all.

There's a reason Disney built their own platform and was able to price it near half as much as Netflix and still expect to make more money.

Disney can do that because they own 100% of the content on their service.

Netflix had revenue of $20 billion in 2019 and spent $14 billion on content in 2018. The vast majority of content on a game subscription service is owned by 3rd parties. Everyone seems to forget that they have to get paid whenever they talk about how much these services make.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Sure MS has enough income to support ventures that fail to turn a profit for extended periods, but they generally don't because that's not how you run a business!

I also find it somewhat illogical that despite moving towards a digital subscription/sales centered business model, they are going to piss away their profits by subsidizing hardware that isn't actually essential for their platform-agnostic future!

This isn't too much different from the standard console business model of razors and razor blades; selling consoles at a loss to recoup in the software revenue cut. It's been a thing since the '90s and if MS were going to sell Lockhart and XSX for lower-than-expected MSRPs then it's not crazy at all considering they more than recoup those costs with service subscriptions and digital game sales over the course of the generation.

Why do you think Sony is doing a PS5 Digital Edition in the first place? Taking a loss on the hardware to funnel customers to digital purchases they get more profit off of, locking them into their services ecosystem. It is literally the same approach at the heart of things. And companies much smaller than Microsoft have more or less operated on a debt-based model for their entire business, even, like Netflix, because for them it's about the longer-term profits that can make up the short-term losses.

Seeing as how MS already has a very healthy digital ecosystem (especially considering Sony outsold them this gen something like 2.5 to 1), if they are indeed considering $200/$400, they likely have more than enough analytical data to figure it's worth pursuing. Sony certainly seems to have enough (perhaps both data and also desire) to push PS5 Digital as an SKU (for all we know, it could be their main SKU). And since I'm personally of the opinion PS5 is coming in at $399 (Digital) and $499 (Disc), knowing where their BOM likely is at they'd be taking a loss on the Digital unit and breaking even or having a very small profit on the Disc version.

While I still say $250 (or $225) Series S/ $450 XSX are more realistic prices, again I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they both come in $50 cheaper than that. Unlikely, but it can happen, and they have the impetus in justifying it, too.

 

[Deleted member 775630]

It really depends how much growth they expect to see in services. GP is growing and if they see the potential there to break even on the console hit in a year then they could take it.

Yeah, true. We just don't have a clue on their business model, but we'll find out more once they've priced it

 

[MH3M3D]

They're positioning this for casuals that only play 3rd party games and don't care about exclusives. Coupled with a cheaper price compared to PS5 and you've got yourself a winner.

 

[baphomet]

Lockhart - $299
PS5DE - $399/449
PS5 - $499
XSX - $499/+

 

[Nikana]

Disney can do that because they own 100% of the content on their service.

Netflix had revenue of $20 billion in 2019 and spent $14 billion on content in 2018. The vast majority of content on a game subscription service is owned by 3rd parties. Everyone seems to forget that they have to get paid whenever they talk about how much these services make.

No one is forgetting it at all but that content that they "own" was still paid for in many different ways. The studios they bought and networks weren't exactly cheap.

On the surface that was probably a bad example but the point still stand that a subscription service is far more profitable than people understand. The actual business model and content distribution is vastly more profitable for the service than the company selling the content.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Lockhart - $299
PS5DE - $399/449
PS5 - $499
XSX - $499/+

Thread over.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Yeah, but not all of the $130 billion is allocated to the Xbox division. I believe Spencer has more leeway than Xbox used to have under Ballmer and Mattrick, but not sure if they can take a $100 hit per console IF that's really the hit. Because the BOM might be more than $500 though...

I have reason to think the BOM is probably lower than some are thinking.

Yeah, XSX has a bigger GPU and traditionally speaking, the larger the chip the more you pay. But MS can spin the majority of the non-qualifying yields into Azure server units, and also (presumedly) the Lockhart. They can potentially even make a branch Surface product line with those chips if they wanted. Basically they have a LOT of ways to repurpose bad yield chips, if they wanted.

Sony? Not so much. For starters they don't have their VAIO computer/laptop line anymore where repurposing some of the bad yields of PS5 APUs would've came in handy. Perhaps they could theoretically package them into some smartphone designs, but the nature of current smartphone technology and form factors will be at odds potentially with those bad yield chips. Additionally, since Sony needs a higher-clocked GPU, that will also impact yields, as they need higher-grade silicon overall to ensure those clocks can be stably reached and the chip logic operates as intended.

Now, they COULD utilize the Azure partnership they have with MS to repurpose bad yield PS5 APU chips into PS5 server blades, but I don't know how or if that could actually work. I'm assuming it could, however. The question is would MS allow it? I think they would; at the end of the day Sony is still leveraging MS's Azure infrastructure, even if Sony would be using server blades with bad yield PS5 chips in them. That said I don't know if they would have a ton of those to go around; Sony would have to rely on a large batch of bad yield chips to hit sufficient server blade numbers, but seeing as how they're already somewhat conservative on number of PS5s to manufacture through to FY 2021, as well as the quality of chips they need for working systems, they likely don't want to have a big net of bad yield chips in the first place.

On the other hand, MS probably won't mind having a big net of bad yield chips; just means more use in Azure server blades. Not to mention they would also be using good yield chips for Azure server blades as well, and due to this factor they are likely less conservative in spending costs for wafer yields. This is all aside from other areas where XSX's APU likely comes in cheaper, such as the controller BOM (not needing a microphone, for example, saves on costs), and potentially the cooling system, too.

So yeah, a lot of reasons why XSX's BOM could in fact be notably cheaper than PS5's.

 

[Nikana]

I have reason to think the BOM is probably lower than some are thinking.

Yeah, XSX has a bigger GPU and traditionally speaking, the larger the chip the more you pay. But MS can spin the majority of the non-qualifying yields into Azure server units, and also (presumedly) the Lockhart. They can potentially even make a branch Surface product line with those chips if they wanted. Basically they have a LOT of ways to repurpose bad yield chips, if they wanted.

Sony? Not so much. For starters they don't have their VAIO computer/laptop line anymore where repurposing some of the bad yields of PS5 APUs would've came in handy. Perhaps they could theoretically package them into some smartphone designs, but the nature of current smartphone technology and form factors will be at odds potentially with those bad yield chips. Additionally, since Sony needs a higher-clocked GPU, that will also impact yields, as they need higher-grade silicon overall to ensure those clocks can be stably reached and the chip logic operates as intended.

Now, they COULD utilize the Azure partnership they have with MS to repurpose bad yield PS5 APU chips into PS5 server blades, but I don't know how or if that could actually work. I'm assuming it could, however. The question is would MS allow it? I think they would; at the end of the day Sony is still leveraging MS's Azure infrastructure, even if Sony would be using server blades with bad yield PS5 chips in them. That said I don't know if they would have a ton of those to go around; Sony would have to rely on a large batch of bad yield chips to hit sufficient server blade numbers, but seeing as how they're already somewhat conservative on number of PS5s to manufacture through to FY 2021, as well as the quality of chips they need for working systems, they likely don't want to have a big net of bad yield chips in the first place.

On the other hand, MS probably won't mind having a big net of bad yield chips; just means more use in Azure server blades. Not to mention they would also be using good yield chips for Azure server blades as well, and due to this factor they are likely less conservative in spending costs for wafer yields. This is all aside from other areas where XSX's APU likely comes in cheaper, such as the controller BOM (not needing a microphone, for example, saves on costs), and potentially the cooling system, too.

So yeah, a lot of reasons why XSX's BOM could in fact be notably cheaper than PS5's.

The rumor of Lockhart being chips that failed binning for Scarlett is actually genius when you think about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the reason Lockhart even exists.

 

[tryDEATH]

Can someone explain game pass to me please? There's so much stuff about it's free or $1 for the year etc. I think you just get a catalogue of games that you can play for 2/3 months right then they disappear? So it prevents you needing to buy any first party titles? But if you miss the rotation you're fucked?

MS has a $1 offer where you can try GamePass Ultimate(PC + Console games) for 1 month this also includes Xbox Live Gold. Regularly GamePass Ultimate is $15 and regular GamePass is $10.

Games are added and removed on a monthly basis. New games added usually stay at least 4 to 5 months on the service and can stay over a year such as Metro Exodus.

 

[Nikana]

Can someone explain game pass to me please? There's so much stuff about it's free or $1 for the year etc. I think you just get a catalogue of games that you can play for 2/3 months right then they disappear? So it prevents you needing to buy any first party titles? But if you miss the rotation you're fucked?

Nvm. Someone explained.

 

[DESTROYA]

Hahahahaha.....Maybe if the XsX cost $600.

 

[Flashy Wizard]

The supposed pricing for both Series X and Lockhart is a tough pill to swallow. I’ve been gaming since the early 80’s and I’ve never heard of such a thing. Sure, we’ve had the loss-leading strategy happen before but this would be on another level. If true, this will definitely shake up the industry but I seriously doubt it.

 

[THE DUCK]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't xbox studio games all stay on game pass for good?

 

[Nikana]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't xbox studio games all stay on game pass for good?

As far we know yes. Everything they have put on there has stayed from first party.

 

[Stiflers Mom]

So "project lockhart" is literally just Xbox Series X Digital Edition?

Maybe 'Lockhart' was just about all the friendship we found on our wait for it..

 

[Insane Metal]

So a $399 XSX and a $199 XSS? LOL no. Come on.

 

[Iced Arcade]

That puts Sony in a shitty situation if the competition puts out a $400 console that's more powerful and a low end model that scoops the bottom feeders.


But if true... It's nothing but positive for consumers. With all the subscription/services these companies can and should be swallowing some of the hardware cost.

(I don't believe they will though)

 

[lastmessiah]

Damn, October is going to be interesting.

 

[Captain Hero]

Seriously.. the price isn’t just enough to make me get a console but games will make me pay everything in my wallet

 

[Dabaus]

It still sounds like fairy tale stuff.
MS had lost so much money with the XBox in the early years, that I am not even sure if they ever broke even (a lot of the money from the 360 era was spent on the RRoD). So XBox division going up to MS and saying, hey how about we lose some serious money now? Maybe it pays of, maybe it doesnt.

People seem to think that subscription models turn around a lot of money when it really doesnt. Its super low margin, which is why only the biggest players get in. I dont think gamepass is making them money right now, its way too cheap and not enough people have it. Yes 10 Millions sound like a lot, but its nothing compared to Spotify, Amazon Prime, Netflix, or even Disney plus. Also music, TV shows and movies are arguably easier, faster and cheaper to produce.
Plus they are losing money from regular sales and licensing and may lose some 3rd publisher support. All while HEAVILY subsidizing a console?
Their subscriber numbers need to be in the hundreds of millions for that. I dont know if the brand is strong enough for that.
I dont know, maybe they want Xbox to be the windows of gaming or something, we'll see. But I find is highly unrealistic atm.

Fairy tale stuff is exactly how i would describe that eastman post as well. So not only is Microsoft going to beat Nintendo of all companies, but sony, google et all, all at the same time. Sony and nintndo dont have any plans or strategies for the future, only Microsoft does if you take these people at face value. Isnt the xbox one s like 199 and still gets outsold 3:1 by ps4 which is still 299? Xbox series X isnt going to be 400, thatd be like a 200 dollar loss per system and if lockheart is 199 then id assume theyd be taking a loss on that too. Even if MS were operating in a vacuum, which they are most certainty not, then i still have my doubts all of this would happen like guy is saying it would.

If gamepass was this endless well of money that MS says it is then we'd be seeing nintendo and sony rush to match that service, but theyre not because its BS. As far as aquisitions go, weve heard for 3 years now MS is in talks with the biggest and best of developers and all we wind up getting are AA developers down on their luck. Its all fairy tales, unicorns, and rainbows. We have no idea what ps5 will cost, how sony will position ps4 (yes 4) against lockheart in terms of price matching, and the same could be said of switch. There are still too many variables.

I say let Xbox fanboys set them selves up for impossible to reach expectations.

 

[SSfox]

I won't care even if they'll give it for free. Show your exclusive games then we can start talking.

 

[DarkMage619]

Lockhart - $299
PS5DE - $399/449
PS5 - $499
XSX - $499/+

After this last generation why would MS price their console more than what Sony prices theirs at? Do you honestly believe they would prefer another XB1/PS4 situation?
If MS learned anything XSX would match price of the PS5DE.

XSS $299
PS5DE $399
XSX $399
PS5 $499

That would make a competitive on price generation. PS fans will pay whatever it takes and Xbox fans are going to want the best value.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The rumor of Lockhart being chips that failed binning for Scarlett is actually genius when you think about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the reason Lockhart even exists.

Yeah, with that being the case (plus the aforementioned repurposing of bad yield chips for Azure server blades), the cost saving might practically write themselves.

Then there's the long-term benefits of AMD hardware proliferating in these data center, server and business markets, plus leveraging work with MS to potentially have GPUs truly competitive with Nvidia's upper offerings...that probably gets MS some strong incentives from AMD that could translate in some cost savings as well.

I won't care even if they'll give it for free. Show your exclusive games then we can start talking.

Exclusive game != good game, inherently.

Plus at the rate things are going industry-wise, Nintendo's going to be the only platform with legitimate lifetime console exclusives. And they have arguably the best/most evergreen exclusives, but even they have a few duds here and there (per to their gold standards, so even most of their duds are still great in comparison to many other games).

 

[Nikana]

Fairy tale stuff is exactly how i would describe that eastman post as well. So not only is Microsoft going to beat Nintendo of all companies, but sony, google et all, all at the same time. Sony and nintndo dont have any plans or strategies for the future, only Microsoft does if you take these people at face value. Isnt the xbox one s like 199 and still gets outsold 3:1 by ps4 which is still 299? Xbox series X isnt going to be 400, thatd be like a 200 dollar loss per system and if lockheart is 199 then id assume theyd be taking a loss on that too. Even if MS were operating in a vacuum, which they are most certainty not, then i still have my doubts all of this would happen like guy is saying it would.

If gamepass was this endless well of money that MS says it is then we'd be seeing nintendo and sony rush to match that service, but theyre not because its BS. As far as aquisitions go, weve heard for 3 years now MS is in talks with the biggest and best of developers and all we wind up getting are AA developers down on their luck. Its all fairy tales, unicorns, and rainbows. We have no idea what ps5 will cost, how sony will position ps4 (yes 4) against lockheart in terms of price matching, and the same could be said of switch. There are still too many variables.

I say let Xbox fanboys set them selves up for impossible to reach expectations.

Sony is literally copying their monthly price and have moved from having just streaming to downloads as well and have stepped up their third party offerings and also have adopted the model of having games rotate in and out vs a static Library.

Nintendo has opted to sell their classic games via subscription vs a flat fee.

So yeah, I would say they are looking into it.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Disney can do that because they own 100% of the content on their service.

Netflix had revenue of $20 billion in 2019 and spent $14 billion on content in 2018. The vast majority of content on a game subscription service is owned by 3rd parties. Everyone seems to forget that they have to get paid whenever they talk about how much these services make.

It's mostly content way past it's prime though. I don't think MS is paying that much for most GamePass content; nor have they been paying that much for XBL Gold or Sony for PSN+ content or EGS for their free games.

Company's make those deals because they gain something else out of it; DLC sales, micro-transactions, attention for a property before a sequel comes out, etc. Putting your game on GamePass, or on Twitch Prime or EGS or Humble whatever is like the new way for your game to go "free 2 play" after you initially charged a price.

Occasionally they have to pay a decent amount, but only occasionally.

 

[Nikana]

Yeah, with that being the case (plus the aforementioned repurposing of bad yield chips for Azure server blades), the cost saving might practically write themselves.

Then there's the long-term benefits of AMD hardware proliferating in these data center, server and business markets, plus leveraging work with MS to potentially have GPUs truly competitive with Nvidia's upper offerings...that probably gets MS some strong incentives from AMD that could translate in some cost savings as well.

People are seriously underestimating just how much money this will save them.

 

[baphomet]

After this last generation why would MS price their console more than what Sony prices theirs at? Do you honestly believe they would prefer another XB1/PS4 situation?
If MS learned anything XSX would match price of the PS5DE.

XSS $299
PS5DE $399
XSX $399
PS5 $499

That would make a competitive on price generation. PS fans will pay whatever it takes and Xbox fans are going to want the best value.

Why would they even have Lockhart if their flagship console that's more powerful than the PS5 is priced the same as the PS5? Does a $100 difference between the Lockhart and XSX make sense to you? A console that's ~1/3 the performance and digital only.

They'll beat Sony on price (Lockhart) and performance (XSX). They're not doing it with the same console.

I'm fairly confident my pricing is roughly what we're going to see.

 

[KURDISTAN YPG]

Is this lovkhart suppose to be digital only?
How much do you guys think they are really saving on no disk really i cant see more then 50 dollar discount