DaGwaphics
Member
The debatable aspect is why you are bringing up PC in a console discussion.
If you follow the discussion
![Crayon](/data/avatars/s/17/17682.jpg?1653096541)
Last edited:
The debatable aspect is why you are bringing up PC in a console discussion.
How exactly does the series s cpu "smoke" the PS5?What 4d narratives? This has always been known the X was a premium console, MS messed up by making the S too weak, it should've been at least 6 - 7tf like the one x was, and more memory. the cpu already smokes PS5 so they're good there
If you follow the discussionCrayon and I were having you'll see where it came in (discussion of a high-end, $1k+ MS console, which is pointless because of PC IMO).
I mean, as of today, they haven't stopped developing consoles, but you are saying that they should because they are just wasting money doing it? If you are right, they will eventually do that, its not like they don't know how to cut loses they deem unnecessary.
How exactly does the series s cpu "smoke" the PS5?
They could just do it for the brand name and maybe a bit of subsidy/undercut on price, but I think the main issue there is the software.. can't brand a PC as an xbox if it doesn't act like one. The xbox app and the game bar thing are alright on PC, you can feel like you part of the "Eco system" but it's far from a full fledge xbox "experience" software wise. It will have to be some weird dual boot/VM situation, which is way too jarring..
That's not what I said at all. I said the profitable sectors of Microsoft should not pay for Xbox console development. The Xbox division should be self-sufficient. You pointing to overall corporate profits is at odds with that.
I doubt we'd see the Windows UI or open environment on any kind of Xbox branded device at all (even if the system is in-fact running windows and the windows versions of games with custom presets). UI and store would be locked down, that's the only way to justify selling the console at cost, which is really the only thing that justifies the existence of the device. The VMs Xbox uses run completely hidden to the user, not really something to be noticed.
Let’s keep pretending MS weren’t seriously considering ending Xbox because of last gen. Gamepass and Cloud promise is the only reason they didn’t.
Apparently just lighting tons of money on fire.....indefinitely..... is good business strategy.Again, you are talking about reducing that company profit for the sake of an Xbox console that has made negative progress. Profit is the reason those investors invest. Of course they would care. You are literally advocating throwing good money after bad. If gaming division cannot pay for the development of an Xbox console on its own and has to yank money made by other divisions then there is absolutely no reason Xbox console should continue to exist. Thankfully I don't think that will ever be the case, but this bragging about Microsoft's profits as an argument for the sake of Xbox is a cringey at the very least.
You really don't think they have it all figured out?
Xbox wouldn't exist if it was loosing enough money to make a real difference.
Microsoft wouldn't be producing consoles if it was loosing too much money to make a difference.
I don't know how they are moving money internally and what pays for what, but I am sure someone very capable that works there does and they seem to be fine with the current situation.
Right? See how quickly things can change in the corporate world.. one day they are shutting it all down and the next they are spending 70 billion USD on it. Some crazy peeps out there.
Apparently just lighting tons of money on fire.....indefinitely..... is good business strategy.
I think you and @Topher have forgotten the fact that Xbox has been running with a 8-9% profit margin for years, as proven out in court documents. The gaming division at MS isn't a money sink, that's just nonsensical make believe put forward by the uninformed.
MS lets them run with a slimmer margin than Nintendo and Sony typically run at, but they don't burn cash.
Checked your anus? Isn't that where phil usually gives you your "orders"?Awaiting orders sir
Yes it does. The point of games consoles is to......play games.Sure. But the lack of games doesn't make the console bad.
Yes it does. The point of games consoles is to......play games.
Without games worth playing a games console is a paperweight.
This is what people don't understand.Plenty of great games on xbox series, though.
There are literally too many games on consoles, too many each year but people are still acting like a console doesn't have games lol.
You could survive on gamepass alone very easily. It's been bonkers this year.
That's where I think people are overthinking it. I don't think they would necessarily be trying to gain anything specific from the change, it would just be a change in release schedule and positioning.
These are just boxes people pickup to play MS first-party content (and third-party content of course) if they don't have or want to get a gaming PC. Or the users that want a streamlined UI for the living room etc. and want access to the MS content/services from there.
@Thirty7ven , I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to put together there. MS sells their games and services on PC and look at that platform as the high-end experience for users that want to pay for that. They've said as much themselves. Like I said, consoles are for those that want a cheaper option or want something couch ready.
They can be played on the Xbox One.If Xbox One and Series is the same generation, why are there games that can only be played on Series and not One?
They can be played on the Xbox One.
yes.How? Cloud?
Yes and we are told this is the way....How? Cloud?
yes.
Yes and we are told this is the way....
There're people here who would definitely be interested in a $1000 console for the reason you said there. Some people are on consoles for other reasons than affordability. It probably couldn't be the same value as a more traditional release would be but still could be a great performance for the money compared to a pc. Again though this all hinges on the idea of them making the move to publish on playstation (they have no problem doing it everywhere else) and having this thing be a more enthusiast product and thus low volume.
And this is were I disagree with you a little. Why change the release schedule? Why change the positioning? Because the previous plan is not good enough, for some reasons. Not a critic, but a observation. Console gaming is not just a weak PC. It is another way for people to play games, and can be used and liked even if you have a monster PC. It is not a poor man's choice, but the preferred way for many. And the console market is known to us since decades. If we follow this "tradition", and "common sense", a 400/600 €/$ console would be a Dreamcast. Dead on arrival. Because the market choose the PS5 this gen. Or at least seems to have. You can't have this early next gen be there and be successful without thinking that either A: the Series was successful too. Or B: it was not but new hardware will make it work. Remember, the Series consoles are sold at a loss. No refresh means that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. PS5 and Switch are successful. Next year, new hardware will be available to make it even better for customers. In this environment, making a next gen console will lead to questions. How do you see this next gen box from Xbox? Made for mass market or limited numbers? Sold at a loss or at cost? Made for a 10 year plan or just to eclipse the PS5 Pro? Made for the Xbox hardcore fans, or for the casuals?That's where I think people are overthinking it. I don't think they would necessarily be trying to gain anything specific from the change, it would just be a change in release schedule and positioning.
These are just boxes people pickup to play MS first-party content (and third-party content of course) if they don't have or want to get a gaming PC. Or the users that want a streamlined UI for the living room etc. and want access to the MS content/services from there.
@Thirty7ven , I'm not sure what the point is you were trying to put together there. MS sells their games and services on PC and look at that platform as the high-end experience for users that want to pay for that. They've said as much themselves. Like I said, consoles are for those that want a cheaper option or want something couch ready.
There're people here who would definitely be interested in a $1000 console for the reason you said there. Some people are on consoles for other reasons than affordability. It probably couldn't be the same value as a more traditional release would be but still could be a great performance for the money compared to a pc. Again though this all hinges on the idea of them making the move to publish on playstation (they have no problem doing it everywhere else) and having this thing be a more enthusiast product and thus low volume.
I think that consoles should have 3 tiers
$700-900
$400-600
$150-300
That way consumers can decide what kind of performance they want and not be stuck with one mediocre option.
That way new games will never take technological leaps or never release in their planned form, because they're going to be dragged down by the least powerful version. I mean look at BG3, if it wasn't for Phil's "intervention" Larian would still be thinking if it's possible to port the game because of Series S limitations.I think that consoles should have 3 tiers
$700-900
$400-600
$150-300
That way consumers can decide what kind of performance they want and not be stuck with one mediocre option.
I think that consoles should have 3 tiers
$700-900
$400-600
$150-300
That way consumers can decide what kind of performance they want and not be stuck with one mediocre option.
And a PC is a Xbox, kinda. But Xbox isn’t a PC, yet.What you want sir, is a PC.
I personally think it already is.Microsoft can't wait until 2027 or 2028 to release their new console. If this generation ends and Sony has sold 130-140 million units, and they have sold 30-45 million units, there is no repairing that with new hardware. That's a game-over scenario, where GamePass will never grow, it'll just have a really low ceiling. The next Xbox would be doomed to sell less than that. Microsoft isn't in a position where they can assume Sony will just screw up with the PS6. Sony is 4/5 on consoles.
PC is just a dirty word to some people for whatever reason, they will list all the things they want from their console.What you want sir, is a PC.
I've been hearing that phones will kill consoles since 2010 and the ps3 would be the last console ever released. Still waiting.Competition from things like Geforce Now and mobile are going to crush console sales at some point. Geforce works awfully well if you have a decent connection. Maybe generations won't make as much sense when there's so many different platforms people are gaming on.
What would the technical difference of a "mid-gen console" and a "next-gen console" be when released in the same month and price point?Foe me 5 years cycle for consoles is perfectly fine, better then mid gen refreshes also next gen games can be played on old hardware with lowered specifications.
I personally think it already is.
If they are planning on an all-new gen They will have to liquidate all the stock at retailers, which will lead said stock to consumer hands.
How will those new consumers react when you suddenly create an obsolescence time limit on their new hardware?
Foe me 5 years cycle for consoles is perfectly fine, better then mid gen refreshes also next gen games can be played on old hardware with lowered specifications.
What would the technical difference of a "mid-gen console" and a "next-gen console" be when released in the same month and price point?