Everyone saying that Lockhart won’t be a leap are obviously forgetting that it will include an SSD - which Sonygaf has lead me to believe is the most important factor in next gen.
Mana, it might be worth doing a PSA thread explaining that the OG One is discontinued and the plans to do the same for the S and X are in motion.MS doesn't keep them around. They discontinued the launch Xbox One the day the One S hit the market.
In case of PS4, the average number of games bought in the whole generation was 10.7. (1.18 billion games sold on 110 million users). Let's say the average game price would be $45, because a lot of people buy them in sales and not at full price. This results in $480 per user spend on games.
Let's say Microsoft stops selling games and only does Game Pass. Microsoft Game Pass is $10 per month. So to match that they need to be able to sell on average 4 years of Game Pass next-gen to each user. $480 / 10 (price GP) / 12 (months) => 4 years, of the 7 years (normal generation span).
It might be difficult to get to that number, but then again it's not impossible. Let's not forget that for each game they actually sell the need for Game Pass to get break-even goes down too. And maybe that average $45 is even wrong, and is lower or higher.
True, but if you want you can also buy games for $10 in stores... I think I was fair in my analysis on game pricing (which might actually be lower) as well as Game Pass pricing. Because here I made the assumption that people would only use Game Pass, while they could still buy games (digitally or in stores).You’ve assumed the most expensive way to buy game pass. Peopme aren’t going to pay $10/month long term for something that you can buy annually or quarterly for far less, notwithstanding promo deals.
And added to that MS have to pay game publishers for the content that’s included.
Yeaaaah, it just sounds like fanboy rhetoric.So... no source or evidence?
Sounds legit.
I would just buy Lockhart if it exists. Will probably be only a bit more expensive than the X, but much better.I was already considering trading in my S for an X. If this comes out, then the price of the X will drop too right? I have no interest in the Series X until games get next gen exclusive.
I would just buy Lockhart if it exists. Will probably be only a bit more expensive than the X, but much better.
New rumors from some insiders and reported by some reliable youtubers I do not wish to advertise here about the Price of Series S.
Rumors suggesting the base model could sell for a super aggressive price at $399 and the Lockhart model for a crazy $200.
The lockhart is said to have a more powerful gpu than the One X but all digital and not on the level of a Series S.
Microsoft has the pockets to do something crazy like this if they choose too. If a person can play the new Halo for $200 with a lower resolution, holy shit that's impossible to beat. Stay tuned!
Here is one of the fellows I am talking about, and respect him.
If it's war against Apple, Google, Amazon and their weapon is Xbox, that's a losing battle. MS backs Xbox because it is their only product that is "cool" they currently don't have any product that young people think is cool. Zune was an attempt to get a younger demographic. Minecraft was a purchase to capture the younger demo.
And all the products you mentioned and don't make them money are DEAD. XBOX is not a first gen device, the OG XBOX was. XBOX nowadays is a successful and profitable brand. The day it isn't anymore MS will just kill it just like all the failures you mentioned.
Not really sure...there was just this rumor going around that there was a lower tier next gen system that developers were not happy about!Why do people complain in general ?
Umm....it really is?
What's a bigger factor than (on Sony's side), a 100X faster storage compared to last gen?
1.9 more tfloppies?
Seems to me this is exactly what “smart delivery” is all about. The files for the system you are currently on will be “smartly” delivered and no more.What about games that are pushing high quality assets/fidelity at 1080/1440P instead of 4K on PS5/XBseX? Just dropping the resolution won't be enough.
You all assume next gen games will all run at Native 4k, and devs will just make them 1080P for Lockhart. But some next gen games won't go for that
Yep I'm sure the shareholders would love to be losing money. We always keep coming back to this just because MS has money do you think they would just flush it down the drain? Why didn't Windows Mobile succeeded even though MS had billions in the bank?$400/$200 seems unbelievable.
But hey.... MS does make about $30 billion profit per year!
If they subsidize an extra $100 per unit above and beyond a $500/$300 price:
1 million sales = $100 million extra costs
10 million sales = $1 billion extra costs
50 million sales = $5 billion extra costs
100 million sales = $10 billion extra costs
Spread those costs over 6-7 years of a generation, and it's pennies per share annualy.
Xbox has been around since 2001 or 2002. In almost 20 years, if you added up all the profit MS has made on Xbox it's probably hardly anything. It might even a loss. Yet it's still around. And they are getting more aggressive with more systems and buying studios.Yep I'm sure the shareholders would love to be losing money. We always keep coming back to this just because MS has money do you think they would just flush it down the drain? Why didn't Windows Mobile succeeded even though MS had billions in the bank?
They will match Sony PS5 for XSX and Lockhart will come in at $299.
Yes those franchises are dead, but MS threw a ton of money at them in an attempt to gain market share. With Xbox they have a successful brand, so investing heavily into it to expand market share makes absolutely sense for them especially considering how much market share they lost this generation and how much next generation and generate in profits if they even out the player base vs Sony's.
If they are willing to invest into new ventures and sectors to claw some market share why wouldn't they want to expand their successful brands. You don't rest on your laurels.
I agree, investing is the key. But you don't invest by selling at loss a product that already has good marketshare. My point is, Xbox is not something new arriving now in the market.
C'mon, spill itwe know man .. but what can we do
199 one s
299 one x
399 series s
499 series x
this seems like the most likely scenario to me
also explains the 200 dollar "rumors"
Xbox does not have a good market share they got outsold 2 to 1 compared to the market share they had before this console generation, which was basically 1 to 1. The one way to regain that market share is a clean slate and an opportunity to sell at a loss vs. your competitor, if you are financially capable, which they are.
Sony already tried selling a console for that price and it blew up in their faces.I dont see the digital version selling less then 500.
Ok lets say ssd is the same so maybe they throw something in to price it equal.
Its either this or we are looking at 600 for the disc version.
That's because they didn't invest in good games that made people buy their console and that's where they have to put their money. Good games. Halo/Forza/Gears won't do it anymore.
Xbox was dead on arrival, $100 more expensive and less powerful with a horrible fluffed presentation. The first year and a half PS barely had any exclusives to attract people to their platform compared to the ones on Xbox instead it was the price that enticed people to go to them instead.
This too, but the same happened with the PS3 and it outsold the 360 by the end of the generation. Games.
Not really. It was PS3 Slim at $299 which caught on. When PS3 was $500-600 it sold lousy compared to old PS systems.This too, but the same happened with the PS3 and it outsold the 360 by the end of the generation. Games.
$500/$300 feels so right.XsX - $399, XsX $199 Even the PS5 is rumored to cost more than $400 to manufacture the XsX is likely over $500 BoM.
MS might accept a reasonable loss, but they aren't going to lose an insane amount of money on the new consoles. XSX will likely be $499 maybe $449 (at a fairly substantial loss) and XsS $299/$249
Is this sarcasm? Business lines are valued independently. MS losing $10 billion on Xbox would be the biggest disaster in business history.$400/$200 seems unbelievable.
But hey.... MS does make about $30 billion profit per year!
If they subsidize an extra $100 per unit above and beyond a $500/$300 price:
1 million sales = $100 million extra costs
10 million sales = $1 billion extra costs
50 million sales = $5 billion extra costs
100 million sales = $10 billion extra costs
Spread those costs over 6-7 years of a generation, and it's pennies per share annualy.
This is laughable and likely not true.
Is this sarcasm? Business lines are valued independently. MS losing $10 billion on Xbox would be the biggest disaster in business history.
No console will be 399.Sony already tried selling a console for that price and it blew up in their faces.
The PS5 will not be more than $500
Digital version either $450 or 399
I suppose then developers are unhappy that the lower tier nVidia and AMD GPU's exist too.Not really sure...there was just this rumor going around that there was a lower tier next gen system that developers were not happy about!
Current gen are GCN flops. Next gen is RDNA flops. An RDNA flop is like 1.5-2x a GCN flop
So the lockhart is 4tf RDNA (8tf GCN) where the X is 6tf GCN
No, it's trueWho the hell told you that .... are you... I mean you're kidding right ?
LOL.This is laughable and likely not true.
Is this sarcasm? Business lines are valued independently. MS losing $10 billion on Xbox would be the biggest disaster in business history.
No, it's true
Tell that to NintendoMS holding the entire generation back with their shitty 4TF machine.
I'm conflicted in wanting Xbox to fail, on one hand theyre gotta be a competitor to light a fire under Sony's ass, on the other hand I hate to see multiplatform devs being forced to design their games around such a weak hardware