TBiddy
Member
Those aren't the target demographic of Lockhart. People who are hunting for exclusives will certainly choose the most powerful console on the market over the little brother.
Last edited:
-
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 $300 – Rumor
- Thread starter sonomamashine
- Start date
- Rumor
Those aren't the target demographic of Lockhart. People who are hunting for exclusives will certainly choose the most powerful console on the market over the little brother.
Vawn
Banned
I don't agree with that at all. Lots of more casual gamers will choose a console for a select game or two and could care less about how powerful the console is.
We are seeing this right now with Animal Crossing.
TBiddy
Member
Nintendo was always an outlier in that regards.
I don't think you'll see anyone paying 400$ for an XSS to play "a game or two".
Vawn
Banned
Tons of people buy consoles and never buy more than a couple games.
TBiddy
Member
That must be in top-3 on the "Vaguest statement of the year" list.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Any new info?
Ascend
Member
Which is exactly what makes Xbox Game Pass so powerful. It's very affordable, and you can play pretty much everything.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
And Nintendo systems are also cheap too. Always the cheapest or tied for cheapest every gen, so you're going to get a lots of gamers who just want the lowest priced system, Nintendo first party games and are happy playing those games.
Wii U comes out a parity price to 360/PS3, launched with lots of key third party franchises in fall 2012 and it was the worst console Nintendo ever launched. People didn't want to pay about $300 cdn, when 360s and PS3 were also going for that price. And Wii U even came with a tablet.
It would be interesting to see how well a Nintendo system does with last gen specs, the same first party focus/little third party, but it costs as much as a new Sony/MS launch, or even $100 more...... which would be a real test of brand strength, games, and pricing power. Such as Switch 2 comes out with better than specs than now, but still last gen. But it costs $500 or more like PS5 and SeX.
Last edited:
sonomamashine
Member
Source :
TheSpecialOne
Banned
I need to understand this line of reasoning. Explain to me why you believe that people who only purchase a couple of games a generation(low tie ratio and low spenders) want to spend considerably more money in purchasing gamepass? Gamepass is $9.99/month so $120/year. Over the length of a 5 year generation, thats $600. Explain to me why some who only purchases a couple of games a gen would be drawn to spending $600 on top of the cost of the console? I really want to understand that line of reasoning.
darkinstinct
...lacks reading comprehension.
If you only have $120 a year you can spend on games, would you rather play 2 a year or 260?
LeVictorien
Banned
The upfront price is what's stopping people from buying more games. Especially when you have a family, GP is great. You pay for access to multiple games without having to pay 30-60$ upfront for every games.
TheSpecialOne
Banned
These two posts assume that the primary reason that low tie ratio buyers don't purchase more games is due to pricing. Firstly, there's absolutely no data to back up that sentiment. Furthermore, it assumes that most people purchase games at full price. Again, there's absolutely no data to back this up.
Secondly, read my text again. We're discussing people who only purchase a few games a generation not 2 games every year. A tie ratio of 10 doesn't make you a low spending gamer.
All in all, if you cannot provide data to support your line of reasoning, its just tales from my ass. I signed up for gamepass to try games I'd never buy. In fact, the whole reason Gamepass exists in its current state is because Microsofts IPs for the most part don't sell well. With the exception of Halo and Forza, I cannot think of any Microsoft title in the Xbox one generation that has had a notable figure when it comes to sales. Nintendo can sell 15+ million copies of Mario Kart, 10+ million of other IPs. Sony can sell 10+ million copies of multiple IPs so again, they have no need for the service.
Once Mircosofts new studios like the initiative start churning out high-quality titles that have a huge selling potential, i believe the model of gamepass will change to become more like origin access.
EverythingsOverrated
Member
I think lockhart is a good call on MS' part, especially if it hits that 299$ mark. It's always tough to get casual gamers to jump into a new console early on, but lockhart+gamepass seems like an excellent value for casual gamers.
This system obviously isn't for us, but I'm very interested in seeing what sacrifices have to be made other than resolution/texture quality.
This system obviously isn't for us, but I'm very interested in seeing what sacrifices have to be made other than resolution/texture quality.
FlyyGOD
Member
4TF along RDNA2 technology is probably more efficient.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Taking the Occam's Razor approach tho, it's usually inferred to be due to pricing. Or at the very least, lack of prioritization wherein pricing plays a part, particularly if price-to-perceived-value ratio is not a favorable factor. But this applies for games on all three platforms.
There's no data which refutes it, either. If there is, you haven't provided links to it when it would serve your claims better if you did so.
Gamepass isn't an either/or service. People can have their reasons for buying a few games here or there a gen and still subscribe to something like Gamepass. They aren't mutually exclusive things.
This predicates itself on the idea of you having a specific quality for what is a "high-quality title". Because if that definition on your end falls into a very specific type of game such as, say, what Sony studios generally produce, then you are looking at it from a very limited scope. A lot of people don't seem to remember this but if you take the Metacritic averages from 2019, it was XGS who ranked in the Top 10 (#7), not Sony WWS (#22). You can of course say that was due to 2019 being a bit of a soft year for Sony 1st-party output, but if one of the main points of contention with MS this gen is that their 1st-party output has been weak particularly in the 2nd half, then wouldn't the logical explanation for that delta be that somehow a weak MS output in 2019 still managed to outrank a weak Sony output of 2019 by over 3x (just going by the Metacritic average)?
We know that in terms of big games in 2019 Sony's was Days Gone and MS's was Gears 5, anyway, so the only other way to look at that would be to say MS's 2019 output wasn't as weak as some generally attribute their output to have been this gen. But obviously, some folks wouldn't want to give that notion credence, so they just get awkwardly stuck in the middle, they create a paradox for themselves.
Or does "high-quality title" relate in terms of sales? We know that not all high-selling games are necessarily good games, and a platform with games selling very high does not always guarantee the platform itself sees a boost in sales (Wii U). A lot of the XBO games which underperformed at retail this gen, like Sunset Overdrive, simply had bad marketing and/or marketing that didn't convey the game the right way or along the right channels. So a game's poor sales performance isn't always down to the game itself being bad, and a lot of times major sales performance isn't so much due to the intrinsic quality of the game itself (even if the game's actual quality is great) so much as it is the marketing surrounding the game, or the built-in brand IP/fanbase it has.
Last edited:
Kenpachii
Member
Series X:
4K / 60fps / RT - £450
PS5:
4K / 1800p / 60fps / RT - £450
Series S:
1080p / 30fps / 60fps - £250
lock2k
Banned
All of these consoles are really confusing to me.
I mean, we have the Xbox One S and the Xbox One X.
Then, there's the Xbox Series S and the Xbox Series X.
I know these are two different generations.
But how do I quantify the differences between them?
Will the Lockhart be way above the Xbox One X? Or just a tad above it? From what I understand the One X is already very powerful.
I mean, we have the Xbox One S and the Xbox One X.
Then, there's the Xbox Series S and the Xbox Series X.
I know these are two different generations.
But how do I quantify the differences between them?
Will the Lockhart be way above the Xbox One X? Or just a tad above it? From what I understand the One X is already very powerful.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
There's nothing confusing about multiple product SKUs. This is like people saying they can't figure out what's the better iPhone. Yes you can if you give a damn to find out.
TheSpecialOne
Banned
The burden of proof does not lie with me as I did not make the initial claim. An argument is true when it's conclusion logically follows it's premises and in this case, there is no data to support the premises. An absence of evidence argument does shift where the burden of proof lies.
Neither days gone(71 Meta) nor Gears 5(84 Meta) are what I'd consider high quality titles in 2019. Furthermore, when I discuss quality, I'm referring to the barometer set by the industry. In terms of quality games delivered this generation, Microsoft has 2 IPs that have delivered critically acclaimed entries. The two IPs are Ori and Forza. The rest of their output has ranged from good to downright terrible. Nintendo has 8 IPs this gen that have delivered critically acclaimed entries and Sony had 7 IPs this gen that have delivered critically acclaimed entries. Honestly, I don't even want to get bogged down in the quality debate because like you mentioned, it's entirely subjective. Regardless, you've still failed to explain why a low tie ratio user would find gamepass appealing and support that argument with data. The discussion has been side-tracked to focus on semantic arguments and list wars which I don't really care much for tbh.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I don't think multiple skus are the issues its the branding MS is using.
Anyone walking into a store to buy a phone is going to know the Iphone 11 is better then the Iphone 7,8, 9 or 10.
Anyone buying a new Playstation for little Timmy at Christmas is going to know the PS5 is better then the PS4.
Now when mommy walks into Walmart and there are the Xbox One S which is the entry level.
Xbox one X which is stronger then the S.
The Xbox Series S which isn't as strong as the Xbox One X but newer technology so should perform better then the X.
Then of course the Xbox Series X that rules them all.
People who read forums like us will know where each system will stand.
People buying consoles for others will not.
These are just my 2 cents.
Vawn
Banned
Doesn't the One X advertise itself as a 4K machine and isn't the Series S presumably more powerful?
Kenpachii
Member
That's where next gen comes in.
JerryinSoCal
Member
I do, I'm sure the One X will be discontinued immediately and this will be it's replacement, since it's using internals more in line with what next gen games need (still weak but same family cpu/gpu/ssd) it means that actual next gen games will run on it even if at a lower quality which will make it easier for the more budget conscious buyers tol "upgrade" and stay locked into their ecosystem/subscription services without having to spend at least $500 on a high end machine.
At first I thought it seemed stupid but when you take the One X out of the picture it makes more sense.
JerryinSoCal
Member
It's a more advanced GPU even if it's lower TF plus it's going to have a much better CPU than their current consoles, faster ram and an SSD. It's still an upgrade even if the TF number doesn't make it obvious.
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
Im still wondering who this console is for honestly....
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Alot more
chitzy
Banned
Parents who don't want to spend $600 on a console for their kids.
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
So casuals...? Why not stick with the One X then if they already have one? Or even a basic xbox one since the games will play on it.... if parents don't need to spend the money they won't
Last edited:
chitzy
Banned
Isn't the capability window only a year long?
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
I've stated this many times, but I'm a parent of 2 boys that currently have a X1S console each and I'm on PC, with accompanying subs for each of us. It just doesn't work to share in our case, nor would I want to anyway. I'm not that kind of dad(when we play, we like to have presence for each of us in the game. ie we want all 3 playing a MP game, not just 1 at a time). My boys play on 1080p panels and don't give a shit about resolution, so a 4K console would be a waste. In our case, 2 x $250 or $300 consoles makes more sense than 2 x $500 consoles.
It's the SSD and CPU upgrade, along with being future-proof, that's appealing. The only upgrade path formerly would be to get a couple X1X consoles at $300, but this works out much better in every regard without having to wait years for the XSX to drop to $250-300, for a difference(4k to 1080p supersampling) that they'll never see anyway.
Last edited:
saintjules
Member
I think Mommy may need to conduct some extensive research to know the differences before dropping those bills, lol. But I get what you're saying.
Night.Ninja
Banned
JerryinSoCal
Member
This is future proofing for casuals and gamers on a budget, it's not really a bad idea overall. It's better than trying to continue to make games that work on a One S/One X for more than two years. They want people to upgrade, they don't care which one you buy as long as you buy one and sign up to XBLG and Game Pass, it's all about services with MS and the more people who buy in on a console that is going to be relevant beyond 2022 the better it is for them.
lock2k
Banned
You sounds like an old woman
No. I'm just a confused customer who is still stuck on the first Xbox One console.
I used to be a heavy PC enthusiast back in the day but nowadays I don't know really how to quantify the differences of teraflops and stuff like that. I want to learn more and you didn't help at all.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
But this is where the analogy kind of falls apart; there are very few "little Timmys" who have parents that'll be buying them a next-gen console at all this year. This is the time where the little Timmys' parents buy them the much cheaper current-gen system for a Christmas present, by and large.
From the looks of it MS's clearing out X and arguably S stock as well, so if Lockhart is a thing and it launches later this year alongside XSX, there'll be just those two systems on retail shelves. I still have my own issues with Lockhart but they lean more into the logistical/economics side of it being a long-term proposition to people who may not even be there at next-gen launch period, and it maybe impacting XSX production capacity and pricing negatively.
Messaging wise, though? I don't see as much of an issue there especially since, again, they seem to be phasing out the XBO X and S.
It doesn't, but that's also kind of a cop-out IMO. If you feel your position is strong enough, you can basically control the flow of that discussion by backing it up with data that proves your point, even if the other side has not done so. Otherwise you are still conceding control of the discussion to their terms.
These are your own personal opinions, but if anything you're just reinforcing my own Metacritic data references in my first reply to you. So both Sony and MS had 'weak" 2019s by your logic, yet by large at least by MC scores MS's publishing efforts still ranked 3x higher than Sony's in that same year both of them had "weak" 1st-party output.
That's an awfully selective and limiting definition of quality, because now you're using your own definition of "high quality" to infer "quality" in general. It doesn't work like that. You're also only going by critic reviews, that eschews fan acceptance of these games and the critics are not always right (which, yes, would put my MC 2019 top publisher scores into contention but I only mentioned that as a thing which exists and happened, not that I personally use it as my own perspective for valuation in the companies' output that year).
Never mind the more questionable aspects of the games review industry which doesn't necessarily honor games based on their actual merit, not exclusively anyway, but that's getting into a different tangent.
Who said my purpose in responding to you was to explain the low tie ratio aspect and support it with data? IIRC you placed that stipulation on the person you were originally responding to, who is not I. Now, you can infer that, in my responding to you, the responsibility would fall onto me to debate that point, but that's an implied inheritance of a responsibility that can be easily waivered since there was no agreement beforehand for me to oblige by that point of the discussion.
If anything, for how little you feel I've managed to debate the low tie ratio bullet point with data to support it, you have failed in providing a counter-argument with any data on your own end and, IMO, that counter-point doesn't need a counter-point to it with data behind it, to refute your point. There's as much plausible deniability in your discussion as you seem to think there is with what I've mentioned!
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
I thought they said 2? Also that means you could still play Halo without owning new hardware
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
I mean you could just keep your old platform because games will still be played for two years I think they said? By that time there could be a sale for even cheaper
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
You know how you get people to upgrade? Having games play only the Series X.....
But there's no incentive to upgrade because I can pay what you play but on my original xbox one
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Doesn't fall apart on my end I have 3 sets of nephews who are big time gamers and I can guarantee they get new consoles this Christmas.
I went with my sister in law when the X first came out and thats the one both of my nephews wanted.
They got a Pro because it came down to price for her in the end.
I went with my sister in law when the X first came out and thats the one both of my nephews wanted.
They got a Pro because it came down to price for her in the end.
chitzy
Banned
If it's 2 years I think the better question is how the fuck do they expect people to get hyped for a console that won't really have any new games for it for 2 years.
Kenpachii
Member
3rd party games will probably jump ship pretty fast to ditch that xbox one. So even while microsoft supports it 3rd party probably not.
chitzy
Banned
So it's just Microsoft that is promising 1st party games to be compatible for 2 years? This isn't something they're holding other developers to?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Well, that's fair to an extent. Maybe the analogy doesn't fall apart completely because anecdotal perspectives are important. At the same time though, anecdotal perspectives don't necessarily translate to the macro of it things 1:1 exact.
Bringing up the pricing tho, that is part of my concern with Lockhart launching simultaneously with XSX; if Lockhart is the super-cheap model it might give MS less incentive to make XSX price-competitive and that will affect production unit allocations as well. Almost all the interest they have from the core/hardcore right now (who make up the vast majority of early adopters) is over XSX, not Lockhart.
So I hope Lockhart doesn't cause them to sabotage XSX on price or production numbers.
Well, the policy went into effect in Holiday 2019 IIRC, so it would effectively be done by Holiday 2021. And the 1st year of these consoles usually always have a plethora of cross-gen titles.
That's taking into account if they haven't reconsidered/re-evaluated that internal cross-gen policy. I wouldn't be surprised if they have, same with them reconsidering ports to the Switch (as in, not going forward with anymore of those).
Last edited:
Ascend
Member
Not everything needs data. There is such a thing is logical proof, and there is such a thing as common sense.
The closest thing we have to compare Xbox Game Pass to is Netflix. Imagine if Netflix was a one time payment of $10 (very affordable), and above that, you'd have to buy every single movie or TV show you wanted to watch. One would expect a fair amount of people to maybe buy the app. But... How many people would buy a bunch of movies/TV-series on it? Any reasonable person would agree that most people wouldn't buy more than a handful.
At the same time.... How many people binge regularly on Netflix simply because of the subscription? And yes, they spend more on the subscription than they ever would have buying individual movies and TV-series.
You really think we need to go into the realm of data to clearly see what is going on here? If you do, go do that yourself, or, believe whatever you want to believe. And just FYI, burden of proof is not a buffet where you get to pick which proof you like and which proof you don't like. If you disagree it is on you to provide the counter argument, rather than slipping into fallacies.
Lastly... When people start with unreasonable requests for them to somehow believe something, I usually bug out. In the majority of cases, the requested information is either simply non-existent, or simply deliberately impossible to give. And even worse, in cases where it is given, the goal post is shifted. That's because the person is not actually interested in the argument, but has already made up their mind that it is wrong, and will fight tooth and nail to drill into the other person that they are wrong. It's a setup for people to claim victory for an argument based on nothing other than the 'burden of proof' excuse. It's an argument from ignorance, where one claims that X is not true because no data was provided. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, but people love to use it that way in these instances. It's a form of ego-boosting, and nothing else.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
We want to upgrade, I just don't want to pay $1000 to do it, and in this paradigm we don't have to wait and we don't have to buy a last-gen system with Jag CPU, standard HDD, and no next-gen GPU features(X1X). We get future-proof consoles that have substantially better SSD and CPU, and GPU that is at least as powerful as X1X GPU, but with RT, VRS, and ML for AI-upscaling. The only sacrifice is having to use 1080p resolution instead of 4K, but they're on 1080p panels, so that doesn't matter.
Last edited:
Frogman_676
Member
As someone who doesn't have a lot of money, i wonder why i should even get this? I care little about graphical fidelity, and it seems Series X and Series S will not be getting anything that will also not be available on Xbox One...at least for quite some time. $300 is a good price point, but i feel little need to upgrade out of the current generation. I'll see how PS5 turns out, but that may also be too expensive for me, lol.
Bloody Knuckles
Banned
That or what's the incentive to upgrade