-
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 $300 – Rumor
- Thread starter sonomamashine
- Start date
- Rumor
hououinkyouma00
Member
I mean it's not that I don't enjoy games anymore, it just comes with a bunch of bullshit lol. Part of me loves looking up benchmarks and stuff but the other part wishes I didn't care.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. In some ways I think it will confuse customers, but at the same time I think if you find a way to undercut Sony it could work out for them.
Not him, but as I posted before removing the disc drive, and having a lower cost GPU can cut costs in many ways outside of BOP when you factor in manufacturing, shipping, floor space, and packaging.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
If Lockhart exists I don’t think its purpose is necessarily to undercut Sony. It doesn’t sound like Lockhart is really a PS5 competitor. The XsX is PS5’s competitor, they’ve said they are ready to be “agile” on price with it, we will see how agile they are capable of being.
I think Lockhart is just a side option, a casual entry
Last edited:
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Lockhart just seems so pointless. I say just make the Xbox One X the replacement.
Jon Neu
Banned
Sorry, I forgot you have to explain literally everything for some people.
No, nobody is saying that by removing the disc you save 100$.
It’s just a move to sell more consoles by having an even more competitive priced next gen console.
Remove the disk, cut out 4GB of memory and switch to GDDR5 (if possible), downsize the powersupply, reduce the size of the case and cut down on the cooling system. On top of the cost savings from going with a smaller APU die.
Last edited:
LittleBusters
Banned
I think instead of a cheaper XBox, Microsoft should have a handheld Switch competitor at that price point - $299. The idea of having the Switch-type hardware running all the Game Pass games is very compelling!
Why is anybody in the right mind suggesting that?
You can't have One X instead of Lockhart because:
1. One X has slow Jaguar CPU and if you keep that goint in to the next gen it will influence design of games
2. One X has slow HDD and Lockhart is supposed to have same SSD as Series X
Look. The point of Lockhart is to have lower powered machine that is easily scalable from Xbox Series X (Series X with 4k resolution and Lockhart with 1080p resolution) . But that will require same CPU and SSD which Xbox One X doesn't have. That's why you can't bring it to the next gen as a lower powered machine.
Also it is no point of keeping One X because that console has chip of almost same size as Series X and therefore its building costs will br higher then lower die for Lockhart...
ZehDon
Gold Member
I'm not convinced this isn't the case. Given the incredible success that Nintendo have had with the Switch - and it really is incredible, at this point - it would make sense for others to pay attention. From my perspective, offering a second SKU that occupies the same product space, but less than 1/3rd the local-compute horse power, for a middling USD$100 price difference doesn't make any sense. If Lockheart really exists, there's an element to it we just haven't got the info on. A portable Xbox One? I'd legitimately pre-order that hardware in an instant. However, cramming an Xbone into a Switch form-factor for USD$299.00? I don't like those odds...
gamerforever
Banned
Microsoft need to just release the series x at a decent pricepoint (£400) with halo infinite and free gamepass for 3 months. They need to find a way of getting ps4 gamers to their platform from the beginning.
The problem they have is that they don’t have any big exclusives at launch or in the launch window that will get ps4 gamers over to them. Halo is big, but not that popular anymore and hasn’t been a big franchise since bungie sold the ip to microsoft.
The problem they have is that they don’t have any big exclusives at launch or in the launch window that will get ps4 gamers over to them. Halo is big, but not that popular anymore and hasn’t been a big franchise since bungie sold the ip to microsoft.
A Switch competitor would likely only be able to match PS4 performance (it would have something like a Ryzen 4000 APU), so you would be extending the cross-platform period over the entire generation.
Last edited:
gamerforever
Banned
There’s no point competing with Nintendo on the handheld market as the console will likely be sold at a loss and neither company can afford two loss making devices.
Sony have a chance to get a playstation portable out there, but probably realised that they can only focus on one console at a time. The vita did a lot of damage and I don’t think sony will go back there.
Sony have a chance to get a playstation portable out there, but probably realised that they can only focus on one console at a time. The vita did a lot of damage and I don’t think sony will go back there.
DaGwaphics
Member
Having the lower spec included as part of the developer target gives them a lot of options. I'm not sure they could get 4TF into a mobile package just yet, at least at a price that most would be willing to pay, but in the future it could definitely be an option. A laptop with native Xbox functionality as a feature could also be something to look at, would be a nice option for the back-to-school buyers.
geordiemp
Member
You cannot base ANYTHING around the way Nintendo fans spend their money, They get excited and pay $ 60 for remakes, throw dollars at plastic figures that are enabling DLC that is already shipped with the game....and are in a world of their own, it would not work on anyone else.
I also dont believe it will launch this year, as we have seen no hardware leaks at all this late in the day, and lets face it you dont need a cheap option in first 6 mnths of a generation, everything sells anyway.
JimboJones
Member
Bit of an odd take, there is plenty of remakes this gen not limited to switch and lots of dodgy unscrupulous dlc tactics employed on the other platforms who's audience laps up.
It's not just Nintendo fans buying the Switch, if that was the case it would have ended up like the WiiU or GameCube.
geordiemp
Member
Its just an observation of the amount of Switch remakes or ports ......and the direction of Sony and MS to being backward compatible is playing out very different.
Cant blame Nintendo, if you have a hand held then taking older console games and making them portable - and get nice price - why not ? I guess if Sony had a Ps4 portable we would be seeing something similar.
Also when I say Nintendo fans for Switch I refer to console + handheld, even in WiiU days the core Ninendo fans did not diminish but were on the other device (3DS).
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
There's zero reason for MS to even want to do this. This is like fantasy world where us gamers can just say anything and believe corporate execs will follow through.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
fighterman101
Banned
Supposedly the xbox lockhart will have a weaker GPU than the xbox one x (4 tf), but the same CPU as the xbox one series x. If the xbox one x is going for 300 dollars now, it isn't too far fetch. Also, the xbox one x is being phased out right now so it would make sense to replace it with a 299 dollar console.
LittleBusters
Banned
The only reason I can imagine Lockhart is something Microsoft is pursuing is because it has enhancements with things like Ray Tracing that are not on XBox One X. So they might position Lockhart as being able to do everything XSX can do but at lower resolution & textures.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Considering even Xbox studios are saying the CPU and the SSDs are what’s making next gen, next gen, I’m guessing it’s that.
Daniel_Mallorca1985
Member
"The Xbox Series S (Lockhart) is a console with enough graphics power to run games at above 1080p at 60 to 120 fps with hardware accelerated ray tracing and 3D acoustic audio"
Last edited:
ZehDon
Gold Member
That’s possible I suppose. For me, it comes to: the Series X needs to have something to justify its existence. $100 cheaper for 1/3rd the power doesn’t make much sense to me. I guess we’ll see soon enough.
FranXico
Member
Consumers expect a price reduction in exchange for removal of access to physical games.
Chittagong
Gold Member
The branding choices they’ve made leave me doubting the existence of a mythical, less powerful, differently named SKU. They introduced this butt-ugly emblem to signpost next gen games:
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Branding and marketing wise it's going to be difficult anyway when they release two systems. We'll know more in June, if they don't show it there I don't think it will launch for the coming holiday window. I would actually think it's pretty late to show this console anyway, not sure how they would handle this properly.
-Arcadia-
Banned
The branding choices they’ve made leave me doubting the existence of a mythical, less powerful, differently named SKU. They introduced this butt-ugly emblem to signpost next gen games:
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
That’s a good point, but at the same time, there is room to scoot the X over, and have an S right alongside it.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
The branding choices they’ve made leave me doubting the existence of a mythical, less powerful, differently named SKU. They introduced this butt-ugly emblem to signpost next gen games:
It’s hard to see how this branding system would expand to a lower powered SKU. One would assume they would want to communicate that the cheap SKU also plays these next generation games. But there is no space for a Series S In that emblem. Will they do dual emblems? Or treat the cheap SKU like a last gen console?
For the time being I continue to see the branding system as a mess, but maybe genius will be revealed shortly.
Good point.
It’s possible for the emblem to be a differentiator for the entirety of next gen, and not specifically for cross gen games.
Isn’t it a bit weird for a next gen console to need a badge saying games are optimized for it?
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Like you have enhanced for Xbox One X games? Makes sense.
bumleforce
Member
I think in an age where people spend 1000 a year on smart phones with names like s or XL or XL plus this won't be hard. People are use to series or different skews now. Gaming has changed and the younger generation has as well. It's not just grandmas buying consoles for little timmy. It's parents who have all these smart devises who game themselves. Even if someone doesn't game and buys a console for a kid they know from the smart phone world and X is better than S models. If microsoft does release s and 300 to 350 and x at a higher price but they play the same games they are gonna do well. Options are great. I wish sony had the same thing. I always buy both consoles but I prefer xbox so i would like to have a series x and lets say a ps5 slim that was cheaper as well so I could still play all my ps5 exclusives. Now I will wait on ps5 for the eventual ps5 pro and the stock ps5 to go down. Either way exciting times ahead and im looking forward to both consoles.
Knitted Knight
Banned
This is a leap of faith strategy to sort of try to sandwich Sony by siphoning the 30-40M casuals that fled Xbox after the Xbox 360. Makes no sense to hold back the Series X exclusives that push and contrast with PS5. The idea that you can just "scale" things up, and even more so with the huge gap these two consoles will have (6tf rumoured vs. 12tf) is the same problem gamers complain about with multiplats all the time but on a much bigger scale. So the question is, is the Xbox Series X another Xbox One X situation where the console is mostly a trophy for those that want to play multiplats on their couch in higher settings? Cause first party definitely did not support it. Not to mention the PS5, by all appearances seems to be the default platform to develop for. Any developer that even entertains taking full advantage of the PS4's SSD solution to push the boundaries and create something new will have to weight whether it's even worth it to release on an Xbox Series X, much less an S. I guess everything will come down to sales, cause developers do understand that stat extremely well. If the generation turns out sales wise similar to this gen, those Series S owners will be worse off than Wii U owners (former self).
Last edited:
martino
Member
this is assuming you absolutely need the ps5 i/o for that.
TBiddy
Member
According to that user, who is clearly not an alt of a previously banned user, you obviously do.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
One thing is for sure, games would be made for the most popular machine and ported to all the others.
The primary console for third party to develop games on, would be whichever that has the biggest install base. It isn't about who has the strongest or weakest hardware, but who is most dominant and thus is your primary customer. This is why console wars are a thing, why it mattered at all. Having a game developed on your hardware as the base is a massive advantage. Yes, most games are built on PCs, but PCs that had to eventually run on the console. FFX was very different game when it was originally developed on PC, but Square did remake the game once they realize the PS2 hardware was far weaker than they predicted.
Yes, in general multiple consoles could co-exist. But that assumes they are different enough to both be worth owning together. Ironic that if Xbox and Sony were sufficiently different, there would be no console Waring.
We will see if the promise of Gamepass is enough to change how the entire gaming industry had worked for decades. Is it really true that it doesn't matter how many consoles you sold? We will find out in the next year.
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
Don't you think that 3rd party games that is released multi-platform always uses PC as the benchmark then? Why would they choose a console, if the PC market is the biggest install base? Or better yet, if they also build it for PC, does it even matter what the primary console is for development? They have to increase the visual capabilities anyway for high-tier PC's.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
The PC is NOT a benchmark, because the PC is not the biggest market.
Yes, there are more PCs on the planet, but the number of people who buy and play any particular PC game is far smaller than consoles. This is something I need you to accept; Bethesda gave up on PC gamers and moved to Consoles because Elder Scrolls made far more money on Console. This is not to be disputed. I WISH developers use PC as benchmark, but the game sales on PC just doesn't add up to justify it.
So the primary console still matter, because whatever the game is capable of is determined by the primary console. If it was otherwise, we would have had working airships in FFX PC version.
"Increasing Visual Capabilities" is barely a consolation price. Skyrim is made beautiful by mods on PC, but we lost the ability to fly freely because the game is still built on Console restrictions. What did you think is more important, slightly higher graphic fidelity or not being stuck on the ground in small cells?
DaGwaphics
Member
That logic would have made the PS4 Pro the immediate best seller for Sony from the day it released. That didn't happen, most users just wanted access to the games and didn't care about playing the "best" version.
Also, if the "base" version of the game is decided by popularity and/ore revenue, I guess the base platform is a smartphone. LOL
Last edited:
martino
Member
I'm with you here. Multi plat will target ps5 for popularity reasons and scale up/down on other platform using their own power / i/o constraints.
D
Deleted member 775630
Unconfirmed Member
I would love to accept this, if you could proof this... In 2019, Steam had 95 million monthly active users. This is only Steam, monthly and active users. So not sure if PC has less gamers than PS4 for example.
martino
Member
let's be honest only 2-3% will be able to match or be near next gen settings at launch
that's still a good head start.
Thirty7ven
Banned
This gen the PS4 was clearly the target platform for most multiplatforn titles. It wasn't low end or high end PCs nor the Xbox One.
Otherwise system requirements on PC would have barely changed, and most Xbox One versions of multiplat games would be 1080p.
How is this debatable? Is anyone actually debating that XSX and PS5 won't have an impact on PC's minimum required specs for multi platform games going forward? It has always been like this before, what has changed exactly?
Otherwise system requirements on PC would have barely changed, and most Xbox One versions of multiplat games would be 1080p.
How is this debatable? Is anyone actually debating that XSX and PS5 won't have an impact on PC's minimum required specs for multi platform games going forward? It has always been like this before, what has changed exactly?
DaGwaphics
Member
One word, Fortnite. Those almost 2B yearly hauls have developers on notice that software that is enjoyable on an average (non-gaming specific) laptop and smartphone is the new growth sector. In light of that, moving the baseline forward to a position that can't include most of these people (exclusionary via hardware cost) isn't the only way forward.
With that said, I think we will see a big jump in minimum requirements on most of the traditional AAA titles. The big money makers (free-to-play) like Fortnite and CoD WZ will aim for a much broader audience. Should streaming ever catch on, than devs will jump to the highest hardware level with impunity.
Thirty7ven
Banned
World of Warcraft, League of Legends, to name a couple also ran on toasters.
Yes mobile games make a ton of money, but did I go back in time to 2013 or something when the industry had declared console gaming to be over and mobile future to dominate?
The problem with smartphones isn't power, it's interface. Nobody wants to connect a controller to a smartphone, it just ain't gonna happen. So you need to make games that are meant for smartphones, which is what the industry is doing and making bank at it.
You're mixing markets and target audiences. Maybe there will be more games made for average laptops, like Valorant, but it's not going be Assassins Creed or Grand Theft Auto.
DaGwaphics
Member
I don't know about ubi, Guillemot seems really fired up about the potential of millions of laptop iGPs hitting the market with performance levels comparable to PS4. The potatoes are getting a lot more capable, that changes things quite a bit.
Thirty7ven
Banned
I know he was extremely excited about Stadia but I haven't read anything about his excitement for IGPus.
And if it's as simply as wanting a bigger market, the Switch already has a bigger market and I don't see Vallhala announced for it.
But yeah there's a real excitement in the industry around AMD's next gen APUs and next gen Intel integrated graphics. Could be big moments for PC gaming, but it's up in the air what impact they will have. There have been promises before.
Xenon
Member
So no reason for Lockhart with Xbox One X. But Lockhart will have SSD and from what I've been reading that's the most importantness feature in consoles ever!
People saying this is stupid are forgetting MS is selling services. Going into the holiday season with a new console with a budget price will scoop up sales that normally would go past gen consoles. I'm pretty sure they would rather put a system that is at the beginning of its life rather than one that's art the end in people's hands. Remember they said the games would be playable but with the lack of the same CPU power there's a good chance that a lot of features that will be offered and next-gen might be left out if you're on the last generation.
People saying this is stupid are forgetting MS is selling services. Going into the holiday season with a new console with a budget price will scoop up sales that normally would go past gen consoles. I'm pretty sure they would rather put a system that is at the beginning of its life rather than one that's art the end in people's hands. Remember they said the games would be playable but with the lack of the same CPU power there's a good chance that a lot of features that will be offered and next-gen might be left out if you're on the last generation.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
The question is whether all those mobile games make all that profit by themselves or from ad revenue... I think we all know the answer, so that brings the question if such model would fit/work on consoles and PC games, but I think we all know the answer for this as well. So I completely agree, different target/audience, there is a large group that wants next-gen only titles with all the bells and whistles.
ZehDon
Gold Member
You mean the console that launched quite sometime afterwards and was marketed as the "optional, more expensive, premium experience"? Look around - no one's scratching their head, wondering why the PS4 Pro didn't outsell the base model. It was never intended to. Why do you think that is? When it launched, the PS4 was marketed as the "world's most powerful console", and it was cheaper than the competition. Both of dot points mattered. A few years removed, the PS4 Pro is released, and it sits above the PS4 - but it's additive to the base experience and Sony wisely positioned it as such. In contrast, this is not the same situation with Lockheart, if it is real. I think you're looking at this situation incorrectly. Xbox Series X is the base experience, and Lockheart sits beneath it - it's a subtraction to the base experience, not additive like the Pro was, and it offers a compromised version of what the Series X offers. That distinction is incredibly important for a product. For example, compromised versions works out fine for the Switch, but that's because it has a unique selling point: you can take the game anywhere. Unless Lockheart has something more to offer than just a marginally smaller price point, all it has to offer is just the worst possible versions of every game. Saving 1/4 of the price tag to get 1/3rd of the final experience just won't add up to the majority of consumers. Just like the Xbone not adding up when it launch $100.00 more expensive, with worse visuals and performance in virtually every game. So, either the price point has to be stupidly low - for example, if Lockheart was $99 it would fly off shelves faster than they could manufacture it - or Lockheart has to have more to offer that makes it appealing, like being portable. That's my take on it, anyway.