Support NeoGAF

[Thirty7ven]

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.

Iphone XR was the best selling Iphone in 2019. Now you can tell me that Xbox doesn't have a comparable brand even in context, and therefore its unlikely to attract gamers who want a next generation Xbox but can't justify the entry fee of the XSX because they don't exist. But I would put bet on another scenario, where gameplass growth is the most important to achieve and at the same time they have to balance that with the need to move existing subscribers into next gen which will be hard to do if they have little incentive to do it anytime soon.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be a 100$ price difference as such a strategy means you sell the premium at a profit or at the very least at the break even point, and you sell the lower end sku for a loss which means we can be looking at a 299$ XSS and that my friends.... could be PS2 territory if MS plays its cards right.

It's a conundrum, and I'm sure MS is carefully looking at what the data says about desirability of such a system.

 

[Clintizzle]

What if Microsoft does a Nintendo and reveals a handheld device? I doubt it could ever reach Switch levels but it might be popular.

 

[Stooky]

Iphone XR was the best selling Iphone in 2019. Now you can tell me that Xbox doesn't have a comparable brand even in context, and therefore its unlikely to attract gamers who want a next generation Xbox but can't justify the entry fee of the XSX because they don't exist. But I would put bet on another scenario, where gameplass growth is the most important to achieve and at the same time they have to balance that with the need to move existing subscribers into next gen which will be hard to do if they have little incentive to do it anytime soon.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be a 100$ price difference as such a strategy means you sell the premium at a profit or at the very least at the break even point, and you sell the lower end sku for a loss which means we can be looking at a 299$ XSS and that my friends.... could be PS2 territory if MS plays its cards right.

It's a conundrum, and I'm sure MS is carefully looking at what the data says about desirability of such a system.

iPhone probably not the best comparrioson. The xr is $600 vs iPhone 11 max $1100 and both phones cane be subsidized with a contract. Still a big Price difference. This will be the choice for the consumer 1080p vs 4k. I dont see how they hit $299, especially if they are still pushing x1x.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I dont see how they hit $299, especially if they are still pushing x1x.

Xbox One X would be dropped like a bad habbit, and MS would sell the XSS at a loss and sell their premium at a premium price. That's how it works.

 

[Jerm411]

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).

You can’t be serious with that lol....

The PS5 will be awesome no doubt but it’s not some mythical entity....good lord.

 

[DaGwaphics]

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.

There is certainly a lot to it. Absolutely not a guaranteed success.

The tech world has changed a lot in recent years, the casual buyer isn't chasing the latest and greatest quite as fast as they once were. Especially in the 4k segment, untold numbers still use DVDs with 4k sets and watch standard definition/hd broadcast content. That's not to say that there aren't many who go 4k very deliberately and are looking for that content, but there are also those that just have a 4k set because that was what is currently available. Plus those still using 1080p sets. It's a unique play if it comes to fruition, could be a massive failure or a surprise hit.

I agree that a portable with access to the full Xbox ecosystem and could also plugin to a TV could be very interesting. Maybe that is what lockhart is, or if it isn't yet, it would be a lot easier to get 4TF in that package than 12 in the future.

Keeping the phone comparison going from above, there's a reason why Apple invested in development and production budget on the SE. Multi-level markets exist in almost everything.

 

[MasterCornholio]

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 looks like a rupee to me.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

Iphone XR was the best selling Iphone in 2019. Now you can tell me that Xbox doesn't have a comparable brand even in context, and therefore its unlikely to attract gamers who want a next generation Xbox but can't justify the entry fee of the XSX because they don't exist. But I would put bet on another scenario, where gameplass growth is the most important to achieve and at the same time they have to balance that with the need to move existing subscribers into next gen which will be hard to do if they have little incentive to do it anytime soon.

Pretty sure it wouldn't be a 100$ price difference as such a strategy means you sell the premium at a profit or at the very least at the break even point, and you sell the lower end sku for a loss which means we can be looking at a 299$ XSS and that my friends.... could be PS2 territory if MS plays its cards right.

It's a conundrum, and I'm sure MS is carefully looking at what the data says about desirability of such a system.

Eh, I don’t know about that there friend. Xbox as a brand has very limited footing outside of the US, and maybe the UK. Xbox will never win Japan or the rest of Asia, and they aren’t going to win Europe.

The PS2 ruled every region; the US, Europe, and Asia.

 

[Vawn]

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"

Stuff like this is such a nothing statement. What types of games? Pong? Assassins Creed Valhalla?

 

[Thugmatic]

Really dont understand some of the posts in here.. It's honestly not that complicated.

1) Xbox one X price cut
2) Xbox Series S $100-150 more than XoX
3) Xbox Series X priced competitively around PS5

Result is Microsoft will have 3 entry points into market that allows casuals to play fortnite and COD at a flexible pricing model

How is this hard to understand?

 

[gamerforever]

Really dont understand some of the posts in here.. It's honestly not that complicated.

1) Xbox one X price cut
2) Xbox Series S $100-150 more than XoX
3) Xbox Series X priced competitively around PS5

Result is Microsoft will have 3 entry points into market that allows casuals to play fortnite and COD at a flexible pricing model

How is this hard to understand?

They don’t have the brand to attract the market they want. Everyone with a ps4 will get a ps5 even if the series is £100 cheaper. People are living in a fantasy if they think lockhart will win the war for Microsoft. I will be interested to see how Microsoft pitch both consoles. If they don’t have the exclusives around launch then xbox will be doa anyway. I can only see sony gaining a larger market share next generation as people abandon Microsoft after the massive disappointment that was the xbox one.

 

[Dee_Dee]

Really dont understand some of the posts in here.. It's honestly not that complicated.

1) Xbox one X price cut
2) Xbox Series S $100-150 more than XoX
3) Xbox Series X priced competitively around PS5

Result is Microsoft will have 3 entry points into market that allows casuals to play fortnite and COD at a flexible pricing model

How is this hard to understand?

No...there is no point in keeping the One X on the market. There are already rumors that the One X is already being phased out. Series X and Series S is enough.

 

[Thugmatic]

They don’t have the brand to attract the market they want. Everyone with a ps4 will get a ps5 even if the series is £100 cheaper. People are living in a fantasy if they think lockhart will win the war for Microsoft. I will be interested to see how Microsoft pitch both consoles. If they don’t have the exclusives around launch then xbox will be doa anyway. I can only see sony gaining a larger market share next generation as people abandon Microsoft after the massive disappointment that was the xbox one.

You can't be serious lol
Xbox isn't going to be dead on arrival because of lacking exclusives. The market doesn't value exclusives as much as it values what platform can they play fortnite/fifa/COD with their friends on.. lol And as of right now Microsoft still has 46 million customers which will get them a foot in the door.
And no one is saying Lockhart will the "war" for Microsoft. These companies are out to make a profit which Microsoft managed to do last gen while losing the "war". No one outside these forums and hard core fans on social media give a crap about winning the "war"

 

[Thugmatic]

No...there is no point in keeping the One X on the market. There are already rumors that the One X is already being phased out. Series X and Series S is enough.

Last gen has never been phased out that fast in the history of consoles
Don't see why the XoX won't stay around for another 3-5 years

 

[Dee_Dee]

Last gen has never been phased out that fast in the history of consoles
Don't see why the XoX won't stay around for another 3-5 years

Hmmm the original Xbox says hello.

The original Xbox one was discontinued when the One S came out

Series X and probably Series S are backwards compatible anyway. So again, why keep the One X around. Series S will be better and cost a lot less than the Series X and PS5

 

[gamerforever]

You can't be serious lol
Xbox isn't going to be dead on arrival because of lacking exclusives. The market doesn't value exclusives as much as it values what platform can they play fortnite/fifa/COD with their friends on.. lol And as of right now Microsoft still has 46 million customers which will get them a foot in the door.
And no one is saying Lockhart will the "war" for Microsoft. These companies are out to make a profit which Microsoft managed to do last gen while losing the "war". No one outside these forums and hard core fans on social media give a crap about winning the "war"

No, but most casuals i know have a strong allegiance to playstation. Whenever i mention xbox they all laugh and ask why anyone would want one of those.

 

[Thugmatic]

Hmmm the original Xbox says hello

Honestly don't remember how that turned out as I was a teenager with a PS2 that generation but with the jump in technology from xbox to 360 and it's low sales the OG xbox being phased out that quickly is a lot more understandable

 

[Thugmatic]

No, but most casuals i know have a strong allegiance to playstation. Whenever i mention xbox they all laugh and ask why anyone would want one of those.

Not gunna lie but that was super cringe worthy. Apparently casual gamers are bursting into laughter at the mere mention of a video game console that sold less than you're preferred platform. lol

 

[Knitted Knight]

this is assuming you absolutely need the ps5 i/o for that.

Yes, I mean a game that pushes asset streaming to the max with constant action on the screen. I should have clarified that point. For other multiplat games aka majority, that will not be case. But there will be some for sure that will, however limited in numbers, and they'll certainly be highlighted above the rest cause of convenient marketing.

 

[Deleted member 775630]

Yes, I mean a game that pushes asset streaming to the max with constant action on the screen. I should have clarified that point. For other multiplat games aka majority, that will not be case. But there will be some for sure that will, however limited in numbers, and they'll certainly be highlighted above the rest cause of convenient marketing.

But you still have the GPU that needs to be able to manage that too, right? We don't have a clue at the moment if the speed of the PS5 matches the power of their GPU perfectly, or if GPU's can handle even more, or the other way around that the GPU's can't handle that much information at once.

 

[martino]

Yes, I mean a game that pushes asset streaming to the max with constant action on the screen. I should have clarified that point. For other multiplat games aka majority, that will not be case. But there will be some for sure that will, however limited in numbers, and they'll certainly be highlighted above the rest cause of convenient marketing.

I Still dont see how this make it impossible elsewhere.
Asset at worst can be scaled down as needed.

 

[Knitted Knight]

I Still dont How this make it impossible elsewhere.
Asset at worst can be scaled down as needed.

I never said anything is impossible. You can theoretically scale down TLOU2 to PS2 era graphics, downgrade NPC AI, cut down animations etc and I'm sure you get a play-able in spirit aberration that works on a Wii. Obviously the gaps here are not anywhere near that drastic but it illustrates the point that there is grey area here and nothing is clear cut.

The discussion is not as simplistic as simply scaling down texture assets from a tree or lowering LOD on an NPC, from 8k to 2k or whatever. If we're dealing with a situation where the constant speed, action and motion of the player/object (also taking into account a certain degree of graphical fidelity (developer defined) for the environment/architecture etc) taxes even the PS5's SSD/IO solution; this more than likely will be significantly profound on XSX hardware. At that point the question will become how much do you compromise from the optimal solution (with the PS5) to bridge the gap and satisfy the lower common denominator (XSX). If the game's selling point/vision/experience revolves around those sequences, simply reworking or scrapping those sequences altogether with something else is not a solution. It's then up to a developer to see if they can craft something downscaled on the XSX that still stays faithful to their vision and "feels" the same on both consoles. If the developer decides they are not willing to compromise their vision for wheatever reason (unhappy with the result, not caring to do the extra work etc) it's up to them. But by then the argument shifts to whether the developer is lazy (as in not willing to do the work) or the dev is showing favoritism (aka bought out). You can lay those disses if you wish but at the end of the day it's their game and their decision. In my opinion, due to the nature of the custom hardware on the PS5 it's much easier to scale down from a game that is fully optimized for the XSX to the PS5, than from a PS5 game that takes full advantage of the PS5's strengths to an XSX. It's true however that the big third party publishers don't give two flying beeps about those things and will serve both platforms with the same dishes more or less, provided sales for both platforms justifies it and there is no money or vested interest to see one platform succeed over another (EA circa 2013/14).

X-Figher does make a good point however, we still don't know 100% for sure if the synergy between all the working parts will work as seemingly great as Sony has claimed it would. All we have so far are developers singing praises and hyping as is usual before a launch - specially with a market leader. We do however know specs and the existing on paper gaps that derive from said specs. We also know a lot of work went into custom hardware (the unknowns) that aim to remove as many bottlenecks as possible to realize the "dream". Assuming, big emphasis on assuming, that this "dream" turns out to be achievable I think those examples will come to exist. Sales will also dictate a lot the degree to which we see those examples - from extremely rare to rare, or even to uncommon. It's uncharted territory and that's at least fun.

 

[martino]

I never said anything is impossible. You can theoretically scale down TLOU2 to PS2 era graphics, downgrade NPC AI, cut down animations etc and I'm sure you get a play-able in spirit aberration that works on a Wii. Obviously the gaps here are not anywhere near that drastic but it illustrates the point that there is grey area here and nothing is clear cut.

The discussion is not as simplistic as simply scaling down texture assets from a tree or lowering LOD on an NPC, from 8k to 2k or whatever. If we're dealing with a situation where the constant speed, action and motion of the player/object (also taking into account a certain degree of graphical fidelity (developer defined) for the environment/architecture etc) taxes even the PS5's SSD/IO solution; this more than likely will be significantly profound on XSX hardware. At that point the question will become how much do you compromise from the optimal solution (with the PS5) to bridge the gap and satisfy the lower common denominator (XSX). If the game's selling point/vision/experience revolves around those sequences, simply reworking or scrapping those sequences altogether with something else is not a solution. It's then up to a developer to see if they can craft something downscaled on the XSX that still stays faithful to their vision and "feels" the same on both consoles. If the developer decides they are not willing to compromise their vision for wheatever reason (unhappy with the result, not caring to do the extra work etc) it's up to them. But by then the argument shifts to whether the developer is lazy (as in not willing to do the work) or the dev is showing favoritism (aka bought out). You can lay those disses if you wish but at the end of the day it's their game and their decision. In my opinion, due to the nature of the custom hardware on the PS5 it's much easier to scale down from a game that is fully optimized for the XSX to the PS5, than from a PS5 game that takes full advantage of the PS5's strengths to an XSX. It's true however that the big third party publishers don't give two flying beeps about those things and will serve both platforms with the same dishes more or less, provided sales for both platforms justifies it and there is no money or vested interest to see one platform succeed over another (EA circa 2013/14).

X-Figher does make a good point however, we still don't know 100% for sure if the synergy between all the working parts will work as seemingly great as Sony has claimed it would. All we have so far are developers singing praises and hyping as is usual before a launch - specially with a market leader. We do however know specs and the existing on paper gaps that derive from said specs. We also know a lot of work went into custom hardware (the unknowns) that aim to remove as many bottlenecks as possible to realize the "dream". Assuming, big emphasis on assuming, that this "dream" turns out to be achievable I think those examples will come to exist. Sales will also dictate a lot the degree to which we see those examples - from extremely rare to rare, or even to uncommon. It's uncharted territory and that's at least fun.

i see your point
but i don't buy the creator vision is absolute argument and importance of it in the end (other factor weights too and probably more)
how can can pc gaming be a thing if this ideology was the one in place ?
you can target a vision and scale around it when requirements are not met (and it's possible). nothing prevent that happening outside publisher policy or ideology for the sake of it.
And again your premise is a huge one : ps5 will be able to do things not possible elsewhere.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

 

[48086]

Really dont understand some of the posts in here.. It's honestly not that complicated.

1) Xbox one X price cut
2) Xbox Series S $100-150 more than XoX
3) Xbox Series X priced competitively around PS5

Result is Microsoft will have 3 entry points into market that allows casuals to play fortnite and COD at a flexible pricing model

How is this hard to understand?

Yes, I agree:

Xbox One X = $199
Xbox Series S = $299
Xbox Seriex X = $399

 

[hououinkyouma00]

As much as I'm curious what a Series S could be, I think this would be for the best.

Yes, I agree:

Xbox One X = $199
Xbox Series S = $299
Xbox Seriex X = $399

As with above I hope that they don't release a S at launch. Drop the XBO X to $249 which is probably half the price of Series X, and then a couple years down the line (like when Microsoft studios stop cross-get releases) release the Series S. Could also allow them possibly to keep from discounting the Series X? Obviously there are people in charge of this much more in tune with this stuff then me. Everything is speculation at this point anyway.

 

[NickFire]

Yes, I agree:

Xbox One X = $199
Xbox Series S = $299
Xbox Seriex X = $399

Add some pack ins to One X and we expect the same thing currently. Just a hunch but it feels stronger by the day. I think MS really intends to go for the jugular this go around. And I think the people trying to extrapolate possible cost based on One X launch model are missing the forest through the trees.

One X was a niche, mostly PR focused IMO. It was not the time to subsidize hardware. Taking a loss to tread water in market share would be pointless.

MS could not negotiate One X component pricing based on same volume their next system will hopefully sell. If S and X have many identical components, then MS can negotiate uniform price for entire generation on those shared components.

And last but not least, just look at MS behavior last couple years. They've moved the industry in a new direction, got us primed for gamepass while dodging Google's assault on their plan, bought a ton of studios, etc. But none of those moves will make a serious dent on brand loyalty in 2020. Pricing below expectations will do that though.

 

[diffusionx]

As time goes on I am starting to think the Lockhart just isn't going to happen, but if it does, I expect the One to be phased out relatively quickly. I definitely don't think they are going to keep the One X around, and the above lineup would seemingly destroy the naming convention MS built up, where X is the high end and S is the entry point. The X is the low end device, the SS is better than the X but still entry point, and then the SX is the the high end? That's pretty weird.

 

[48086]

And last but not least, just look at MS behavior last couple years. They've moved the industry in a new direction, got us primed for gamepass while dodging Google's assault on their plan, bought a ton of studios, etc. But none of those moves will make a serious dent on brand loyalty in 2020. Pricing below expectations will do that though.

Yep, I agree. They know they screwed up on pricing with the X1 and Phil isn't going to do that again. I'm firm on my predication that the Series X will be $399 or cheaper than the PS5 if the PS5 is over $399.

 

[LittleBusters]

More trolling. Over $500 when PS5 is guaranteed $399? These have to be brain-dead people saying that.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yes, I agree:

Xbox One X = $199
Xbox Series S = $299
Xbox Seriex X = $399

MS can't afford that pricing.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Hard for me to see it going down like this. They said many times they are ready to be "agile" with pricing. I think 499 is the ceiling, and even that would be a good deal IMO

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

If Lockhart is coming there's no reason for the X1X to exist any more. Just doesn't make any sense because it's going to cost so much more than X1S over its entire life. If MS is going to do Lockhart they should do something like this:

$500 - XSX
$300-350 - XSS (Lockhart)
$150 (and below as soon as possible) - X1S / SAD

 

[JLMC469]

when PS5 is guaranteed $399?

?

 

[48086]

MS can't afford that pricing.

You're severely underestimating how much money Microsoft is willing to lose on....well anything. Their goal the last ten years has been to become a services based business. They don't want to earn a few bucks off of each console sale. They want the user who will spend recurring revenue every months for Live and Gamepass.

 

[LittleBusters]

?

PS5 is going to be priced $399, you can take that to the bank.

 

[NickFire]

MS can't afford that pricing.

I'm not so sure. Let's say they take a 100 loss on the first 5 million units sold, when cost of parts probably the highest. That would be a half billion loss. But I would assume the odds are pretty good that the first 5 million purchasers will end up near the top bracket for attachment rates. And a good starting position is valuable unto itself. From that perspective, the loss becomes a no brainer. Maybe anyway.

 

[mckmas8808]

You're severely underestimating how much money Microsoft is willing to lose on....well anything. Their goal the last ten years has been to become a services based business. They don't want to earn a few bucks off of each console sale. They want the user who will spend recurring revenue every months for Live and Gamepass.

MS hasn't shown much heart in losing 100s of million on Xbox, in order to do that in the past though.

I'm not so sure. Let's say they take a 100 loss on the first 5 million units sold, when cost of parts probably the highest. That would be a half billion loss. But I would assume the odds are pretty good that the first 5 million purchasers will end up near the top bracket for attachment rates. And a good starting position is valuable unto itself. From that perspective, the loss becomes a no brainer. Maybe anyway.

When has MS shown us that they are willing to do this though?

 

[diffusionx]

I'm not so sure. Let's say they take a 100 loss on the first 5 million units sold, when cost of parts probably the highest. That would be a half billion loss. But I would assume the odds are pretty good that the first 5 million purchasers will end up near the top bracket for attachment rates. And a good starting position is valuable unto itself. From that perspective, the loss becomes a no brainer. Maybe anyway.

The PS4 proved you don't need to take a loss to have a successful system. Armed with that info, I don't see why any company would ever sell a console at a loss ever again. If MS built a system that needs to be sold at a high price, they screwed up. But I don't think MS did that.

You're severely underestimating how much money Microsoft is willing to lose on....well anything. Their goal the last ten years has been to become a services based business. They don't want to earn a few bucks off of each console sale. They want the user who will spend recurring revenue every months for Live and Gamepass.

They don't give away computers to get Office 365 subscriptions, as far as I know.

Plus, they can get Live/GP subscriptions from people who buy a Xbox One. Or have a PC. They don't need to sell a new console to get a GamePass sub, and they definitely don't need to take a massive loss on each unit to do it.

 

[NickFire]

MS hasn't shown much heart in losing 100s of million on Xbox, in order to do that in the past though.



When has MS shown us that they are willing to do this though?

I don't have a smoking gun to show you and I'm only guessing at something they could have planned. I wont be surprised if they take a temp loss because they want to win. Its clear, and they have invested a ton in their efforts. Another temporary loss to get them that early adopter crowd would make sense if they really want to be number 1 in terms of console install base.

The PS4 proved you don't need to take a loss to have a successful system. Armed with that info, I don't see why any company would ever sell a console at a loss ever again. If MS built a system that needs to be sold at a high price, they screwed up. But I don't think MS did that.

I'm not disputing your first sentence. But have you ever heard of a loss leader in business? Have you ever wondered why double cheeseburgers sometimes cost the consumer less than single cheeseburgers? Its all about getting the customer in the door. And if MS, or any business, lose a hundred now in return for $3k to $5k over 7 years, its worth it.

 

[Kenpachii]

xbox one x will be replaced with lockheart, absolute no reason to keep xbox one X around with its outdated architecture.

If the xbox one x stays, lockheart won't appear.

 

[NickFire]

xbox one x will be replaced with lockheart, absolute no reason to keep xbox one X around with its outdated architecture.

If the xbox one x stays, lockheart won't appear.

Very possible, and logically sound.

 

[diffusionx]

I'm not disputing your first sentence. But have you ever heard of a loss leader in business? Have you ever wondered why double cheeseburgers sometimes cost the consumer less than single cheeseburgers? Its all about getting the customer in the door. And if MS, or any business, lose a hundred now in return for $3k to $5k over 7 years, its worth it.

I am aware of the concept of a loss leader, thanks. But merely saying something is now a loss leader doesn't make it a good one. That’s my point. It used to be accepted, common knowledge, to price a console as low as possible and eat the losses upfront. But that was back when hardware makers had much more control over game output/fees and when game console pricing was far more aggressive.

MS can get customers in the door with the One and PC. They don’t need to sell a brand new system and take billions of upfront losses to get a GamePass sub - especially since they stated that they will continue to support the One for a long time. Now, maybe I'm wrong, and they'll subsidize the system massively. But I just don't see why.

 

[NickFire]

I am aware of the concept of a loss leader, thanks. But merely saying something is now a loss leader doesn't make it a good one. That’s my point. It used to be accepted, common knowledge, to price a console as low as possible and eat the losses upfront. But that was back when hardware makers had much more control over game output/fees and when game console pricing was far more aggressive.

MS can get customers in the door with the One and PC. They don’t need to sell a brand new system and take billions of upfront losses to get a GamePass sub - especially since they stated that they will continue to support the One for a long time. Now, maybe I'm wrong, and they'll subsidize the system massively. But I just don't see why.

If they do, I think the "why" would be the opportunity to win the launch period chatter, win the lift time units sold war, and win the profit war. In other words, I think these people are driven to win far more than they would have you believe when they report metrics. By no means am I suggesting that selling below profit or break even is necessary to profit to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. I just see a company who has been charging towards the day this fall when they launch with full steam. And I ask myself if I were them, what would I do next? Sit on my laurels and hope for the best? Or take the biggest shot possible?

 

[TigerKnee]

Whenever i mention xbox they all laugh and ask why anyone would want one of those.

I'm going to make a guess at those "casual" folks age... Getting shades of Chad Warden...

 

[mckmas8808]

If they do, I think the "why" would be the opportunity to win the launch period chatter, win the lift time units sold war, and win the profit war. In other words, I think these people are driven to win far more than they would have you believe when they report metrics. By no means am I suggesting that selling below profit or break even is necessary to profit to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. I just see a company who has been charging towards the day this fall when they launch with full steam. And I ask myself if I were them, what would I do next? Sit on my laurels and hope for the best? Or take the biggest shot possible?

So why do you think Phil said that Nintendo and Sony weren't their competitors anymore? And why did he say Amazon and Google were their new competitors? The answer to this could clue us in on how MS may price the XSX.

 

[NickFire]

So why do you think Phil said that Nintendo and Sony weren't their competitors anymore? And why did he say Amazon and Google were their new competitors? The answer to this could clue us in on how MS may price the XSX.

My takeaway on that: Phil was trying to set a narrative that they were leading when they weren't. I previously made a quip about Phil having two people on his shoulders telling him what to say. This would have been snake oil guy.

But - I'm also cognizant that I may be engaging in a little confirmation bias. And while I don't care much for console wars among players anymore, I still feel like a pig drawn to shit over the possibilities of what MS or Sony might do to try stealing each others customers.

 

[mckmas8808]

My takeaway on that: Phil was trying to set a narrative that they were leading when they weren't. I previously made a quip about Phil having two people on his shoulders telling him what to say. This would have been snake oil guy.

But - I'm also cognizant that I may be engaging in a little confirmation bias. And while I don't care much for console wars among players anymore, I still feel like a pig drawn to shit over the possibilities of what MS or Sony might do to try stealing each others customers.

The bolded is SPOT ON! Phil is a great leader in the video game space, but that statement was straight "snake oil guy" talk.

 

[BusierDonkey]

MS hasn't shown much heart in losing 100s of million on Xbox, in order to do that in the past though.



When has MS shown us that they are willing to do this though?

They did spend 1.15 billion dollars trying to set RROD right in order to retain their customers.

That was back in the Peter Moore days, before Mattrick crawled into the bed and shit it. I think the current leadership has already mentioned they are very flexible on pricing.

“We are receiving incredible support from Microsoft. Satya Nadella, the ceo, my boss, Amy Hood, the chief financial officer, are very attached to our plans,” he said. “We will remain flexible on our prices and we have a good plan for the launch”.

 

[Dlacy13g]

So, I have been thinking about the whole Lockhart SKU and all the rumors .... "its coming" ... "Its been cancelled" ... "oh its coming again". Outside of that reading a bit like a bad porn script I do wonder if its partially true on all fronts. What if Lockhart was originally going to be a standalone Sku and got shelved only to have MS/Xbox bring it back as the forward looking console blades for Xcloud? Currently Xcloud runs using Xbox One S consoles and there is no way in hell those machines are likely able to run in any quality way Next Gen games designed for Next Gen. So, logical thinking is they have to be also developing new hardware they can bring on and scale up to meet the new demanding games for Xcloud. Could all the rumors of testing the hardware at home by Xbox employees be them testing Lockhart blades for xcloud?