Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
It's digital only and has a smaller GPU.
-
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 Will Be Half The Price Of The Series X
- Thread starter sonomamashine
- Start date
- Rumor
It's digital only and has a smaller GPU.
baphomet
Member
Lockhart is also only 4TF. It's a fraction of the performance.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Lockhart is handheld or a bollox rumour.
Microsoft aren't stupid enough to splinter their sales 5 ways.
Microsoft aren't stupid enough to splinter their sales 5 ways.
lastmessiah
Member
I think what MS cares about is getting people subscribed, so this rumor does make sense.
D
Deleted member 471617
Unconfirmed Member
My realistic expectation is $300 for Series S and $500 for Series X. I personally would eliminate the entire Xbox One line and lower the Series S to $200 and Series X to $400. I would be super aggressive.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
That is in no ways splintering your sales when the software is the same.
JimiNutz
Banned
If XsX is $400 and XsS is half that price I'll be really tempted to go with Xbox first.
I was originally planning to buy two PS5s at launch (one for the living room and one for my games room) as I like to play online with my gf.
If I can get a XsX for me and a XsS her for around $600 then that will be hard to resist.
PS5 would then become my exclusive/VR machine that I buy at a later date.
I guess we just need to wait and see the prices especially since XsS isn't even announced yet.
I was originally planning to buy two PS5s at launch (one for the living room and one for my games room) as I like to play online with my gf.
If I can get a XsX for me and a XsS her for around $600 then that will be hard to resist.
PS5 would then become my exclusive/VR machine that I buy at a later date.
I guess we just need to wait and see the prices especially since XsS isn't even announced yet.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
Interesting. Makes sense. I am gonna guess 250 for Lockhart, 500 for XsX. Really hard for me to see XsX at 400
Last edited:
Memorabilia
Member
LOL No.
If this is true, I'll be buying one of each S and X at launch for different rooms and use cases in my household. And I know I wouldn't be alone. $400 for XsX would fly off the shelves.
That said, $200/$400 is not likely. I'd say far more likely $300/$600 or split the difference at $250/$500.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Assuming people won't be too confused to buy in to the platform to purchase the software
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
This argument is insanely tired and holds no merit.
TheAssist
Member
Please explain then. Disney has pretty much a century of content to charge people for (and usually high quality content, that people are willing to pay for), while MS has what? Gears, Halo, Forza. The rest needs to be licensed, which costs them money. So they are more in the Netflix zone, than the Disney zone. Sony is closer to Disney if they bundle games, music and movies.
I mean just as a very easy calculation. Paying 120 dollars for gamepass would be equivalent to buying two games. People who really only buy two games a year, probably wont buy into a gaming subscription to begin with, but people who might buy 5-12 games a year will. But now you make less money from those who buy a lot of games, since they have the subscription.
First, games revenue year over year is usually measured in BILLIONS, not MILLIONS.
Secondly, MS is paying publishers to put their games on the service. So a alot of these lets say 700 million goes into licensing fees and operating cost of the service. Plus they lose out on conventional game sales. That doesnt leave a lot for actual game development.
I'd be happy to learn more about the console subscription model and what kind of money spring I'm missing here, but imho gaming subscription models are a very low margin gamble and several companies (a lot smaller than MS though) have already choked on it.
Not to forget that Sony has had PS Now for years now and the reason they are not pushing it too hard right now is because it doesnt actually make them that much money, especially when you look at what they tried to charge people in the beginning.
It’s about volume and not a 1 year plan. Look at Spotify it lost money for years .. until it didn’t .
MS is in it for the long haul. Xbox will become a service, playable on TVs / set boxes / Phones / consoles.
That’s the end game .
baphomet
Member
They don't? You have to do another 24 month agreement with the new console.
MastaKiiLA
Member
I don't think $x49 pricepoints work. It's an issue of perception. It's why we normally see $x99 pricepoints, because you don't feel like you're losing value like you do with a mid-hundred price. In either case, I think flagship phones have kinda established a market at higher pricepoints than past generations, so I don't see any value in going lower than $400, unless COVID wave 2 wrecks economic shop before year end (which is not unrealistic). So I expect a $100 difference between cheap and expensive models for both consoles. $400/500 or $500/600. I think what needs to be considered with the Xbox series is that they're going with 2 SKUs that aren't just component omissions. If they're changing silicon in each box, then economies of scale work differently. Whereas Sony is just changing some plastic molding, based on sales volume, MS is changing more expensive innards to accommodate differences in demand. I don't think that lends itself conveniently to a half price pricing model. Not unless MS is ready to take a bath on losses in an attempt to gain market share. Couple that with relatively low prospects in EU, and non-starter in Asia, and what incentive is there really to take that level of risk? Sony knows they own 1 market, even if it's relatively small, and they have a strong chance in EU, even if they come in second. They have a surer base with a less-risky pricing model.
In the end, just have to wait and see what the prices end up being, before trying to debate which strategy makes the most sense. Right now, it's all speculation, and there aren't enough details about either system to make reasonable assumptions.
In the end, just have to wait and see what the prices end up being, before trying to debate which strategy makes the most sense. Right now, it's all speculation, and there aren't enough details about either system to make reasonable assumptions.
Slings and Arrows
Banned
It does, I'm not a troll, if owt I'm an xbot. I want MS to get back to their best because that's when the industry is at its best as a collective.
As it stands, if these rumours are true. There's no way I'll buy an xsx at launch until Microsoft knows which direction its going in. They can't tout being the most powerful console while also not having the most powerful console...
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
People just DON'T understand how true this comment is. It will DESTROY the XSX and make it a rich man's "ONLY" purchase.
CurtBizzy
Member
Correct, but i wont be locked in the current contract
longdi
Banned
AGRacing
Member
You could price this thing at 99 dollars and it's not going to put PS5 in the "DOA" column....
But I WOULD buy one... and probably jump on and off game pass depending on what's available.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You are 100% correct. Something just doesn't add up. ALL THINGS CAN'T BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME!
You can't have the following.....
1. Lockhart has the same SSD as XSX, just at 500GBs
2. Lockhart has the same CPU as XSX
3. Lockhart has the same GPU, just at 4TFs
4. Lockhart has the exact same RAM as XSX, just at 12 GBs (instead of 16).
5. Lockhart cost $200 and XSX cost $400
6. And MS "NOT" take the biggest losses per console in video game world history (the current owner of this award is Sony with the OG PS3 when they lost around $200 per console at launch).
Something has got to give. All 6 of those things can't be true at the same time.
If we're really talking 1/2 the price then yup. If its like 400 to 300 maybe not as bad. Maybe.
Honestly though, if they do release a 200 or 250 machine and Sony is 400-500, I might start off with the cheap machine and give it a year to reassess the landscape. I still don't have a 4k TV, and my PS4 Pro(s) have taught me that there isn't much to be gained by the more expensive machine when most people have the base model. Although this won't be an issue for Sony first party games which will take full advantage of PS5 (I hope), I'm not so sure any real must haves are coming in year 1. I actually doubt it based on how much focus was given to GTA5 by showing it first.
lastmessiah
Member
lol in what world is $400 a "rich man's" purchase.
I assume he used the phrase figuratively, with a nod towards how the masses often drift to the less expensive models. Think about cars. Outside of areas where image is everything, what do you see more of? Base or mid tier models, or the limited editions that cost more?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
None of us thinks it'll be $400 though. At least $500 is closer to the truth. Plus........what is it worth to most gamers if the XSX can produce native 4K games, if the "other" box can do the same games (supposedly) at the same framerate (supposedly) but only at 1080p for $200? or $250?
Why would anybody outside of enthusiasts and tech-heads get the XSX?
Last edited:
lastmessiah
Member
Consoles are a bit different though. Cars are largely utilitarian, you get from point A to point B.
Some guy with a 9-5 job asking Best Buy employee "Why is that model more expensive?"
"Oh it is more powerful and has 4K support, better graphics."
"Oh ok I'll take that one, here's the MasterCard."
iHaunter
Member
Nope. PS5 actually has unique aspects that can't be replicated while XSX is just a PC.
TheAssist
Member
I know that, but XBox has lost money almost every gen and now they want to lose even more money for a few more years...ok, good on them.
The thing is, there is so many more people listening to music or watching TV Shows than there are people playing video games. But you cant charge more then the pretty much established 8-15 bucks a month. Music and TV shows are much lower risk due to the higher turn around and lower investment cost.
so you have
- smaller overall market (by number of possible subscribers)
- yet needing to charge the same amount that other streaming services with higher subscriber numbers do (which is the opposite of the current situation)
- higher investment cost for games with longer production runs, which makes failings harder to compensate
- the overall fatigue on subscription models in the market (everything from entertainment to food, to public transport)
- the fact that xbox isnt actually all that strong of a brand outside of the US, which is really really important if you want people to subscribe to something
- losing on regular game sales and maybe losing 3rd party publisher support until market has consolidated
Also, right now at least, X Box game pass and X Cloud streaming arent the same thing as far as I am aware of. So it running on TV's and phones is an entirely different thing.
Again plz explain how they are going to make money with it. The reason MS has so much money is because they found ways to monetize stuff and not just lose it mindlessly. For example people think their mobile phone venture was a failure when in reality MS has made money for every android phone sold because google were using MS patents. Patents they made while doing research on mobile phones. They didnt have to care that google was more successful, because they made money either way. This time around it seems they push streaming and then sell their streaming services to competitors like Sony. So even if Sony is super successful, MS still makes money because Sony is using their service and MS gets paid with every game streamed/bought.
Thats how MS has operated for decades now.
So if your argument is, that MS does not actually want to make money with it, but simply push the tech and then sell it to other companies, you have my attention.
I don't dispute that tons of people will buy the more expensive model. Not at all. But I still think more people will go for a 200-250 machine than a 400-500 machine. Honestly I think anyone claiming otherwise is projecting their enthusiasm for gaming onto casuals, and forgetting about how many units are bought as gifts. I've been gaming since Atari buddy, and even I'm tempted by the thought of an uber cheap Lockheart to hold me over at least a year until the gems start coming out (and I hopefully have a 4k TV, which just is not a priority for me today).
TheCrimsnFuckr
Member
Honestly, while I think this guy is full of shit, the pricing range is not totally crazy and actually does make some sort of sense. While Microsoft's main goal isn't selling more consoles than Sony, it does still revolve around having consoles in the house and using them to sell subscription services and games. And when you look at things that way, it does actually make sense that this could happen and not be a catastrophic loss for MS. Let me explain:
Let's say for the sake of things that for the first 10 million consoles MS loses $200 and after that they can begin to make a profit (yes, I know that is not how it works, but I am simplifying it because I do not know their costing structure and getting specific without knowing that is bad) and that all existing GP subs bought gold and converted 3 years of gold to GP Ultimate (so MS has $5 revenue earned per subscriber). I am doing it this way, even though there are also a lot of those 10 million just on the $1 free trials with no plans to renew to also account for new subscribers and those that pay either full price or bought the $100 console game pass for a year ($8.33 a month)
So for the first year or so they will lose 2 billion dollars by selling the consoles out right. And for the sake of arguing, let's say that they plan on making all their money back within 5 years of the loss. To figure out how many subscribers paying $5 for 60 months are needed is done by the equation below:
(2,000,000,000/5)/60 = 6,666,667 subscribers. If they wanted to make back their money in 40 months (much more realistic) they would only need 10 million subs (which is around what they have right now).
Now imagine they get a lot of consumers in with a really affordable console that is less than their competitor and they also manage to have a consistent stable of high quality exclusives all available at a low monthly cost from their subscription service. Their Game Pass numbers grow to high numbers and they make back their money even sooner than they would going off of things now. I have to imagine that when Halo Infinite comes out it will also massively drive subscriptions for Game Pass.
Let's say for the sake of things that for the first 10 million consoles MS loses $200 and after that they can begin to make a profit (yes, I know that is not how it works, but I am simplifying it because I do not know their costing structure and getting specific without knowing that is bad) and that all existing GP subs bought gold and converted 3 years of gold to GP Ultimate (so MS has $5 revenue earned per subscriber). I am doing it this way, even though there are also a lot of those 10 million just on the $1 free trials with no plans to renew to also account for new subscribers and those that pay either full price or bought the $100 console game pass for a year ($8.33 a month)
So for the first year or so they will lose 2 billion dollars by selling the consoles out right. And for the sake of arguing, let's say that they plan on making all their money back within 5 years of the loss. To figure out how many subscribers paying $5 for 60 months are needed is done by the equation below:
(2,000,000,000/5)/60 = 6,666,667 subscribers. If they wanted to make back their money in 40 months (much more realistic) they would only need 10 million subs (which is around what they have right now).
Now imagine they get a lot of consumers in with a really affordable console that is less than their competitor and they also manage to have a consistent stable of high quality exclusives all available at a low monthly cost from their subscription service. Their Game Pass numbers grow to high numbers and they make back their money even sooner than they would going off of things now. I have to imagine that when Halo Infinite comes out it will also massively drive subscriptions for Game Pass.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
I addressed by Disney comment in another post and said it was probably not the best example without some clarity. My point was that Disney purchased a ton of content for literally billions and billions of dollars. If I remember correct Fox alone as 71 billion. They did that in effort to control the content that they have which worked. But if you also look at what people are watching on Disney Plus its very skewed. Meaning that the classic library only appeals to a certain part of the audience. My point of making this claim waas that Disney was able to spend billions acquring their content and were able to build their service and only charge half as much. The reasoning for that is because the streaming and sub market is heavily skewed towards the entity thats distributing the content. They are making the same bet as most sub models. They think the price is more appealing and thats how they will get more subs. And so far it seemed to of worked.
The bold is flat out wrong. Its proven that the subscription service generates more revenue from a wide audience due to its monthly contribution due to not having to pay a lump sum. People will end up paying for something they wound't normally get if they feel like its cheaper. I mean the entire credit industry is built on this model alone as well. Look at the attach rate for Xbox 360, it was 7.5 units per console. Which is decent but not a reoccurring amount of revenue the way a subscription does. Its extremeley difficult to calculate the attach rate in dollars due the price of games fluctaing. Could of be a $20 game or a $60 game. The subscription service on the other hand is a set amount you will get every month meaning not only is it more likely to generate revenue but the same amount. Now this can be skewed with sales which does happen on Game Pass quite a bit, but the sales are not something that gives users a discount for the entirety of their subscription.
You are also forgetting that people that have a subscription, the hardcore or the casual, are more likely to spend money when they have a discount because of the subscription. In this case, you get discounts on all DLC and the content itself. Which people do buy. So the revenue is not just the $10-$15 dollars a month.
The second part of this is right but also wrong when you look at the draw of the business model.
The subscription is so valuable because it attracts people who would normally pay more anyway and the people who wouldn't pay for content at its normal price. yes you could potentially make less money on the hardcore crowd as they might of spent lets say for argument sake $180 on 3 games but then only spent $120 since all 3 were on game pass. But this general rule is also wrong because the hardcore is more likely to spend money on other games that are not in the service. Like I said earlier If I have more money in my pocket to spend on games because of Game Pass and my hobby is gaming, I am going to spend that money in your store, thus creating the same amount of revenue or possibly even more depending on the deal that was cut for the content in Game Pass to begin with.
Gaming Revenue is calculated in billions are you say, but Net profit is the key and its hardly ever in the billions on one single game. Its extremely rare. its becoming more common as we have more games as a service though but that also gives the title in question more time to achieve that magical billion number, but games as a service also require more upkeep and more money. So even when they say they reach a billion in revenue, it took them years and years which could of been spent on other games that could of netted them just as much money.
The second bold is also not correct when you factor in that people do buy games on game pass even when they have a sub, as well as how deals are typically structured for streaming services.
Content is no doubt expensive but the deals are usually for a long period of time making the initial batch extremely expensive but you will quickly gain that back as you dont have to add more content to keep the library flowing. For example: Doom 2016 was on the service for over a year. Im sure that was not a cheap game. Probably a couple million alone. But that couple of million lasted them over 12 months of content and they only paid a fraction of what it would normally cost to get that content made themselves. Not to mention they also got a cut of every copy sold on game pass. If the library was being completely rotated every month thats an entirely different story. But its not. less than 10 percent of the library changes every month and that number will continue to fall as they keep adding their own content from their studios.
Comparing it PS Now isn't entirely fair as it was a far different approach. Their approach was more about creating a library of content from new and old that you would want to subscribe to based on the sheer volume on content. But for a very long time it didn't include newer content in any capacity. Notice they recently have not only lowered the price but also have adopted the rotating library.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
The direction is very clear. They are moving to a content subscription model. I get it if thats not for you but thats the direction. The bold is also ridiculous. You most certainly can say that.
Monkeygourmet
Banned
If the Series S is 200 dollars they may as well just rename it the Fortnite box
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I find it monumentally unlikely that the diskless PS5 is going to be half the price of the standard model, which marks it out as being a very different scenario to the one being pushed forwards for Lockhart.
In Sony's case it makes sense to subsidize the cost sufficiently to offer what appears to be a better deal than the cost saving of removing the BD drive actually yields. i.e. they save $40 on BOM and subsidize an extra $59.99 (price of a game) for that optically sweet $100 differential.
Lockhart isn't that, its a different, weaker SOC as well as a diskless system, one that is no longer able to trade on the "Power, Power, Power" mantra that's been the centerpiece of the Xbox sales pitch for the last few years. So although it does stand to be cheaper, it is definitively an inferior SKU, one that adds more confusion to the Xbox branding.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Why does anyone buy anything premium? This question is crazy shallow.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
MS is about services. XSS will offer more people a chance to sign up for those services at a reasonable price. XSX will be the console for people to get those services and also have a powerful system to see games at their best. It's a win for consumers and a win for MS because they aren't leaving anyone behind. Just like MS' decision to continue to support the XB1 for the next year or so. They are letting customers decide when they want to jump into the next generation. It also is another avenue for services. So yes it makes perfect sense for there to be a $100 price difference between the XSX and XSS. MS is trying to cater to the largest audience possible.
Lone Wolf
Member
What about a series X digital edition for $400? Could you see 3 SKUs?
HerjansEagleFeeder
Gold Member
Are the people in here telling me that the PS5 is gonna be 499 also telling me that a 399 XSX is absolutely impossible?!
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You can say that, but you'd look stupid doing so. Especially if Lockhart sells twice as much as the XSX.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
How is it stupid tout a fact? Its all a marketing point anyway.
trapanesenyc
Banned
New leadership in all aspects of the company since then and the market place is vastly different than it was a decade ago. Subscription models rule all of media now, and the new ceo seems to be more intune with the aspect and cost benefits of the Xbox division long run.
CAB_Life
Member
$399 would be nuts and the best launch value in history. They’d be eating a couple hundred bucks per (premium) console at that rate no? That said, maybe the XSX “basic” or whatever costs peanuts to make in comparison to the higher end SKU and they’re expecting to move a lot.
I like this disruptive shit if they can actually pull it off. A $200 console—regardless of what most of us here think of the tech inside—is a major marketing bulletpoint, feat and benefit for the consumer. Especially considering the economic downturn from Covid.
I like this disruptive shit if they can actually pull it off. A $200 console—regardless of what most of us here think of the tech inside—is a major marketing bulletpoint, feat and benefit for the consumer. Especially considering the economic downturn from Covid.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
I agree that a $200 Lockhart is just not possible at the rumored specs. Less RAM/4TF GPU/No ODD = ~$100-$130 to the BOM for Microsoft. Even at $300 it would be at a loss.
To the bold above even that isn't likely true. Sony apparently lost a total (including shipping/distribution/retail cut) somewhere in the region of $100 on PS3 at launch and Europe/UK then subsidised it for 6 months before getting a £299 model. Most of Sony's losses on PS3 were probably from the constant iterations/slims and aggressive cost reductions over a number of years.
Here is a reevaluation of the PS3 BOM by IHS. Very interesting read: https://electronics360.globalspec.c...l-release-hardware-analysis-60gb20gb-teardown