The Xbox Series X, Holiday 2020 (1 Viewer)

[Morgan Jolley]

Personally, I would guess that their prices are locked in. There's only so much margin they can afford to lose. I think Series X is going to be the most expensive, which is why MS wants to position Series S as the cheapest (even though it will likely end up as, more or less, a repackaged One X), and the two PS5 models will be right in between but on the higher side.

MS can say they have both the most powerful box AND the cheapest box, Sony can say they have two options that balance cost/power and with a stronger launch lineup. But I think $550-600 is the absolute upper limit while $300 for a Series S is the absolute lower limit (unless there's some mandatory subscription thing included).

Sony has such a huge install base from PS4 and MS makes a boatload of cash off Xbox Live and GamePass, so I think they would both be willing to take a certain amount of loss to their gaming divisions in the short term but not by undercutting each other significantly.

Also, I read this somewhere and may be completely wrong, but most of gaming history involved announcing release date/price for consoles relatively close to launch, with the summer E3 announcements for November launches being more recent-ish. Putting aside the specific date, we've basically known/assumed PS5 and Series X would be out in November since...well...the PS4 and Xbox One came out (since it's just the thing now). And we're guessing the prices, which will probably be pretty close in the right range. I seriously doubt people will buy or not buy the consoles based on price/date because they found out in September or October, but totally would have bought them if they knew those details in April. There's no business incentive to announce anything too early.

 

[DavidMiller]

Every new console is sold at a loss for the first year or so. If I remember the numbers correctly for the Xbox 360, Microsoft was losing $100 a box for the first 12 months until prices dropped (that doesn't even count how much they lost with the red ring of death). Both brands believe they will make it up with game / subscription sales.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Some time during the 360, the Xbox division finally started to turn a profit...then the RRoD happened and they lost a bunch of money. Now, MS and Sony both sell their hardware at a loss but their gaming divisions are profitable overall, especially with such large bases and subscription numbers. But I don't expect MS or Sony to be too willing to sell their next consoles at a huge loss, especially with the economy (and their potential customer base) being shaky.

The only Nintendo console that was sold at a loss was the Wii U, but Nintendo claimed that the loss was so small that a single software sale made it profitable.

 

[DavidMiller]

Saw this today... It would be crazy if it is this much I may pass...

Xbox Series X price leaked by Pringles, could be upwards of $900

Pringles in South Africa rumored to have leaked Microsoft Xbox Series X pricing, new AMD Zen 2 / RDNA 2 console could cost $599.

www.tweaktown.com

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Saw this today... It would be crazy if it is this much I may pass...

Xbox Series X price leaked by Pringles, could be upwards of $900

Pringles in South Africa rumored to have leaked Microsoft Xbox Series X pricing, new AMD Zen 2 / RDNA 2 console could cost $599.

www.tweaktown.com

Heh. Not a chance in hell it costs that much. Even if $900 was an extreme steal and the actual box was worth$1,500, a price tag that high would be corporate suicide in the court of public opinion. People would revolt and declare the console DOA before it even launched.

 

[Bryan^H]

Saw this today... It would be crazy if it is this much I may pass...

Xbox Series X price leaked by Pringles, could be upwards of $900

Pringles in South Africa rumored to have leaked Microsoft Xbox Series X pricing, new AMD Zen 2 / RDNA 2 console could cost $599.

www.tweaktown.com

I doubt very much. In fact $600 might be too rich for the average consumer.

 

[Sam Posten]

Average consumers aren’t launch window buyers

 

[LeoA]

Some details at long last.

Xbox Series S finally revealed, priced £249

UPDATE 10/9/20 10.20AM UK: Microsoft has now officially revealed yesterday's full launch trailer, confirming the previo…

www.eurogamer.net

Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S release date and price finally revealed

Microsoft is set to hold a press event soon to showcase the next-gen console pricing, and it's pretty familiar.

www.windowscentral.com

$499 on on November 10th for the Series X. Series S will launch at $299 and sadly lacks a disc drive.

 

[Sam Posten]

Wewt

 

[LeoA]

Too bad it lacks a disc drive.

I'll be stuck with the Series X when I make the jump since physical media still matters to me (And I have a substantial disc collection for the Xbox family that I'd want to be able to continue to utilize on the Series X).

Probably just as well. I may not have made the jump to 4k before I buy a Series X, but I'll appreciate the enhanced abilities when I do.

 

[Sam Posten]

Lol the lack of drive is the point entirely.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

This is certainly interesting. The Series S looks more powerful than I thought it would be. The price looks to me like a direct shot at Nintendo (since the Switch is still selling for $300) than Sony.

I'm really curious to see how Series S vs Series X sales play out. This is an impressive little box and I wonder if Microsoft would have released this and only this as their next-gen system in an alternate universe to try and go after the casual/cheap market exclusively.

That said...it's all kind of weird. Like I said, the Switch still sells for $300 and the One X is $400, so Microsoft just said they can make something that is next-gen for less. Does this mean the One X will go down to like $200? The One S will be liquidated at...$150? $100? How much more powerful is the Series S compared to a One X?

The rumors that pegged the Series S announcement also put the Series X at $500, which I think is a great price point. The previous gen started at $400, so MS splitting the difference with two console is smart. I'm personally not super sold on the no-disc-drive thing for what I want out of a console, but I think for people who just want to get their kids Fortnite and Minecraft without losing discs then the Series S could be a great option.

Just not a fan (no pun intended) of the giant vent circle.

 

[LeoA]

Lol the lack of drive is the point entirely.

A substantially lower price point is the entire point. Cutting the optical drive is just one way to help accomplish that goal.

Before anyone feels the need to defend such an option, I'm not against it. In fact I argued in favor of it in the past at various forums, such as back when their half hearted Xbox One S All-Digital experiment happened. A substantial number of consumers haven't taken significant advantage of the optical drive in their XB1's and PS4's, so it only makes sense to offer a SKU tailored to such people.

But I'm not one of those people. I have a substantial disc library that I plan to keep on using and adding to. I'm also not one that necessarily needs every last bell and whistle, so I'm ever so slightly disappointed that there's not a cost reduced SKU tailored for 1080p displays that still incorporates the optical drive.

 

[Sam Posten]

Optical drives are dead.

 

[Bryan^H]

Optical drives are dead.

Cryptic, but not true.
Flagships are the ones gamers are going to buy, and they have the disc drive so..

 

[Bryan^H]

But I'm not one of those people. I have a substantial disc library that I plan to keep on using and adding to. I'm also not one that necessarily needs every last bell and whistle, so I'm ever so slightly disappointed that there's not a cost reduced SKU tailored for 1080p displays that still incorporates the optical drive.

I went completely digital with games until I realized it was a pretty stupid idea. Games numbering in the 30's I no longer cared for, and couldn't sell (especially Switch games, They hold their value like a used Jeep Rubicon) figured I lost out on close to $2K. Never again.
Physical forever.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Physical media will never die until there is a price benefit to getting all-digital games. The PS3 initially offered a like 5-10% discount on digital games versus physical copies but that is long gone.

If I'm going to risk losing a game forever because MS shuts off their servers in 5-6 years, then I expect some sort of discount on the price to entice me into going along with that. I have bought a lot of games digitally on sale but there's basically zero chance, for me personally, that I'm paying a full $60 for a copy of a game I can't physically touch, lend to a friend, or sell in the future if I decide to.

 

[Sam Posten]

Argument makes zero sense. There are dozens of multiplayer physical games you can't play now because the servers have been turned off, same as for their digital counterparts. No digital single player game has ever been lost.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Sam - I don't really play multiplayer games so shutting off servers means nothing to me.

Nintendo has already shut off a bunch of their servers for old consoles. I think DSi games and Wii games are no longer available, even to re-download if you previously bought them. I think MS is the least likely to go that route because they are pushing BC so much but I could see Sony shutting off PSP/Vita servers so it's impossible to re-download those games in the future. There's also the general issue of a publisher losing the rights to a game and it disappearing from virtual storefronts after a while, which has happened.

Generally, I see DLC as being almost temporary. It's a specific situation but I think there's a bunch of rhythm games that lost songs as DLC because the rights lapsed.

 

[LeoA]

Optical drives are dead.

Maybe in your household, but not mine.