Microsoft Will Make Zero Profit from the Xbox One X at $499

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Xbox leader Phil Spencer has revealed that Microsoft will not be making any money at all with their 4K console. According to Spencer, who didn’t want to “get into all the numbers,” the money-making part will come from selling games. Analysts have already deemed the Xbox One X a failure, calling it a hard sell at $499: “consoles have historically failed at this price point.”

Unbelievably, at $500, Microsoft isn't making any money on each box sold. "No," Xbox leader Phil Spencer told me in an interview this week, after I asked him if Microsoft makes any money selling the Xbox One X at $500. "So, you're taking a loss?" I said. "I didn't answer it that way," he responded, intentionally not offering more detail.
 
I think we are seeing the last of consoles. Someone needs to take Valve/Steam ideas and make it work.
Nvidia is trying along with others to make custom PCs more affordable. An upgradable console is what we need.

With SLI pretty much dead, I'm not interested in build a gaming. PC larger than ITX now. The SFF thread is an example of that, it's very popular.
Microsoft or Sony or Valve and Nvidia together can figure it out. $500 can create a great modular machine, and I think some would be willing to buy faster units if they need 4K.

Not sure how many console gamers care about 4K when they're still playing upscaled 960p games at 30fps in many cases and are having a blast.
 
Show me a $500 complete system that potentially can do VR and 4k.. some of us may buy but I also want the switch. I may get it when its $400 or when there is more details on VR. The biggest problem is they didn't get enough exclusives or enough details on VR. That would of been a big win. Seems like a cool system but at $500 maybe they were better off on xbox 2 since ps5 may be out in a couple years.
 
also I love our xbox as the smart tv... for our dumb 4k tv. We rarely game on it anymore. Its essentially the $300 youtube player for my 2 year old. lol the fact they are losing kinnect sucks since we love the tv integration.
 
Carmack once said around the release of Unreal Engine 3 or so that gaming engines have reached a point where they no longer really have to improve. That they have effectively hit a milestone that allows any game to be made, any vision to be produced, and that will satisfy any audience's demand for visuals. While the idea of photo-realism is great and all, nobody really cares that much. It used to be that certain games simply were not possible at the time. A game like GTA5 could not have been created in the early 2000's, it was just not possible. You could come up with the idea but it'd never see the light of day. But now there's no game you cant make. Any idea you have there's an engine that can do that. Your experience as a gamer wont benefit newer systems. Heck I look at the Nintendo E3 coverage and am more excited by content than I have in almost a decade. Those games look fantastic and deliver the experience Nintendo is aiming for.


My point is that it's going to be a tough sell for any future console upgrades because to be quite honest, PS4/Xbone kinda do everything you'd want them to do. I know I know 512KB is ram is more than anyone would ever need, but seriously, unless your desire is for true photo realism (which would be great mind you) there's not much drive for a new console. I dont think console players look at tech demos for Unity/UE4 and say "omg we need this", they're just not gonna get there. VR has the potential to drive up hardware requirements but that's still only like 11% of claimed marketshare. By claimed I mean people who say they want VR, true adoption rate will probably be half that.
 
It's a niche product that exists just so they can say the have the fastest console.

Pro is hitting 20% of all new ps4s being sold. Given xbox1 lower sales numbers that 10% xboxx prediction would be killer. No one is going to support it.
 
$500 is totally reasonable. I feel like these analysts must have forgetten about a thing called "inflation".

at 2% inflation, the original playstation is $462

the PS3 was $499 at launch and sold just fine

xbox 360 premium was $399 and the base was $299. $399 adjusted for inflation is $506.

So considering what you get, $500 seems pretty fucking reasonable.
 
People have been calling for the death of consoles for a while, they also called the death of PC's. Not going to happen. I don't know how successful XB1X will be but people will buy it.
 
$500 is totally reasonable. I feel like these analysts must have forgetten about a thing called "inflation".

at 2% inflation, the original playstation is $462

the PS3 was $499 at launch and sold just fine

xbox 360 premium was $399 and the base was $299. $399 adjusted for inflation is $506.

So considering what you get, $500 seems pretty fucking reasonable.

I have a buddy who is a hardcore Sony fan. Everything Sony in his house. He was laughing at how the "X BONE" was going to sell at $500 and I reminded him that the PS3 was $500/$600 at launch. "No it wasn't, there's never been a console that expensive".

Sigh. Just like politics everyone has a "side".
 
People have been calling for the death of consoles for a while, they also called the death of PC's. Not going to happen. I don't know how successful XB1X will be but people will buy it.

When you make $0 profit, that is death. But one of America's greatest corporations have money to burn.
Any other company would have canceled the project in Alpha.
 
I have a buddy who is a hardcore Sony fan. Everything Sony in his house. He was laughing at how the "X BONE" was going to sell at $500 and I reminded him that the PS3 was $500/$600 at launch. "No it wasn't, there's never been a console that expensive".

Sigh. Just like politics everyone has a "side".
Wow. Just wow...

When you make $0 profit, that is death. But one of America's greatest corporations have money to burn.
Any other company would have canceled the project in Alpha.

Historically, consoles were sold at a loss, making it back off of games sales and royalties. Selling new consoles at cost or profit started with the Wii, IIRC.
 
When you make $0 profit, that is death. But one of America's greatest corporations have money to burn.
Any other company would have canceled the project in Alpha.

Companies selling stuff for break even or a loss has been going on for a while, from printers to razor blades. They sell you the item to get you in the door and gouge you on the refills.
 
Take Spencer's comments/claims with a big grain of salt. He's very aware the #1 reaction to Xbone One X is it's overpriced, so from a PR standpoint the logical move other than lowering price is cry you aren't making any money on it.

But to quote Tony Soprano, "Don't tell me about your problems."
 
Show me a $500 complete system that potentially can do VR and 4k.. some of us may buy but I also want the switch. I may get it when its $400 or when there is more details on VR. The biggest problem is they didn't get enough exclusives or enough details on VR. That would of been a big win. Seems like a cool system but at $500 maybe they were better off on xbox 2 since ps5 may be out in a couple years.

I have seen advertisements for an Oculus bundle with and i5 based PC and VR capable AMD graphics card for $999, including the Rift with Touch Controllers. So your argument is wrong. You CAN get a VR capable PC for $500 if you shop.
 
Show me a $500 complete system that potentially can do VR and 4k.. some of us may buy but I also want the switch. I may get it when its $400 or when there is more details on VR. The biggest problem is they didn't get enough exclusives or enough details on VR. That would of been a big win. Seems like a cool system but at $500 maybe they were better off on xbox 2 since ps5 may be out in a couple years.

OK, Here you are:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/oculus-...age/9999283000050000.p?skuId=9999283000050000
 
I'd consider going back to consoles when the games will run at 100+ FPS like they do on my PC. They can't even promise me that all games will do 60 FPS. I refuse to settle for a crappy FPS and be locked into a platform. Many of my games currently can run on Windows 10, Windows 8, Windows 7, OS X and Linux. Furthermore I can tailor the graphics options to give me the FPS or image quality I desire. I can choose my input method. The PC platform as a whole gives me options to customize the experience to be what I want it to be. No console is ever giving me that. Are consoles cheaper ? Sure but so is McDonalds vs a steak house.
 
I'd consider going back to consoles when the games will run at 100+ FPS like they do on my PC. They can't even promise me that all games will do 60 FPS. I refuse to settle for a crappy FPS and be locked into a platform. Many of my games currently can run on Windows 10, Windows 8, Windows 7, OS X and Linux. Furthermore I can tailor the graphics options to give me the FPS or image quality I desire. I can choose my input method. The PC platform as a whole gives me options to customize the experience to be what I want it to be. No console is ever giving me that. Are consoles cheaper ? Sure but so is McDonalds vs a steak house.

Your brain can't even process 100 FPS. What does that even matter when 30 FPS is all your brain can process without going into overload.

I'll take smooth as butter gameplay at 120hz@4k with 0 loss/latency at 30fps over a game that GOESFASTERPERSEC and looks like shit.
 
Your brain can't even process 100 FPS. What does that even matter when 30 FPS is all your brain can process without going into overload.

I'll take smooth as butter gameplay at 120hz@4k with 0 loss/latency at 30fps over a game that GOESFASTERPERSEC and looks like shit.

People make this claim, But I've personally seen the difference between 140fps and 100fps. The more likely explanation is that the frame dropping effect from large amounts of particle effects or explosions is not noticed when the fps goes from 150 to 100 and then back again. 30fps is just garbage. It really is. I put up with it when I console but it's trash.
 
saywhat2.png


No one should be surprised by this.
 
When you make $0 profit, that is death. But one of America's greatest corporations have money to burn.
Any other company would have canceled the project in Alpha.

that is all consoles. Think Sony was losing $150 with every PS3 sold at launch because of how they designed them. Not sure they ever made a profit. The Wii sold for under a $5 profit. It is like printers. Printers sell at a loss as they will make money from the toner. Systems are the same. Sell them the consoles at a loss and then make your money from the games
 
They should really aim for 60 fps or go home. The specs are great, it is pretty much a Super PlayStation 4 Pro. But it is useless if nothing changes with 3rd party titles on PS4 PRO and XB1X
 
To this day Microsoft never made a penny of profit from the entire original Xbox program, and I honestly can't say they ever made any profit from the Xbox 360 either. The Xbox One might have finally allowed them to make a few bucks but nothing seriously substantial and now again they're dumping billions for yet another damned console and also tossing money hand over fist for their phone bullshit.

Apple just looks at the way Microsoft throws away cash and laughs, it's a never-ending cavalcade of perpetual humor for them on top of them laughing their asses off at how consumers just keep giving Apple massive profits and Microsoft just can't catch a break. Not event the Surface products are really helping anymore, sadly.
 
Xbox doesn't make a ton of money on the consoles it makes its profit from Xbox Live people......that's pure profit.
 
Wow, people complain that $499 is too expensive? Please look at how much consoles cost back in the day when they came out.
 
"Sell us a real 4k console with real spec upgrades"(yes that console can do 4k it's a single system config you can cheat your way to 4k with pretty good fidelity)
"Woah 500 bucks, nvm i don't know what i want"
 
Wow, people complain that $499 is too expensive? Please look at how much consoles cost back in the day when they came out.
"Sell us a real 4k console with real spec upgrades"(yes that console can do 4k it's a single system config you can cheat your way to 4k with pretty good fidelity)
"Woah 500 bucks, nvm i don't know what i want"
Did you guys see the E3 presentation? With what games this console price is justified?
 
Wow, people complain that $499 is too expensive? Please look at how much consoles cost back in the day when they came out.

No, they're complaining that its too expensive compared to the PS4 Pro, which at $399 has a vastly superior exclusives library this generation. And for the same $499 as the Xbox One X, you could buy a Xbox One S -and- PS4 and be able to play everything. Those are some hard truths that no carefully crafted, focus-grouped counter PR about "We're not making any money on the Xbox One X" is going to change public opinion on.

Further, reports are starting that Xbox One X is also doing checkerboarded 4K just like the PS4 Pro - and not "True 4K" in all or even most cases as the marketing wants people to believe - so potential buyers are further questioning what exactly MS is providing for that extra $100 over the PS4 Pro.

The takeaway for me is what's been apparent all along: Its just an Xbox One with acceptable framerates. So are existing Xbox One owners going to spend another $499 to finally get a Xbox One with acceptable framerates, or spend $249 or $399 for a PS4 or PS4 Pro and get access to all the PS4 titles too? I'm sure there are the hardcore, Sony-hating exceptions, but there aren't enough of them to float this product.
 
Last edited:
This feels like an entry into something I was discussing with friends a while back. PC's have, for a long time now, offered multiple levels of "comfort" when it comes to gaming. You can go cheap to just be able to play games, with sub-par graphics and frame rates, you can go mid-range to get a bit more of the aesthetics and better feeling gameplay, or you go high end to do it all. Obviously there are many more configurations to be had with a PC besides those three, but it's just for comparison sake. So, why then, can't we do the same with consoles? Consoles have never offered the ability to play games with better graphics settings, or higher framerates, this is the first time we've seen this in the console area, and I think it will only improve in future console generations to come.

It's pretty exciting to see consoles push the envelope into a territory they've not yet been imo. Get the game library improved, and a $500 price point for a 4k60 experience (regardless of checkerboard vs true 4k) is reasonable. As with PC gaming, there are always going to be the enthusiasts who want a better, more enriched, fulfilling, experience. Having an offering for that type of person is never a bad thing.
 
Show me a $500 complete system that potentially can do VR and 4k.. some of us may buy but I also want the switch. I may get it when its $400 or when there is more details on VR. The biggest problem is they didn't get enough exclusives or enough details on VR. That would of been a big win. Seems like a cool system but at $500 maybe they were better off on xbox 2 since ps5 may be out in a couple years.
People don't need to buy a complete new system to be able to play like they need to with consoles. Any decent PC bought in the past half a decade has a more powerful CPU than current consoles so all that is required is a new GPU and $500 buys you a whole lot more GPU power than you get with a Xbox One XXX.
 
It's pretty exciting to see consoles push the envelope into a territory they've not yet been imo. Get the game library improved, and a $500 price point for a 4k60 experience (regardless of checkerboard vs true 4k) is reasonable.
I wouldn't bet on getting many 60 FPS games, fake 4k or not.
 
When you make $0 profit, that is death. But one of America's greatest corporations have money to burn.
Any other company would have canceled the project in Alpha.

LOL, Yeah Sony should have just canceled the PS3 and Microsoft should have cancel the XBOX360.
 
Your brain can't even process 100 FPS. What does that even matter when 30 FPS is all your brain can process without going into overload.

I'll take smooth as butter gameplay at 120hz@4k with 0 loss/latency at 30fps over a game that GOESFASTERPERSEC and looks like shit.

Wow this whole thread are people talking out of their asses. "Your brain can't process 100 FPS. What does that even matter when 30 FPS is all your brain can process without going into overload"

Funny as hell.
 
Yeah I would wager that it's not so much an issue of "$500 for a new console" as "$500 for basically the same console."

$500 for a new console is completely fine as many other people have shown in this thread, but those all came with games that you absolutely couldn't play unless you bought them. Both the PSPro and XBOX don't have any exclusives (i don't think, could be wrong) so $500 is a bit much.
 
Yeah I would wager that it's not so much an issue of "$500 for a new console" as "$500 for basically the same console."

$500 for a new console is completely fine as many other people have shown in this thread, but those all came with games that you absolutely couldn't play unless you bought them. Both the PSPro and XBOX don't have any exclusives (i don't think, could be wrong) so $500 is a bit much.
It's a soft console launch, because of the same underlying architecture, backwards compability is super easy so they didn't push for a new library which would be required for a new launch. They also didn't change the controllers and accessories all things required for a new console. This is a new console it's different enough to be but now with the lack of super-specialized hardware means microsoft can try to push new hardware and eventually new hardware without causing a huge uproar over people saying it's too soon because it's only been 4 years. I think it's actually a failure by microsoft, a new name and pushing it like a brand new console would have been better imo. The only thing holding it back would have been trying to build launch titles, but you could emphasis the backwards compatibility and assure the press that you aren't going to require develops to drop the old system.

PSPro is less of a new console it's more appropriate of a "refresh" approach
 
Back
Top