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

Semantics said:
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
Click to expand...
User name checks out.
 
Captindecisive said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd agree if it were a 4k60 experience, but its not. Its a 1060p/60 experience and Checkerboard-4k 30 experience. Destiny 2 for example will be capped at 30FPS even on this console.

True 4k60 requires a 1080 or better GPU.
 
Can we even call it a great feat of engineering. Isn't it just some pretty old AMD hardware shoved into a small form factor. I mean could any of us not build the same for around 700-800 bucks.... which considering 500 is MS cost is around =. Other then that its a windows 10 computer with a custom DE locked to the xbox store. Seriously what is so ground breaking about it... it only seems like a marvel of engineering for 500 bucks cause MS is buying the parts in bulk getting a great deal and selling them at cost.

Bottom line is as others have said... at 500 bucks with few compelling games. Its going to fail hard. As Microsofts console swan song I guess its passable. They can claim to have built the most powerful console ever before exiting the market.
 
Bigdady92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank god I dont have your brain or eyes. I can tell the difference from 60 to 100 pretty easy. Unreal Tournament makes a perfect case of this for me.
 
relapse808 said:
Thank god I dont have your brain or eyes. I can tell the difference from 60 to 100 pretty easy. Unreal Tournament makes a perfect case of this for me.
Click to expand...

Is it the 60-100 your noticing though .... or that the 60fps machine dips to 20-30 at times and the 100 machine only dips to 60.

I doubt really that your brain is noticing the difference between 60-100 fps if your machine can really sustain both.
 
Its still cheaper than buying an iphone. In that regard, the price is a steal.
 
ChadD said:
Is it the 60-100 your noticing though .... or that the 60fps machine dips to 20-30 at times and the 100 machine only dips to 60.

I doubt really that your brain is noticing the difference between 60-100 fps if your machine can really sustain both.
Click to expand...
Have you ever gamed on a 144 Hz monitor Vs a 60 Hz monitor? Try it out and you will change your mind. There is a VERY noticeable Difference, I have a 27" 144Hz monitor and a 24" 60 Hz and the difference is clear as night and day. Someone was trying to BS people into this line of thinking. 144Hz is far smoother even in seeing the mouse cursor movement across the screen.
 
DPI said:
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.
Click to expand...

DPI said:
I'd agree if it were a 4k60 experience, but its not. Its a 1060p/60 experience and Checkerboard-4k 30 experience. Destiny 2 for example will be capped at 30FPS even on this console.

True 4k60 requires a 1080 or better GPU.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we can't (and shouldn't) really expect third parties to:

1. Take full advantage of the hardware (extra work)
2. Do more than bare minimum

I feel judgment should be reserved until we see first party and exclusives to see what it can really do.

Also, comparing a GPU in a PC, and a GPU in a closed system where tons more optimizations can be done, isn't exactly apples to apples. "To the metal" and all that. Also, the devs that want to, will get help from MS, as usual. If the next Halo is "FauxK", crap on it all you want.
 
TwiceOver said:
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".
Click to expand...
https://venturebeat.com/2013/11/05/...its-not-bad-but-far-short-of-150m-ps-2-sales/

I seem to recall the PS3's sales were a little slow at first due to the price tag, which they reduced later. Maybe they just weren't as good as they were expecting? At any rate, your friend is just wrong. lol
 
nysmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're mostly right. I'm someone who still has a PS3 and a 1080p TV. I don't play games just to see the latest and greatest visuals. In fact, I don't play a lot of games. Most recently, I bought Civ V for $12...

BUT... I could see some kind of MMO idea adding strain to current systems. Imagine a game where you can play as one of thousands of zombies overrunning a camp of soldiers. Literally hundreds of other players on the screen around you, constantly sending commands to these avatars. Everything having to stay in sync. I mean, maybe that's possible on today's hardware, and worse, it might be horribly not fun. But it's a silly idea I came up with while munching on a granola bar. So I think it's within the realm of possibility that someone exists that's more creative than me - creative enough to think of games that go beyond the limits of current hardware (and, importantly, are actually fun!)
 
No one remembers the 3DO? That was $700 in 1993 money that is the true definition of too expensive. If you have a large 4k display and like Xbox then the XB1X is reasonable.

I don't know why people are quibbling over $500 but yet will liquid cool dual 1080Ti's or Titan P's
 
I love the PCMR naysayers. The shit people are saying here is the same thing they said when OG xbox shipped. Every. Fucking. Time.

MSFT has a cool cross plat vision. I saw the potential when playing GoW 4 on my GTX1080 4K gaming rig with my buddies on their XB1 consoles. Everything just fucking WORKED. Chat. Co-op hoard mode. It was awesome.

XB1X is just a Win10 PC with custom shell, virtualization and sand-boxing. MSFT has built the tools to allow developing for both WIn10 and XB1/X pretty straight forward. And unlike Sony, they have decades of experience in delivering developer tools. It's their oldest business.

But hey. Keep thinking consoles are dead. Not having to fuck around with the BS that comes with owning a PC is really appealing to a lot of folks.

My next theater upgrade will be 4K and both a PS4Pro and 1X. Because I love games and don't give a shit about console/PCMR circle jerk epeen wankery.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
No one remembers the 3DO? That was $700 in 1993 money that is the true definition of too expensive. If you have a large 4k display and like Xbox then the XB1X is reasonable.

I don't know why people are quibbling over $500 but yet will liquid cool dual 1080Ti's or Titan P's
Click to expand...


Because, after the initial 2 months of launch, the PS4 Pro is selling just 1/5 of all new PS4 units. Translation: there's barely enough 4k/VR demand on that side of the creek, for a system that's got a lot more market share. Plus the fact that there's no system exclusives, means the demand is pretty dead.

Just because PC games drop that kind of cash on a daily basis, doesn't mean your average PC gamer will find any reason to shuffle that money Microsoft's way. And the S being half the price makes the jump a hard sell for new gamers.

There will be a performance improvement over the Pro, but it won 't be life-changing. The numbers say 30% faster, so you're looking at the difference between an RX 580 and GTX 1070. So yeah, that's a hard sell, given the already poor sell-through of an upgrade on the world's most popular platform.

Are they really going to get people interested, with that poor launch lineup? Especially when you can play the same games on the S?
 
Last edited:
whateverer said:
Because the PS4 Pro is selling just 1/5 of all new PS4 units. Translation: there's barely enough 4k/VR demand on that side of the creek, for a system that's got a lot more market share.

Just because PC games drop that kind of cash on a daily basis, doesn't mean your average PC gamer will find any reason to shuffle that money Microsoft's way.

There will be a performance improvement over the Pro, but it won 't be life-changing. The numbers say 30% faster, so you're looking at the difference between an RX 580 and GTX 1070. So yeah, that's a hard sell, given the already poor sell-through of an upgrade on the world's most popular platform.

Are they really going to get people interested, with that poor launch lineup?
Click to expand...
So low demand means they should be selling at a lower price? By that theory NVIDIA should be selling the Titan Xp for $100.

The PS4 Pro is $400. If we say that performance difference should equate to price difference, then $500 is a bargain (25% price increase for 30% more performance).
 
CptCabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding. This is going to be like XBOX-1080TI. Plays all the games your Xbox does, just "better". WTF ever.

$500 isn't too bad for a brand new console. This is a souped up refresh.
 
ianken said:
But hey. Keep thinking consoles are dead. Not having to fuck around with the BS that comes with owning a PC is really appealing to a lot of folks.
Click to expand...
Like buggy games that require post launch patching and new hardware coming out relatively soon after you've purchased the current one?

Oh, wait...
 
Armenius said:
So low demand means they should be selling at a lower price? By that theory NVIDIA should be selling the Titan Xp for $100.

The PS4 Pro is $400. If we say that performance difference should equate to price difference, then $500 is a bargain (25% price increase for 30% more performance).
Click to expand...

I'm saying it shroud be $450, not $500. Charge the price difference it's really worth.

You and I both know why Nvidia charges through the nose for the Titan - because they actually make money on it. More than any other card they sell, and there is demand for it. Between CORPORATE, then high-end gamers, there's an upgrade competition on both sides of the fence :D

But there is more spotty demand for a high-end console parts, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH UPGRADE TRAIN. That's the reason the $600 PS3 failed hard (until they dropped the price to $400, and took huge losses), and the $500 One cratered until they killed Kinect, and dropped it to $350. There's limits to how much people will spend ON PURE ENTERTAINMENT, even if you make a nice package out of it with all the trimmings. People won't jump unless they can afford it, and it has something new and exciting.

Since Microsoft hasn't announced a new Halo, or any official VR announcements, where's the impetus to buy? This is the 2nd-place closed console platform, with only a fraction of games people want to play. Where's the hook for selling this racehorse (with one bum leg due to same 8-core Jaguar setup as the S)?
 
Last edited:
xxaaqq said:
I think you're mostly right. I'm someone who still has a PS3 and a 1080p TV. I don't play games just to see the latest and greatest visuals. In fact, I don't play a lot of games. Most recently, I bought Civ V for $12...

BUT... I could see some kind of MMO idea adding strain to current systems. Imagine a game where you can play as one of thousands of zombies overrunning a camp of soldiers. Literally hundreds of other players on the screen around you, constantly sending commands to these avatars. Everything having to stay in sync. I mean, maybe that's possible on today's hardware, and worse, it might be horribly not fun. But it's a silly idea I came up with while munching on a granola bar. So I think it's within the realm of possibility that someone exists that's more creative than me - creative enough to think of games that go beyond the limits of current hardware (and, importantly, are actually fun!)
Click to expand...

Kind of a case in point with FF14 no longer being supported on the PS3 with the new expansion.
 
Exavior said:
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
Click to expand...

Sony / Microsoft receive something like $10 or $15 per each game sold for their systems, plus DLC sales, plus Microsoft gets money from their online service. They also likely calculated their system production costs decreasing over time when choosing to initially sell at a loss.
 
WorldExclusive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Keep hearing this every gen, and latest gen has sold at a pace far higher than last gens. They are going nowhere.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
No one remembers the 3DO? That was $700 in 1993 money that is the true definition of too expensive. If you have a large 4k display and like Xbox then the XB1X is reasonable.

I don't know why people are quibbling over $500 but yet will liquid cool dual 1080Ti's or Titan P's
Click to expand...

The neo geo was $650 bucks when it launched in 1990.
 
Yaka said:
ms trying to replicare sonys mistakes with ps3?
Click to expand...

Except they're different scenarios. While the PS3 was expensive at launch, I think one of their main goals was to push blu-ray. Which was very successful and killed off HD-DVD.

MS isn't doing that. Xbox One S already has a 4K BD player in it. This is literally just a performance bump and we really won't know how it'll be until the system launches with games that will utilize it. I feel, it'll no like the difference between PS4 and PS4 Pro. Better lighting and maybe more grass and shit on screen. Something I never bothered paying attention to.

Hell on PC, I tend to turn the foliage shit down (if given the option), cause they allow the bots/npcs to see through it, but I can't.
 
First CD Console: PS1 @ $300 or $488 today
First DVD Console: PS2 @ $300 or $434 today
First BR Console: PS3 @$500/$600 or $617/$740 today

$500 is NOT unreasonable and apparently these analysis do not know that inflation exists.

(these are the popular models. I am ignoring stuff like 3d0 and neo-geo
 
ChadD said:
Is it the 60-100 your noticing though .... or that the 60fps machine dips to 20-30 at times and the 100 machine only dips to 60.

I doubt really that your brain is noticing the difference between 60-100 fps if your machine can really sustain both.
Click to expand...

Yes, the difference is noticeable. Its not as big as the jump from 30 to 60 or from 60 to 144, but the difference is there. There are diminishing returns in what you can notice, but, right now, no monitor (even the fancy new 200hz ones) have reached the point where it is impossible for our brains to make out the difference.
 
Tiberian said:
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.
Click to expand...


people still believe that Xbox was/is unprofitable?

Xbox started turning a profit back in 2008 and it would have been sooner if it was not for the RROD issues

https://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/the-xbox-turns-a-profit/

original Xbox in 2005

http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/01/28/xbox-turns-a-profit
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they fucked up by announcing it too early. The clock speed is chosen to barely hit that 6TF target they promised year ago and to even reach it they had to use exotic cooling, Meanwhile Sony is sitting comfortably at 400$ with 4,2TF machine that was sold at profit since day one and if they feel like it's needed it can be price dropped to counter Microsoft.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
No one remembers the 3DO? That was $700 in 1993 money that is the true definition of too expensive. If you have a large 4k display and like Xbox then the XB1X is reasonable.

I don't know why people are quibbling over $500 but yet will liquid cool dual 1080Ti's or Titan P's
Click to expand...

People are willing to spend more on PC's than a console because a PC can do more than a console. With a console you're just stuck doing what a console does best which is just play games, so it's harder to justify the investment. Someone with a PC might get into video editing, photoshop, crypto mining, folding, 3d design, VR, etc etc etc.
 
I dn
Nihilus1 said:
First CD Console: PS1 @ $300 or $488 today
First DVD Console: PS2 @ $300 or $434 today
First BR Console: PS3 @$500/$600 or $617/$740 today

$500 is NOT unreasonable and apparently these analysis do not know that inflation exists.

(these are the popular models. I am ignoring stuff like 3d0 and neo-geo
Click to expand...

To play's devil's advocate, those prices were for original launches. The XoX is a bit of an unknown territory (console 'refresh'/niche hardware). If you're looking for comparisons, I'd probably go with the PS4 Pro launch price, Panasonic Q, Net Yaroze - maybe even the 32X, Sega CDs.
 
Blegh... it's just a dumb (but kinda necessary) marketing price thing that marketers need to do. Even if MS needs to subsidize these things they'll still "make a profit" in the long run. If they price it at $499 they have some room to run promotions and discounts giving the illusion of "getting a better deal" when sale time does come around.

I just don't know if these things will sell well at all since many folks already have standard XB1 or XB1S, and if people are looking for a better graphical experience they'll build a decent PC to game on, even to use with a 4K TV, etc. Just don't know if some newer XB1 exclusive titles will justify the upgrade.
 
SeymourGore said:
I dn


To play's devil's advocate, those prices were for original launches. The XoX is a bit of an unknown territory (console 'refresh'/niche hardware). If you're looking for comparisons, I'd probably go with the PS4 Pro launch price, Panasonic Q, Net Yaroze - maybe even the 32X, Sega CDs.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the 32x/CD because even there you had games that were unplayable without the hardware. But they're certainly closer than stock console releases.
 
I'm less concerned with the price than simply the absolute dearth of games that they've announced alongside this thing. I'm at a point in my life where $500 is really not a huge concern, but space on my AV rack is. I never bought an Xbox One simply because nearly every game I was interested in was available for my PC, where the experience is far greater. I almost took the plunge when Halo 5 came out, but cancelled my order once I saw that 343 stripped splitscreen coop.

I just don't see the point of this console for someone like myself (and, really, most of us here) when just about every game on Xbox can be had on the PC. There is a convenience factor to be sure, and packing this much tech into a $500 box is impressive, but I'll probably be skipping this one. In my opinion the only consoles worth owning at this point are the Switch (for BotW/Mario) and PS4 (for Horizon/Detroit/etc.)
 
nysmo said:
People are willing to spend more on PC's than a console because a PC can do more than a console. With a console you're just stuck doing what a console does best which is just play games, so it's harder to justify the investment. Someone with a PC might get into video editing, photoshop, crypto mining, folding, 3d design, VR, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

I know they are I'm 98% a PC gamer and willing to spend more on my PC. I have Adobe CS and lots of other applicatios installed but 95% of the time its being used for games. The [H} crowd isn't the target demographic for this or any console really.

I see it for a couple of different groups the enthusiast console gamer who has a nice TV and maybe surround sound and just wants to sit on his couch with his xbox buddies and play games. A couple of old friends of mine are like that; computer programmer/DBA and just doesn't want to mess with a PC since they are on one all day

Another group is the home theater guy who likes some gaming, then its an UBRD player with HDR, media hub and the occasional game for him or the kids.

For either of those groups a $500 expenditure is not a big deal.

One draw for me is that if I feel like playing Ori/Forza or something else I don't have to go in the "kids" room I can just stream it to my PC. The addition of play anywhere games is nice as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top