Xbox Series S [XBSS] (Lockhart) General Rumors and Speculation *spawn*
- Status
This will run things locally, according to the SOC rumors and an earlier dev comment a while ago about ease of making it run on Lockhart from SeriesX development.
I can totally see this.
Just looking back at the BoM for XBO;
CPU/GPU 110
RAM 60
Optical 30
HDD 40
Electro/mech 40
Other 50
PSU 20
Manufactoring 15
Box etc 10
That's 370 total. Take out the optical, electro/mech, 30% off the RAM and 50% off the CPU/GPU then it's still at around 220. I believe the APU costs have gone up also compared (and this is a bigger chip?) so at a very rough guess it's BoM is near 250 without a controller (back of fag packet maths).
Still going to costmore (see my maths) - I wasn't aware it was potentially slower RAM - just less of it? The point is I'm unsure how they can release a 200 XSS when you look at the current all digital XBO...essentially the same product but significantly more powerful for the same price without taking a significant hit.
smaller boxes means fewer shipping costs, better yeild, smaller packaging etc. The costs go all the way down the chain aside from just BOM.
Removal of Kinect for XBO not only removed a piece of hardware, it allowed htem to cut the box size in half, combined with moving the PSU back into the console unit enabled them to save more costs and more space, which means they dropped the packaging costs etc. All of it together is what let them get down $100+. Comparatively to the PS4 box at launch, which was thinner and had really cheap packaging; MS was getting spanked.
Costs can be saved up and down the chain.
If your feeding a 4-5tflop APU why would you need the same bandwidth as you did with a 12tflop APU ?
When you look at the XOS vs XOSD the only difference was the optical drive.
The APU is going to be quite small compared to the XSX , your looking at 4gigs less of ram and slower ram. Your also looking at a drastic change in cooling for the box.
Aside from that the price to consumer is more affected by the cost of PS5/XSX and the BOM.
How much is the current 1S?
Sure it may get a price cut when xbox series is released, but to what, as it is still going to be sold by all accounts.
The hardcore is what used to jump on the genetation at the start because of things like price point, software.
If that's not a concern then people may need to re-evaluate who would be buying consoles as a whole from the start.
Main problem is they've not shown why you need xsx (next gen), which will also make people question why is it worth getting xss.
People would've just said I don't mind lower quality of xsx.
Can't wait to see how all this pans out.
I'm just hoping MS doesn't fumble the ball some more, some how. I can't see how, but they like to surprise me.
Sure it may get a price cut when xbox series is released, but to what, as it is still going to be sold by all accounts.
The hardcore is what used to jump on the genetation at the start because of things like price point, software.
If that's not a concern then people may need to re-evaluate who would be buying consoles as a whole from the start.
Main problem is they've not shown why you need xsx (next gen), which will also make people question why is it worth getting xss.
People would've just said I don't mind lower quality of xsx.
Can't wait to see how all this pans out.
I'm just hoping MS doesn't fumble the ball some more, some how. I can't see how, but they like to surprise me.
$300 with a 1 game bundle or two controller bundle.
Xbox one s will be discontinued when Lockhart gets released or around that time.
Also you may feel differently but they showed one of the best line ups on any system I've ever seen at launch and I've been following this since the Genesis
There is just an "Xbox Series". X & S are the models. Only difference between this & your BMW example is that they used a word & not a number(Xbox vs 3). Not sure why people make this so hard.
Tommy McClain
It's cheaper than that in All Access. It's $192 if you go with the $22.99/mo for 24 months. Remember no up front costs & 0% interest.
Tommy McClain
I'm not convinced that the 1S will stop production, but either way that's the price after what 7 years on the market and people think XSS will flop if it doesn't release under that price?
@AzBat thanks, let's call it $200 then
So brand new console should launch at max $50 more than a 7 year old one otherwise fail still sounds mad to me.
Yea I know we have dithering views on this.
As a selection of games I think it's very solid, as a reason to get next gen I don't.
But this will end up drifting into off topic I suspect
Looks like you can still order then One S for $299 directly from Microsoft, but it won't be here until September 1. No other consoles are in stock. Something tells me that MS is going to stealth drop the Series S. Bet it goes up for sale at the end of the month for shipment in September.
Tommy McClain
That would be a serious drop kick the mic play.
I just went with retail price. I'm not sure but I believe all access is through Microsoft.com only ?
It all depends on the price compared to its more powerful siblings. Look at lockhart and XSX. for $300 you get a 4-5tflop machine. For $400 you get a 12tflop machine. Same games on both systems. Which one do you go with ? So a $200 or $250 Lockhart makes more sense
If the XSX is $500 then more people will be interested in the $300 Lockhart.
Look at it this way. You have a ps4 or an xbox one s. Your console stops working. What do you buy? a xbox one s which is based on a 7 year old console? A ps4 that is also based on a 7 year old console and the platform holder announced they wouldn't be making new first party games for ? Or do you buy a similarly priced lockhart that will play next gen games? Heck if you had that xbox one s or original one then lockhart will play all your current games but better and all the new next gen games.
Xbox one and xbox one s have large motherboards mostly due to the ddr ram i believe. So to make a smaller console why not start with that thought in mind
To be clear I'm very much in the XSS camp being a very good idea, always have been and see no reason to change.
I'm on the side that believes the xsx will be $500, $450 would be a nice bonus though.
Obviously won't complain if it comes out cheaper.
I think that at $300-350 (dependent on other consoles and skus) xss is still a very compelling device. I also think its worth considering that people are willing to buy a cheaper model even if the actual value may be with the more expensive one.
Simply because its cheaper and what they can afford/ justify paying.
I appreciate that, I made concessions within my estimate and even included the lower PSU price (invternal vs internal). You can ave a bit more maybe but AFAIK component prices have actually increased this gen. I can't wait to see some BoM breakdowns but I believe the estimate was 470 for X a couple months ago? Be interested to see how they can make the S less than half that.
It was available from Amazon & Best Buy, but they're both out of stock currently. Didn't see it available from the Microsoft Store. I believe it was originally, but not anymore. Especially now that their physical stores are closing.
Tommy McClain
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
So Microsoft really is going through with two launch consoles with different performance targets for their 9th-gen.
My thoughts on this haven't changed much.
PC GPUs and CPUs support a number of parallel contemporary products, as do phones, tvs, cars, hi-fis, bicycles, plane tickets, almost everything else you can buy and, to a limited extent, games consoles (going back to the PS3/360, and even more so with the mid-gen twins).
The idea that new consoles are only attractive to early adopters and "enthusiasts" (as if wealth == enthusiasm) is circular logic IMO. Just because price has traditionally been a barrier for new consoles doesn't mean that price must always be a barrier, especially given how changes in hardware and software have made it more practical than ever to support two similar but different parallel units.
And lets face it, the fact that someone might not be able to justify dropping $499 (or more) on a console at launch doesn't mean that the Jaguar CPUs and mechanical HDDs from 2013 are now any less shit for them than for anyone else. Does anyone really think a kid who doesn't have rich parents, or a dude struggling to afford his flat or car payments, can't see a 45 second loading screen, doesn't get that's he's waiting 30 seconds when he "fast travels", doesn't notice pop in when starting State of Decay, or wouldn't rather play a driving game at 60 fps instead of 30.
Series S will be a hell of a lot better than any current gen console, especially compared to the base units that make up the vast majority of the market. PS4 and X1 are actually pretty shitty compared, as you'd expect after 7 years. It's even a generational leap beyond the $399 X1X in terms of storage, CPU and GPU feature set. We're all supposed to be impressed by the PS5 SSD (any why not, it's very fast), and we keep hearing from developers that SSD and CPU are the real next gen game changers. How has that changed just because we're talking about a lower cost machine?
I still game on a 1080p level monitor. You think I'd still want to be with a Jaguar CPU and a 5400 rpm laptop drive? Fuck. That.
If customers actually know how good the Series S is (MS's communication has been terrible so far) I think many would jump on a $249~299 model right now instead of hanging onto creaking, decrepit systems for another 3 years so the price of the "big" machine can come down.*
PC GPUs and CPUs support a number of parallel contemporary products, as do phones, tvs, cars, hi-fis, bicycles, plane tickets, almost everything else you can buy and, to a limited extent, games consoles (going back to the PS3/360, and even more so with the mid-gen twins).
The idea that new consoles are only attractive to early adopters and "enthusiasts" (as if wealth == enthusiasm) is circular logic IMO. Just because price has traditionally been a barrier for new consoles doesn't mean that price must always be a barrier, especially given how changes in hardware and software have made it more practical than ever to support two similar but different parallel units.
And lets face it, the fact that someone might not be able to justify dropping $499 (or more) on a console at launch doesn't mean that the Jaguar CPUs and mechanical HDDs from 2013 are now any less shit for them than for anyone else. Does anyone really think a kid who doesn't have rich parents, or a dude struggling to afford his flat or car payments, can't see a 45 second loading screen, doesn't get that's he's waiting 30 seconds when he "fast travels", doesn't notice pop in when starting State of Decay, or wouldn't rather play a driving game at 60 fps instead of 30.
Series S will be a hell of a lot better than any current gen console, especially compared to the base units that make up the vast majority of the market. PS4 and X1 are actually pretty shitty compared, as you'd expect after 7 years. It's even a generational leap beyond the $399 X1X in terms of storage, CPU and GPU feature set. We're all supposed to be impressed by the PS5 SSD (any why not, it's very fast), and we keep hearing from developers that SSD and CPU are the real next gen game changers. How has that changed just because we're talking about a lower cost machine?
I still game on a 1080p level monitor. You think I'd still want to be with a Jaguar CPU and a 5400 rpm laptop drive? Fuck. That.
If customers actually know how good the Series S is (MS's communication has been terrible so far) I think many would jump on a $249~299 model right now instead of hanging onto creaking, decrepit systems for another 3 years so the price of the "big" machine can come down.*
*By which point it's actually less advanced relative to the state of the art than the S was at launch, and it still only has basically the same SSD and CPU that you could have had years ago. Well done for waiting, you.
- Status
