Business Strategy and Retail Pricing for Xbox One X [2017] *spawn*

[RancidLunchmeat]

Articles like this from mainstream tech press is pretty damning. Microsoft has the same problem Sony had with explaining why someone should fork out more money for a 4K console

The answer to all of these questions is that both the XB1 and the PS4 were bottom spec'd consoles at a time when both Sony and MS were trying to break the mold of selling the consoles at a (usually significant) loss.

The real question, regarding the XB1X is whether MS is better positioned in reality as it currently exists or in some hypothetical reality where they never released the XB1 and rode the 360 until releasing the XB1X this year. The same hypothetical reality can be asked of Sony and the PS4 Pro. I think in both cases, even with the Xbox's loss of market share, the answer is that the current reality is better than that hypothetical one.

 

[function]

Dude you've said a lot of easily provably false things in the past but this is near the top.

Can't help but think you're projecting there ....

The Ps4 pro vs x1 slim (currently available best MS console) is a ~3x difference in power, yet here you are claiming at the end of this year a ~40% difference is actually greater.
Mate where to begin :smile:

Pro is a new 16nm console incorporating technologies from as new as Polaris or later. Scorpio is a new 16 nm console incorporating technologies from as new as Polaris or later.

Scorpio and Pro are contemporaries (Switch too, though Nintendo are more than ever doing their own thing). They're both designed to sit on the back of current platforms and software development paradigms.

X1 <-> PS4 on 28 nm are contemporaries and now, years later, Pro and Scorpio on 16 nm are going at it again.

Scorpio outperforms and out-specs the Pro (and Switch if we really must) in a way that no machines going head to head have in 15 years. But that comes at the cost of .... cost. That's the tradeoff.

If you want to try and argue down Scorpio's performance and capability leadership (it's about the ram and audio as much as the flops) of the console market because the pro had lots more flops than the X1 that launched four years and two process nodes ago .... then ... I suppose you can? But if you're going to do that you could also pit 360 against Gamecube and PS2 against N64.

[And while we're on the subject, even the Pro doesn't have the system-wide leadership over the X1S that you think it does. It has practically the same memory available for assets, weaker audio processing capabilities and an inferior optical drive. Even the awful boxy X1 phat beats the Pro in audio and practically matches it for memory. Scorpio just beats everything, everywhere. ]

Sony and MS are hitting the market at about the same time with 16 nm platforms to take it to 4K TV owners and console enthusiasts. The specs are all stacked on one side. But so is the price risk - and it definitely is a risk. Pro has carved out a niche for itself by offering nice performance for a nice price. It remains to be seen how the market will respond to Scorpio.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Scorpio outperforms and out-specs the Pro (and Switch if we really must) in a way that no machines going head to head have in 15 years.

Nah. The Vita went head to head with the 3DS and its performance delta was orders of magnitude larger than the difference between Pro and XboneX.

Plus, you certainly are making a huge deal out of sound processing (which takes what if done through software, 15% of a single 2GHz Jaguar, tops?), extra 3GB of RAM and a superior optical drive (that means jack for games).
All while leaving aside the fact that the CPU is embarrassingly identical.

And who's going to make use of the better audio BTW? How many xbonex gamers do you think will have a setup good enough to hear a difference? How many are using Dolby Atmos capable receivers and speakers in the ceiling or reflecting beams?
If I had to guess, that number is closer to 0.5% than it is to 5%.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The memory is 9GB vs 5.5GB for games as in 63% more. Memory bandwidth is about 50% more. GPU is more than 40% faster, although perhaps the FP16 helps the Pro here a bit... CPU is only about 10% faster, but that is still faster. All added up that is a very significant difference. Functions point about the biggest difference since Xbox vs PS2 is right on the money. Handhelds aren't what he was talking about.

 

[function]

Nah. The Vita went head to head with the 3DS and its performance delta was orders of magnitude larger than the difference between Pro and XboneX.

Well I did specify console rather than handheld ...

Plus, you certainly are making a huge deal out of sound processing (which takes what if done through software, 15% of a single 2GHz Jaguar, tops?), extra 3GB of RAM and a superior optical drive (that means jack for games).
All while leaving aside the fact that the CPU is embarrassingly identical.

And who's going to make use of the better audio BTW? How many xbonex gamers do you think will have a setup good enough to hear a difference? How many are using Dolby Atmos capable receivers and speakers in the ceiling or reflecting beams?

Think you're underestimating the cost of good surround processing and mixing.

High quality 3D Spatial audio through headphones with no additional processing cost? Fuck yes. My Sennheiser "whatever, I bought them on black Friday when I was drunk" £200 headphones are dripping with anticipation.

I'll take that and be glad of it. Hell just buy a decent pair of earphones for $30. It'll massively increase the quality of your gaming experience.

If I had to guess, that number is closer to 0.5% than it is to 5%.

The rest of those fuckers can listen to their scratchy flat audio through tin cans attached by string. On their budget "soundbars". Same thing. *waves fist*

 

[DrJay24]

The memory is 9GB vs 5.5GB for games as in 63% more. Memory bandwidth is about 50% more. GPU is more than 40% faster, although perhaps the FP16 helps the Pro here a bit... CPU is only about 10% faster, but that is still faster. All added up that is a very significant difference. Functions point about the biggest difference since Xbox vs PS2 is right on the money. Handhelds aren't what he was talking about.

We are not talking about new consoles, both are upgrades to exiting consoles and the games have to run on the originals. How much effort is a dev going to put into such small markets? These specs are basically just to push more pixels, I was told a few years ago 900P was fine, it's the quality of the pixels not the quantity. Now were are getting into diminishing returns, like 1800P versus 2160P. If it turns into better frame rates, it will actually matter. But like with Destiny 2, devs don't want the hassle of making 30Hz versions work with 60Hz on the same platform. The best to hope for is unlocked frame rate games, like Battlefield 1. You might get more pixels and a more stable frame rate.

 

[zed]

Well I did specify console rather than handheld ...

Well Wii vs ps3 or xb360 then
(mic drop)

 

[Goodtwin]

I'm not convinced their is a huge market for these enthusiast level console to begin with, but with that said, if Sony can drop the price of the PS4 Pro to $349 when Xbox One X releases they could steal a lot of thunder. Early adopters of X will likely be enthusiastic about it, but they will largely be made up of Xbox One gamers who are eager to upgrade their console. Not sure how many consumers will choose a $500 console over consoles half or even less than half the price. Its not even that I think its a poor product, its just that how often do people choose the premium most expensive product? I think its a tough sell when there isn't a bunch of exclusive software to help create momentum for the platform.

 

[MrFox]

Personally, I always bought consoles based on which ones have the games I want to play (either announced, or expected per reputation and owned franchises and studios). Sometimes it was the most powerful (ps4, amiga), sometimes it wasn't (pc, gamecube and wii), often I bought multiple brands. I am glad when it happens to be the most powerful regardless of price, but arguments about imaginary gamers who will buy based of "flops per dollar" is extremely irrational. The market never worked that way unless there was a severe noticeable discrepancy. There wasn't one for ps4/xb1, and there isn't one between pro and scorpio.

But the atari st? Horrible console. The amazing amiga destroyed it completely.
All hail our lord and savior Jay Miner!!!!

 

[Recop]

The memory is 9GB vs 5.5GB for games as in 63% more. Memory bandwidth is about 50% more. GPU is more than 40% faster, although perhaps the FP16 helps the Pro here a bit... CPU is only about 10% faster, but that is still faster. All added up that is a very significant difference. Functions point about the biggest difference since Xbox vs PS2 is right on the money. Handhelds aren't what he was talking about.

I do agree if we exclude the PS4 Pro vs the XB1. Then, it's the biggest difference ever seen since a long time.

Also, i agree with Jubei. I didn't see any game showing the leap in the MS conference. A lot of people are talking about Anthem, but it didn't look better than Horizon to me once in the jungle.

But, the difference will necessarily appear during the gen. It was not yet here during E3.

 

[BRiT]

Its not even that I think its a poor product, its just that how often do people choose the premium most expensive product?

Every single time someone buys Apple products.

 

[function]

Well Wii vs ps3 or xb360 then
(mic drop)

The 360 and the PS3 were contemporaries and neither had outright dominance. In your eagerness to attack you have yet again missed the point.

Pick the mic up, put it back in the stand, and leave the stage zed.

 

[function]

This thread title isn't helping.

Something like "What are MS playing at with a 499 console" might be more helpful. And it's a discussion the internet needs given the number of people who just can't get - or chose not to try and get - what MS are aiming for.

(Whether it'll work is another question).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I'm not going to join in on the ps pro xbox discussion but 499 doesn't sound like such a bad deal for a 4k/60fps machine to me. Price/performance sounds good to me.

Whether it's good value for money will depend on how many games will actually run at 4k and 60fps (while looking good) and how long it will take for MS to release the next xbox. If the next machine will launch in 3 or 4 years it might not be such a bad deal but if there is another xbox in 2 years or whatever to counter a potential ps5 then it would be a bad deal, for me anyway.

 

[Johnglen]

I think my capitalistic self is taking control because after being pissed off with ms , because I hated their conference, and proclaiming that I will never buy an x1x I.....preordered it . The fact that ms didn't enforce any extra tax for Greece, we always pay more for electronics, somewhat helped.

Already own a pro and I expect something substantially more powerful with the x1x, I am not a fan of checkerboarding and I definately see a difference between native 4k and checkerboarded. I expect the games to look sharper on the x1x. As far as power difference goes I think that it is substantially bigger than the difference between a PS4 and an xboxone. The way I see it is simple. The PS4 had a much stronger gpu and much faster memory. The Xbox one had a slightly faster CPU. Both had the same amount of memory. The x1x has a much stronger gpu, much faster memory AND much more memory AND a slightly faster CPU , so it wins in every aspect . Oh and the look of this thing is jaw dropping , imo, and makes the pro look ancient. The pro will serve just fine as a stop gap , and then as an exclusives console . Having a uhd drive was also a factor in deciding to buy the x1x, another advantage for people that want a 4k box under their shiny new 4k tv.

 

[DJ12]

Looking at both conferences, the best looking games remained on PS4/pro, not the xbox family. Seems like it's overpriced for what is essentially a check box, not many truly care about at this time.

When we have people saying they the difference between 720p and 1080p doesn't really matter, is anyone really going to care that one runs at true 4k (the majority of the time) and the other 1440~1900 with a fancy upscale technique.

Personally, I think they overshot by $100, ps4 pro, while also just a check box exercise, is a lot more relevant.

One X is just a fanboy service, after letting them down with Xbox One. I'm sure they will lap it up, those that haven't already invested in the PS4 ecosystem, but it's not a relevant, mainstream exercise. It might outsell Pro in the US, but nowhere else.

 

[Jay]

The arguments put forward to why the 1X will sell badly seem strange to me.

• It costs double the 1S entry model
• It's for the hardcore X1 owners
• Mainly to be able to get a better 4k experience
• It's a niche product, it's premium
• It's only graphically better, all games are still on the 1S

Why does that seem strange to me? Well because this is exactly how their marketing it as!
What will be deemed a success, 1 out of 3 sales? 1 out of 6?
The thing is MS may only expect to sell 1 out of 5, much like the 4pro is currently, or even 1 out of 6.
So for them it could easily be a success, even if the numbers dont seem that way to some, and the sales curve could be different than normal consoles.
Out of the gate a subset of XO owners jumping on it.
Then as 4k TV's keep selling well, and 1X drops in price then it sells pretty well as people are transitioning (sells well for a premium device).

MS has a couple things to prove, that the games do look better, and not by having to zoom in 500% (or counting blades of grass), and overall performance including frame rate, and system performance. I'm talking multi plats here where can easily be compared.

 

[Jay]

When we have people saying they the difference between 720p and 1080p doesn't really matter, is anyone really going to care that one runs at true 4k (the majority of the time) and the other 1440~1900 with a fancy upscale technique.

Wait what? This is the first time I've ever heard this.
And the point of X1 is that it's not only the resolution.

but it's not a relevant, mainstream exercise

Isn't that what MS said themselves, that it's not for the mainstream, and even dropped the price of the 1S which is targeted at that market?
Edit : Price drop may be temp for e3, but I do expect one later on in the year

 

[Nisaaru]

I don't know if the payoff is going to be worth it for MS's investment, but I do know - because MS have explicitly marketed it as such - that this is what they're going for.

They want to serve the top end market with something that is clearly unmatched - and it really is unmatched in a way that the Pro, PS4, PS3, XBox 360 never were - and also visibly regain leadership and benefit from the halo effect. They win when they sell the system, and they win when anyone associates Scorpio and the Xbox ecosystem.

Buy into an ecosystem that will allow you to have a clearly unmatched experience, should you ever choose to upgrade to it. And most people never will. But look how desirable the top end iPhones and Samsung phones are, and also look how well the more mainstream phones sell.

The high end defines the product stack. The low end brings in the numbers. Customers are drawn to the product stack, and then buy in at the point they can afford.

Well, I see nothing truly high-end about 499 in itself and I don't mean that in the snobbish sense.

That was the price XB1 users paid back then for a 512GB HD(undersized for the content), with the forced Kinect bundle which in my case was never ever plugged in in the first place(a pain probably a lot shared).

499 is not "premium" priced vs. 399 or 449, especially with the extra investments people mostly need to make. 4xx was the normal XBox price bracket to me with 360 Elite(120GB HD) at 479 back then. It's the standard MS console launch pricing.

Obviously not every XB1 user needs or wants one but I'm sure the core market will make the jump reasonably quickly. If this would be Nintendo who usually start their consoles at 1xx-300 in the last 16 years or so your argument would make sense to me.

The core market of XBox users since the beginning was the group which wants the best available multiplatform/PC games experience on *Consoles* and that's imho the market for this console. Together with the Bro-Users(CoD, Sports) MS lost a lot of these players to the PS4 because it was simply a faster console which then also got the special games marketing of Activision/UBI.

Building some high end PC *just for gaming* in the living room is premium these days.

P.S. I see myself as an original Amiga/PC gamer who jumped to consoles because I prefer the console experience over PC gaming.

 

[goonergaz]

Where does function say it's bigger than the 4Pro market? He's saying it's a positioned as a low volume luxury item, like McClaren cars and Audemars Piguet watches and Bang and Olufsen hifis. And Xbox Elite ($150) controllers. It's a flagship product, designed to gain notice and headlines. 'Most powerful console in the world, but you can't afford it, so buy its little brother.' Not as extreme as other luxury goods because it still needs to sustain an audience for software, but deliberately positioned beyond most of the market's buying power.

Or say says function. Dunno if I agree or not.

He said "That's who Scorpio is for. It's for a subset of the market who know what they're getting and will pay. Like the Surface line. Or like the PS4 Pro - only far more so."

So maybe I misunderstood but I took that as him implying a bigger market than the Pro.

They want to serve the top end market with something that is clearly unmatched - and it really is unmatched in a way that the Pro, PS4, PS3, XBox 360 never were - and also visibly regain leadership and benefit from the halo effect. They win when they sell the system, and they win when anyone associates Scorpio and the Xbox ecosystem.

Buy into an ecosystem that will allow you to have a clearly unmatched experience, should you ever choose to upgrade to it. And most people never will. But look how desirable the top end iPhones and Samsung phones are, and also look how well the more mainstream phones sell.

Well let's wait to see how unmatched it is because they didn't show anything like unmatched and as I already said we know devs are not all using native 4k.

Pro is a new 16nm console incorporating technologies from as new as Polaris or later. Scorpio is a new 16 nm console incorporating technologies from as new as Polaris or later.

Oh so even though Pro played the same games from the same generation we'll exclude that so you can claim 'biggest gap for 15 years'.

We are not talking about new consoles, both are upgrades to exiting consoles and the games have to run on the originals. How much effort is a dev going to put into such small markets? These specs are basically just to push more pixels, I was told a few years ago 900P was fine, it's the quality of the pixels not the quantity. Now were are getting into diminishing returns, like 1800P versus 2160P. If it turns into better frame rates, it will actually matter. But like with Destiny 2, devs don't want the hassle of making 30Hz versions work with 60Hz on the same platform. The best to hope for is unlocked frame rate games, like Battlefield 1. You might get more pixels and a more stable frame rate.

Don't bring common sense here, there's loads of mindless loaded folk who had no interest in gaming until MS mentioned 'most powerful console' and now they will be throwing their money into the ring.

I'm not going to join in on the ps pro xbox discussion but 499 doesn't sound like such a bad deal for a 4k/60fps machine to me. Price/performance sounds good to me.

If only it would be - you'll find the number of 4K60 games will be minimal, MS always like to wheel out Forza to try and prove some graphical fact, very little else comes near it.

The console is guaranteed to have good multiplatform support, so the owners should be pretty happy about it, regardless of how many unit it sells. Still I'm expecting a price cut next year. There is now quite a large price gap between the Xbox models and bigger HDDs etc. will not fill that gap.

Based on what exactly? You think Devs will be putting much effort (therefore expense) into such a small market?