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

[goonergaz]

Every single time someone buys Apple products.

Seriously though, in the history of technology - when there has been similar options of double the price for better features in the same family, has the premium product ever outsold the cheaper one?

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.

Loads of Xbox buyers were happy to put up with it - for whatever reason - like you said, resolution is only one think - so why would people care about 4k?

 

[Jay]

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'.

Are your comparing the 4pro to XO?
The PS4 was out and the leap from ps4 to 4pro isn't that big, or are you only considering comparing against brands?
If you say it's the biggest leap in consoles, I'm assuming comparing against all consoles in that gen.
And that's not taking into account memory, etc.

Loads of Xbox buyers were happy to put up with it - for whatever reason - like you said, resolution is only one think - so why would people care about 4k?

How many games are there on X0 at 720p and 1080p on ps4?
And I'm pretty sure the few you may find, that the XO owners where not ok with it!

Because it's not just 4k resolution, it's 4k assets.. Personally I think that will be a bigger difference than just the resolution.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

Far more elite than PS4Pro, and far more niche as a result.

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.

Whether it gets the games or not, the hardware and what you buy is unmatched.

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'.

Hmm, you're really not following are you? Thread title probably is misleading.

It's about positioning. When Xbox launched, it was better hardware than the competition in almost every way, and at a high price. Similar to 3DO and NeoGeo, an elite box. XB360 and XB1 were comparable to the competition. PS3 was the closest to an Elite Box charging an elite price but it wasn't better in every way and shoppers had a choice between similar machines in reality. What XB1X is doing is saying, "sod the mainstream sales, let's just be the best machine." So they've made a box that is better hardware in every way - not similar and cost comparable making different compromises but better and more in every way. The plan here is halo effect. Sony in contrast with PS4Pro went with an affordable machine that struck a sensible balance between better and cost effective and easy-to-support with a view to selling to part of their current audience who wanted a bit better.

Sony wants sales with 4Pro. MS wants glory with XB1X.

 

[goonergaz]

Are your comparing the 4pro to XO?
The PS4 was out and the leap from ps4 to 4pro isn't that big, or are you only considering comparing against brands?
If you say it's the biggest leap in consoles, I'm assuming comparing against all consoles in that gen.
And that's not taking into account memory, etc.

It's all relative, the problem here is MS haven't changed the biggest bottleneck this gen - the CPU. As such it will be held back. It remains to be seen if devs will utilise the extra X1X offers due to the (assumed) low sales - what's in it for them to spend money when the game will probably sell anyway even if they don't bother? Just look at some of the face offs where PS4 vs XO are close...and that's with a significant userbase.

How many games are there on X0 at 720p and 1080p on ps4?
And I'm pretty sure the few you may find, that the XO owners where not ok with it!

I didn't mean specifically 720p but just lower resolutions in general - and they're ok with it because they bought into the system and keep buying the games.

Because it's not just 4k resolution, it's 4k assets.. Personally I think that will be a bigger difference than just the resolution.

The point remains. If people were so fussed Pro would be selling better than it is - and as I've pointed out, it's a much easier upsell.

Far more elite than PS4Pro, and far more niche as a result.

Totally agree hence my confusion over the implied bigger market

Whether it gets the games or not, the hardware and what you buy is unmatched.

Hmm, you're really not following are you? Thread title probably is misleading.

It's about positioning. When Xbox launched, it was better hardware than the competition in almost every way, and at a high price. Similar to 3DO and NeoGeo, an elite box. XB360 and XB1 were comparable to the competition. PS3 was the closest to an Elite Box charging an elite price but it wasn't better in every way and shoppers had a choice between similar machines in reality. What XB1X is doing is saying, "sod the mainstream sales, let's just be the best machine." So they've made a box that is better hardware in every way, not similar and cost comparable making different compromises but better and more in every way. The plan here is halo effect. Sony in contrast with PS4Pro went with an affordable machine that struck a sensible balance between better and cost effective and easy-to-support with a view to selling to part of their current audience who wanted a bit better.

Sony wants sales with 4Pro. MS wants glory with XB1X.

The problem here is that to truly say "sod the mainstream" they should have upgraded the CPU - then we're in a totally different conversation and X1X isn't hamstrung but a poor CPU. I say again, MS banged the drums of how important balance was and have produced a poorly balanced machine. I'm pretty sure I read people asking of the Pro CPU was good enough for the GPU - well what about the X1X? I realise GPU is the most important factor, but CPU is really important too.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

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

Maybe I am. AMD showed some benchmark results on sound processing when the first-gen TrueAudio came up on GCN2 cards, but they were quite vague about it and TrueAudio's DSPs eventually disappeared with TrueAudio Next transitioning the calculations to the GPU's ALUs.

I wish there was a benchmark that evaluated the performance hit on object-based sound engines.

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.

But now we're discussing the amount of people who play console games using headphones. How often does that happen? Especially with the Xbone where about half the gamepads out there don't even have a jack output.
Also, I don't think using head/earphones will necessarily increase the quality of gaming experience. "Quality" is everything from IQ to how good is your couch and whether you have something on your ears or not. I do use headphones when I'm playing with friends online, but it's a lot more comfortable to just sit back and use my 5.1 surround setup.

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*

That's the thing, though. Those fuckers on budget soundbars, tin cans attached by string or embedded TV speakers are what? 80, 90% of the console gamer population?
Save from VR, there's so little return from investing in audio processing nowadays..

 

[Jubei]

Is a niche product the right strategy when you are being outsold 2-1? Microsofts goal should be to expand their marketshare. PS4 Pro is 20% of total sales but also 40% of Pro sales were by existing owners. Wich means Sony did not get new subscriptions or game purchases from almost half the Pro buyers

 

[function]

Far more elite than PS4Pro, and far more niche as a result.

Yep, I think X1X is going to be more of a niche product than the Pro.

It's about positioning. When Xbox launched, it was better hardware than the competition in almost every way, and at a high price. Similar to 3DO and NeoGeo, an elite box. XB360 and XB1 were comparable to the competition. PS3 was the closest to an Elite Box charging an elite price but it wasn't better in every way and shoppers had a choice between similar machines in reality. What XB1X is doing is saying, "sod the mainstream sales, let's just be the best machine." So they've made a box that is better hardware in every way - not similar and cost comparable making different compromises but better and more in every way. The plan here is halo effect. Sony in contrast with PS4Pro went with an affordable machine that struck a sensible balance between better and cost effective and easy-to-support with a view to selling to part of their current audience who wanted a bit better.

Well explained!

Sony wants sales with 4Pro. MS wants glory with XB1X.

Yeah, Sony tried to restrike some of the performance / cost offer fro early in the PS4's life. MS have shot well past what either Sony or MS were aiming for at the start of this generation, and not because they think the mass market will buy a $500 console.

It's all relative, the problem here is MS haven't changed the biggest bottleneck this gen - the CPU. As such it will be held back. It remains to be seen if devs will utilise the extra X1X offers due to the (assumed) low sales - what's in it for them to spend money when the game will probably sell anyway even if they don't bother? Just look at some of the face offs where PS4 vs XO are close...and that's with a significant userbase.

So long as MS are running games intended for the X1/PS4/Pro the CPU won't be a bottleneck as - barring going from 30 to 60 fps (I wish) - they have lots of headroom. MS have intentionally made utilising X1X power easy - same tools, same code if you want, just crank up the res and IQ, use higher res PC assets you already have, and let the ALUs and huge bandwidth produce 4K at decent framerates. You don't even need to bother with chequerboarding or FP16 if you don't want to.

Totally agree hence my confusion over the implied bigger market.

I made no implications of a bigger market. X1X may very well sell rather less than the pro - but that doesn't mean the Scorpio venture will have been a failure.

The problem here is that to truly say "sod the mainstream" they should have upgraded the CPU - then we're in a totally different conversation and X1X isn't hamstrung but a poor CPU. I say again, MS banged the drums of how important balance was and have produced a poorly balanced machine. I'm pretty sure I read people asking of the Pro CPU was good enough for the GPU - well what about the X1X? I realise GPU is the most important factor, but CPU is really important too.

A faster CPU wouldn't have helped most of the games it'll be running, and would have eaten away at GPU die/power/$$$ budget.

The balance thing was mostly posturing, but something did change after the start of this generation at that was a quadrupling of TV resolutions, but with the same games and engines being displayed. If you want to chase those resolutions a faster CPU won't help [edit: that said, their CPU has become 30+ % faster, which isn't terrible I guess ..... ]

Is a niche product the right strategy when you are being outsold 2-1? Microsofts goal should be to expand their marketshare. PS4 Pro is 20% of total sales but also 40% of Pro sales were by existing owners. Wich means Sony did not get new subscriptions or game purchases from almost half the Pro buyers

MS can't expand marketshare with a new mainstream console - that would only cannibalise X1 and piss everyone off. They have to ride X1 for a while yet. What they can do is reach out to an enthusiast niche and at the same time try to redefine how Xbox is seen. X1X is part of that.

 

[Jay]

Is a niche product the right strategy when you are being outsold 2-1? Microsofts goal should be to expand their marketshare. PS4 Pro is 20% of total sales but also 40% of Pro sales were by existing owners. Wich means Sony did not get new subscriptions or game purchases from almost half the Pro buyers

Now that's a new and interesting question.
In terms of overall market share, that is the 1S, and it's price point, not much more they can do about that untill next gen (whatever that may look like) I reckon.

In terms of the 1X, I still think people see this as trying to grab overall marketshare and MS doesn't see it that way, and neither do I. It's like saying what's the point of hyper cars. There is a market for them, and it's about doing well within that market.
Their not trying to sell to the sound bar audiance, regardless how big that audiance may be.

As a halo device, as a strategy that's more than trying to outsell 1S but to improve things like image (even if it is a higher price than some would like), I think it has a good shot.

 

[Jubei]

Now that's a new and interesting question.
In terms of overall market share, that is the 1S, and it's price point, not much more they can do about that untill next gen (whatever that may look like) I reckon.

In terms of the 1X, I still think people see this as trying to grab overall marketshare and MS doesn't see it that way, and neither do I. It's like saying what's the point of hyper cars. There is a market for them, and it's about doing well within that market.
Their not trying to sell to the sound bar audiance, regardless how big that audiance may be.

As a halo device, as a strategy that's more than trying to outsell 1S but to improve things like image (even if it is a higher price than some would like), I think it has a good shot.

Halo devices require strong first party output because third party wont waste money developing for a niche market. And thats where the comparisons to other items are flawed

You buy a luxury car? You can drive it fast. You dont have to hope a custom mechanic unlocks the engine for you so you can drive it fast

You buy a 10k PC? You can max out everything, you dont have to wait for a game specific to your model to max everything out

 

[Jay]

Halo devices require strong first party output because third party wont waste money developing for a niche market. And thats where the comparisons to other items are flawed

You buy a luxury car? You can drive it fast. You dont have to hope a custom mechanic unlocks the engine for you so you can drive it fast

You buy a 10k PC? You can max out everything, you dont have to wait for a game specific to your model to max everything out

This is where we'll see if MS strategy will work or not.
The fact is many 3P games are on PC and the ones with 4K assets can be used on the 1X.
By making the power very accessible then the overhead to support is a lot lower.
You don't need to implement checkerboarding, fp16, to tap into the power.
Use the same engine that the 1S is using.
If the engine has checkerboarding, then can use that also.
It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding what it takes to use X1's power, obviously to really push it, it will take more work.
But just doing the minimum should give good results(higher res, assets if available, upping some setting from medium to high/ultra). Now this is what needs to be analysed (DF) and seen by consumers though, just how much difference there is.

I suppose they said it themselves to DF, It was made to run X1 engines i.e. don't need to make heavy modifications to them.

A lot to be said for easily accessible power, x360 and ps4, and most engines are scalable and cross platform now.
I expect decent 3P support, I don't expect 3P to just run their games at 1080P, 16AF etc. But guess we'll have to wait and see.

Maybe we have different views of what support means?
If basic support means only upping the res then that could be bad, if it means upping some setting also, not so bad if it makes a decent visual difference.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Halo devices require strong first party output because third party wont waste money developing for a niche market.

You don't need better games for the hardware to be better. See how PS3 fared pretty well amongst its fans thanks to the Power Of The Cell, which never manifest as better game but was enough to convince some the PS3 was the better machine. A fancy watch does nothing more than a normal watch but is more valuable simply because it has a higher price tag. Same with designer glasses and clothes.

Even without XB1X specific software, it's still the fastest console in the world, the fastest console there has ever been ever (those sorts of claims always make me smile), and everyone buying it knows that.

 

[iroboto]

The problem here is that to truly say "sod the mainstream" they should have upgraded the CPU - then we're in a totally different conversation and X1X isn't hamstrung but a poor CPU. I say again, MS banged the drums of how important balance was and have produced a poorly balanced machine. I'm pretty sure I read people asking of the Pro CPU was good enough for the GPU - well what about the X1X? I realise GPU is the most important factor, but CPU is really important too.

While this is true, without knowing which games are actually CPU or GPU bound we're relatively left in the dark here. Devs often don't indicate why they are 30fps, sometimes the GPU is the limiter, sometimes the CPU is the limiter.

In every game that wanted to be 60fps, they made the target. That's something at least for consoles are decided up front. The idea that X1X or 4Pro could take any 30fps and immediately boost it to 60fps does not necessarily mean the game would work correctly; that's where console optimization takes the forefront, where they know what FPS they targeted and cut out what they can to achieve the most that they can out of 30fps. To ask them to scale to 60 using settings made for 30... well it's not exactly a simple job. For many developers it could be easier just upgrading the rendering resolution and adding more effects then to go back and alter everything else.

So while I get where you are going with this, and the desire for 60fps everywhere (I desire 120+ ) pointing fingers at the CPU is not necessarily the reason why 60fps isn't being targeted. i.e.. ROTR for PS4Pro, they wanted a 60fps mode, the devs went back in and made a 60fps mode. Ark is 60fps on Xbox One X vs Xbox One 30fps. So those choices ultimately are up to the developer.

When a developer says hey, we can't do it, not enough CPU: well, yea, that's because they didn't try to make the game 60fps in the first place, and increased scene complexity up the wazoo. They'd have to go back to the drawing board to make 60fps work, and most developers aren't interested in that.

 

[goonergaz]

So long as MS are running games intended for the X1/PS4/Pro the CPU won't be a bottleneck as - barring going from 30 to 60 fps (I wish) - they have lots of headroom. MS have intentionally made utilising X1X power easy - same tools, same code if you want, just crank up the res and IQ, use higher res PC assets you already have, and let the ALUs and huge bandwidth produce 4K at decent framerates. You don't even need to bother with chequerboarding or FP16 if you don't want to.

I will have to disagree, devs would have liked a more powerful CPU and it would have meant an even better experience for this 'super premium' console.

I made no implications of a bigger market. X1X may very well sell rather less than the pro - but that doesn't mean the Scorpio venture will have been a failure.

So what did you mean by "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."

Far more so of what?

Anyway, I'm largely staying out of this now - I've explained why I think the pricing is wrong and why it won't sell other than to a very small market. Anyone who wanted 'the best console experience' would have got PS4 and then upgraded to Pro...this is for day one Xbox fans only.

While this is true, without knowing which games are actually CPU or GPU bound we're relatively left in the dark here. Devs often don't indicate why they are 30fps, sometimes the GPU is the limiter, sometimes the CPU is the limiter.

In every game that wanted to be 60fps, they made the target. That's something at least for consoles are decided up front. The idea that X1X or 4Pro could take any 30fps and immediately boost it to 60fps does not necessarily mean the game would work correctly; that's where console optimization takes the forefront, where they know what FPS they targeted and cut out what they can to achieve the most that they can out of 30fps. To ask them to scale to 60 using settings made for 30... well it's not exactly a simple job. For many developers it could be easier just upgrading the rendering resolution and adding more effects then to go back and alter everything else.

So while I get where you are going with this, and the desire for 60fps everywhere (I desire 120+ ) pointing fingers at the CPU is not necessarily the reason why 60fps isn't being targeted. i.e.. ROTR for PS4Pro, they wanted a 60fps mode, the devs went back in and made a 60fps mode. Ark is 60fps on Xbox One X vs Xbox One 30fps. So those choices ultimately are up to the developer.

When a developer says hey, we can't do it, not enough CPU: well, yea, that's because they didn't try to make the game 60fps in the first place, and increased scene complexity up the wazoo. They'd have to go back to the drawing board to make 60fps work, and most developers aren't interested in that.

I realise CPU may not always be the barrier - but then looking at Pro we've not seen a significant increase. Also there was the whole Assassins Creed (Unity?) thing where a lot of blame was put on CPU.

In general GPU pixels and CPU fps - most PC games run 60 plus because 1) you can change the scales yourself and 2) pretty much all PCs used for gaming have better/much better CPUs!

I may be over simplifying though

 

[iroboto]

I realise CPU may not always be the barrier - but then looking at Pro we've not seen a significant increase. Also there was the whole Assassins Creed (Unity?) thing where a lot of blame was put on CPU.

In general GPU pixels and CPU fps - most PC games run 60 plus because 1) you can change the scales yourself and 2) pretty much all PCs used for gaming have better/much better CPUs!

I may be over simplifying though

Don't let people sell you on the idea that 4Pro is garbage because of it's CPU. It's not. The whole story is never told and it's up to us to discuss the accuracy of the statements. 4Pro is a great machine, and I think in due time when developers decide what they want to do with their game you may see more 60fps titles on 4Pro. Yea there's marketing and cheerleading happening right now because of a change of the guard, I'm guilty of it too because it's a short window of time for me to be an ass, but that doesn't mean Scorpio is invincible either. Journalists biased or neutral will poke and prod, the same type of microscope bashing happening to 4Pro will happen to 1X.

The reality is that both these mid gen refreshes are tied to the base models, which are likely to be 30fps.
If that is your core market and you optimize the game for 30, you optimize animations for 30.. etc, you're going to save a lot of money by keeping everything 30. That seems a stronger reason for there to be 30fps than any other reason. 20% of the PS4s sold today are 4Pro right. That might seem like a great number, which it is, but nothing compared to the number of PS4s sold in totality. 4Pro just makes a faction of the audience.

 

[Jubei]

You don't need better games for the hardware to be better. See how PS3 fared pretty well amongst its fans thanks to the Power Of The Cell, which never manifest as better game but was enough to convince some the PS3 was the better machine. A fancy watch does nothing more than a normal watch but is more valuable simply because it has a higher price tag. Same with designer glasses and clothes.

Even without XB1X specific software, it's still the fastest console in the world, the fastest console there has ever been ever (those sorts of claims always make me smile), and everyone buying it knows that.

Better game is subjective. But first party allowed Sony to validate the belief in Cell, Last of Us, GOW, GT and other 1P titles were some of the best looking games of that generation. What would have happened without that output? I dont think Sony fans would have revcieved the console aswell if they had relied on 3P.

Value is also subjective. Its not a custom made console in gold, its a more expensive mass market product. And half the market considers MS brand to be subpar compared to the competition

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I will have to disagree, devs would have liked a more powerful CPU and it would have meant an even better experience for this 'super premium' console.

You can't provide a better experience in terms of CPU work (AI etc) without alienating your core audience. XB1X isn't a new gen. Devs aren't looking for a new platform to usure in a new era of better games. We are mid gen, they are targeting the lucrative current-install base. Even if XB1X did have a far better CPU (perhaps difficult to pull off in the time frame), it most likely wouldn't be used.

 

[mrcorbo]

Halo devices require strong first party output because third party wont waste money developing for a niche market. And thats where the comparisons to other items are flawed

You buy a luxury car? You can drive it fast. You dont have to hope a custom mechanic unlocks the engine for you so you can drive it fast

You buy a 10k PC? You can max out everything, you dont have to wait for a game specific to your model to max everything out

Not if One X development is a simple as it seems like it will be. Once you've developed your Xbox One version, it's not going to be quite as simple as, "just push the 4K button" to get your One X version, but it's going to be as close as they could realistically get.

 

[mrcorbo]

I will have to disagree, devs would have liked a more powerful CPU and it would have meant an even better experience for this 'super premium' console.

There's a tradeoff. More powerful CPU would have meant less powerful GPU and a harder time getting to 4K.

 

[Jubei]

Not if One X development is a simple as it seems like it will be. Once you've developed your Xbox One version, it's not going to be quite as simple as, "just push the 4K button" to get your One X version, but it's going to be as close as they could realistically get.

Native 4K sure but high gfx settings would require dev time. But outside of this hypothetical group of enthusiasts, who is going to notice a difference between 4K and checkerboard 4K? Meanwhile despite lesser specs, Sonys 1P lineup will trick consumers into believing Pro is competitive graphi ally

I get that people think XB1X is a niche console. I just dont see the point. But im not the target group i guess

 

[mrcorbo]

Native 4K sure but high gfx settings would require dev time.

People should expect Xbox One X games to be Xbox One games rendered at 4K with 4k assets (which likely already exist for the PC version). That's the baseline, and it's a pretty good one. Anything beyond that that a developers add is gravy.

But outside of this hypothetical group of enthusiasts, who is going to notice a difference between 4K and checkerboard 4K? Meanwhile despite lesser specs, Sonys 1P lineup will trick consumers into believing Pro is competitive graphi ally

That's why Phil Spencer is saying the things he's saying. To highlight the difference between what the One X is doing and what the Pro is doing to get to 4K, not to "throw shade" or "take jabs".

I get that people think XB1X is a niche console. I just dont see the point. But im not the target group i guess

What's the point of the Titan XP or the Highest of the High-End Intel processors? The One X is that for consoles, just priced less ridiculously.