I shouldn't have written that as fact, I think I've read from the senior members here in older posts that shrinkage is normal operating procedure.
MS releases Xbox One S All Digital edition (No Optical Drive)
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
What makes you think a cheap device could be compatible? We've seen that new hardware that's compatible needs custom work - you can't just shove any old AMD CPU and GPU in there and get a working console.
Tkumpathenurple
Veteran
You didn't, you wrote that it "may" be part of their agreement. That's fair, it may. I've no idea either which way.
True, but in a way, that supports the notion of a very weak, streaming focused, entry level, chiplet based XBoxTwo: treat it all as one platform, with the same architecture but varying resources.
From each XBoxTwo GPU wafer, bin the best chiplets for xCloud, the tier just below for a high end console, the tier below that for a mainstream console, and the bottom tier focused on streaming, but capable of local rendering.
An XBox Two isn't a rumoured optical-free Xbox One. 
Games MS markets but aren't on game pass are on EA access or a digital download from their online store.
How much time are you giving yourself if you want to play COD / B5 ? rdr2 ? There were weeks at most between these games .
COD has a trade in of $27.50 , BF5 is 25 , RDR 2 is $35. Red dead is $55 used , BF5 is is $55 … which is actually $15 more than it is brand new right now. COD is $55 . So your loosing a lot of money on these games each time you trade in . Its just a money sink and the longer it takes you to fnish these games your going to get even less money for a trade in. BF5 came out two weeks ago and you get half of what oyu paid new with the rates droping more and more. That's before you count gas too and from the store and then what if you get a defective copy ? head back to the store ? What if they are out of stock due to few people trading in a game ? Oh and sometimes it takes weeks for them to get used copies in esp if its really popular.
Digital might cost more but it certainly has the convivence factor and for people who only buy a few games a generation they wont get good trade in value anyway when it comes time to trade in a game.
I'm not arguing if using gamestop is ripping you off or not.
You call it a money sink, you could argue in the case of digital, keeping a game you will never play again is much less worth while, regardless of how little you save.
Not including redbox either.
Convenience has little to do with the discussion of budget, which this is about, but sure its the same convenience you get buying digital on the 1S, so that's not a positive for a discless version.
Digital is growing in leaps and bounds, but digital is already offered in every sku, so why are people still buying discs at all, who are those people? Are they actually the ones that people argue the discless version will appeal to?
If it is those people I see very little benefit in it as it offers nothing at all apart from slightly lower entry point, that they may feel is not worth loosing out on all the other options and the limits it imposes.
100% of the benefits you say are there for digital, applies to every current sku!
Do we have any data/insight into who still uses discs?
I (maybe incorrectly) assume it's people on a budget, with data caps due to isp or budget, slow speeds, once again it doesn't mean they can't subscribe to gamepass or ea access.
Fallout 76 isn't on ea access, your very much mistaken if you think all ms marketed games are on game pass or ea access. i could see that change though...
It sounds like you think I'm arguing against digital, game pass, discless sku's. I'm not, far from it, I've already stated I think there should be a discless sku's.
I kinda doubt an MS box would be as open as a shield. It's basically an Android TV with some custom Nvidia stuff but I can pretty much do what I want with it.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Budget can be part of it as well. The digital version of Doom (PC) was recently on sale for 9.99 USD, cheaper than the used console version at Gamestop, 14.99 USD (29.99 USD new download). The new price on PC is 19.99 USD. Only 5 USD more than the used console copy.
There's no reason MS couldn't emulate Steam pricing with console games if they wanted.
It's also in the interest of the developer/publisher to have new digital versions of games go on sale occasionally for cheaper than used games. Developers/publishers get no money from used games, while they'd get something from say a digital game on sale at half the price of a used version of the game.
So, currently digital on console isn't cheaper than used, but there's no reason it couldn't be.
Regards,
SB
1) convivence is money. Going to a store is not free. It costs time and gas / public transportation costs . If I buy digital I just simply download the game when its avalible , there is no additional cost . There is no game stop within walking distance to me so I would have to drive to get there which would take money in gas and time away from other things. If I wanted to buy RDR the $5 savings from buying used would easily be offset by my time and transportation costs. Not to mention I'd have to wait for it to become avalible for me to buy used. Which could take weeks if its very popular.
2) people are used to buying games a certain way but as you can see Digital continues to grow year over year while physical continues to die off. As consumers get used to purchasing digital they will more and more switch over. Just like it took time for physical to die off on pc it will take time on console. We've already established that used games are within $5 of new releases of the same title , so someone is going to be waiting to buy a game anyway for stock and price to come down. They can also simply wait and buy a digital game when its on sale
3)people who are on isp's with data caps can just buy the disc based sku . I believe over 50% of gamers now buy digital so why should they be saddled with an optical drive ? If I can get a 1x without the optical drive and they can give me a device half the size or even 2/3rds the size I would be estatic. Someone who wants to buy discs can get the bigger more expensive version. or I would take a device the same price with more storage over the disc drive.
With a digital only sku those who want to buy digital wont be saddled with physical constraints and will benfit from not having it
Why do all your references to buying discs consist of GameStop?? You can buy online, used and new. As for "We've already established that used games are within $5 of new releases of the same title," I don't think that's been established. A lot depends on the game, with some second hand prices crashing. As for point three, the question is what the target market of the cheapest gamers is most interested in. Those who are happy with the price of the standard disc XB1 are likely already owners. The question becomes one of what makes the cheapest machine to reach a lower-tier market, including operating costs, and if a discless SKU is actually the best solution for that market. If, as Jay says, the people interested in a super cheap box are mostly going to be borrowing friends games or buying old titles for $5 a pop on eBay or otherwise wanting discs (buy a new game and resell it afterwards for a total $10 cost, say), then a discless SKU isn't going to satisfy them and MS would be better off putting their cheapest hardware in with the cheapest drive, like a standard BRD top-loader perhaps.
Borrowing games and buying and reselling disc games can result in incredibly cheap operating costs, like $30-40 a year. It all depends on what games you want to play and where the best prices for those games lie. Importantly, there's no 'one size fits all' solution. It can't be argued that download is cheaper - you can only present some situations where download is cheaper, while there'll be situations where it isn't. The value of a discless SKU to the lowest tier needs some decent data, as Jay requests, to see what purchasing habits these gamers have.
Borrowing games and buying and reselling disc games can result in incredibly cheap operating costs, like $30-40 a year. It all depends on what games you want to play and where the best prices for those games lie. Importantly, there's no 'one size fits all' solution. It can't be argued that download is cheaper - you can only present some situations where download is cheaper, while there'll be situations where it isn't. The value of a discless SKU to the lowest tier needs some decent data, as Jay requests, to see what purchasing habits these gamers have.
Neither, Sony owns this gen and so quite some parameters on the next one.
Msft mostly made all the wrong choices this gen or close, only to back pedal, last example buying studios /getting more involved in the content creation department. They thoug h they had enough mindshare to go without it, they had at the beginning of this gen, they have no longer that.
As for what the "question" what the people wanted it is pretty easy to answer not the xbox One X. The xb1 S came a little to reset the playing field with the more powerful PS4 and MSFT did a pretty good job at stealing its thunder, also at working on improvements that their primary users base do not benefit from. They completely turned they back the "std" Xbox they made it more the underdog than Sony could have.
They should let it be and preprare next -gen (as well at taking a good look at all their massive failures on many markets). I don't know if such a big company can be changed but it should change.
wtf you can't be serious.
500% growth since Satya took over. If this is massive failure, sign me up. i could only wish their stock was the same price I paid when Balmer was around.
Trading blows with Apple for most profitable company in the world, but they don't have their entire revenue stream in a single device.
right.. non stop failures everywhere and they can't learn from it. Please let me know when they go belly up next week.
My point is that would not be a positive to a discless console.
A discless console has no more positives or negatives to the disc'd variety, because the digital offering is literally identical. That includes, ea access and game pass also.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
To you it may not be a positive, but for many of us it is. I have absolutely zero use for a disk. I don't want to have to drive somewhere to get a disk. I don't want to pay more for a disk. I don't want to have to wait for a disk to arrive in the mail. I don't want to pay extra for a disk drive. I don't want the extra bulk of a disk in my machine.
Physical distribution and disk drives are a big negative to me and many like me.
Now that isn't to discount that many people still like and prefer disks, that's fine. But that number is shrinking every day as more and more people move to the convenience of digital distribution in a physical media-less world.
PC moving to digital only was a huge boon. Software/games are now cheaper and easier to get, in general. Access to software is improved for more people. I live in a smallish city, my access to smaller titles is much better now that games are digital than before when they were physical.
I love Japanese games and more Japanese PC games are available now in more genres than ever before, again purely due to digital distribution. I'm not just talking about the big AAA titles, but the AA and smaller indie titles. Where before, physical distribution and thus channel rights, distribution partners, export/import laws, etc. were all barriers to them getting released in the US, now it's so much easier for their games to be available to more people around the world.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
None of your hyperboles have anything to do with the removal of the drive. It's existence is based on the large market it serves, and the lack of even a second sku is based on the cost versus benefit of such device.
Is what I'm saying really just going over peoples heads, which mean I'm obviously not doing a good job in explaining it even though i have tried many times.
Digital is not an exclusive positive to a discless sku.
It's the same positives for the standard sku.
You have a disk drive, but don't want to go to the shop, you can still buy it digital, you are not forced to buy physical.
Maybe it's so obvious people think I'm arguing something different?
Think me trying to explain that the positives of digital is the same for all sku's is over, as I'm obviously only going to keep repeating it and clog up this thread.
Your right you can trade in online. However that introduces even more time to the equation and more cost.
Lets look at amazon
At the time of my post RDR 2 for the xbox one is
$60 digital
$58.50 new
$51 used
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Dead-Red...1-1-spons&keywords=red+dead+redemption+2&th=1
They are offering $35 trade in credit. Seems similar to gamestop in all honesty. It looks like you save $4 right now going with amazon. Of course you need to have packaging to send your game back in and if it doesn't meet the quality level amazon wants you may get less money back or none at all and have to them go pick up your game . Oh and you still have to drive some where to drop the package off.
As for your claims about those buying the cheapest sku will be borrowing games. I don't think that holds true. I know a lot of people who will buy a system in later years and buy a handful of titles if even that many. I have a friend who just bought an xbox one x because he wants the best version of Kingdom Hearts 3 and he got gears 4 free with his console. I also bet he will keep subscribing to game pass since he likes halo / gears / forza . He will never trade in any game and hasn't since funcoland existed and he keeps all his consoles . I am sure if he could have saved another 50 bucks on the xbox one x he would have grabbed that deal.
I myself own 1 physical game on my xbox one and it was a gift from my gf at the time. If I could have saved and gotten a discless xbox one I would have. On my switch I also own only 1 physical game and that was Zelda and well I haven't bought a boxed game for pc in at least a decade.
I also don't see what the issue is on MS offering choice ? Are you afraid that less and less people will buy physical ? There is no rumor to go along with this saying that the disc skus are going away. MS is still going to have a disc version of the xbox one , they will now just have one without a disc drive.
The benefits are obvious imo for anyone who isn't tied to physical. If your sticking with digital you get a smaller sleeker console and a lower price most likely reflecting the cost savings from the disc drive , liscensing fees , shipping costs , manufacturing costs and so on.
How much does it cost to design a second sku with a new MB, new production lines, and get it pass worldwide regulatory approval for utility power and interference specs? Then all the supply chain managing the additional sku?
It's not an easy sku to add, the reasons to make this has to be more than just a slightly smaller case and a slightly lower price for a fraction of gamers who already have an xbox and don't care about trading games. It has to be about GaaS.
It's not an easy sku to add, the reasons to make this has to be more than just a slightly smaller case and a slightly lower price for a fraction of gamers who already have an xbox and don't care about trading games. It has to be about GaaS.
My post said it depends on the game and you can find examples to suit either argument. But let's run with this one. You can buy RDR2 second hand for $51. You can play it for a month. You can then sell it for...what...$40? Total cost to play the game is ~$10. Or going with those prices, you can buy new for $60, play it, then sell it for $51 for a cost of $9. That's $9 to play it now rather than waiting until RDR2 is $9 in a digital sale, if it ever drops that low. For the really hard up, this is the most economical way to game. They can also not buy new games and buy old, super discounted games. By including a drive, they can use both physical and downloads for whichever is cheapest. Excluding the drive means excluding the physical options.
I'm not arguing in favour of keeping the drive, but pointing out no-one has sufficient data to know the best course of action, empirical experience is not statistically relevant data, and a fair argument can be made for the running cost advantages of keeping the drive.