News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[Bigus Dickus]

Another point would be that a disc less sku no matter what some here may think, is fundamentally a lesser product than the sku with a optical drive. So a price parity with the PS4 could still be considered to expensive..

Less powerful,* and no optical drive.. at the same price.

*To be determined..

You may not be a kinect fan, but many are and leaving it out renders a value comparison incomplete.

Perhaps there are some people out there who really care the PS4 is performing better at this early point in the generation, but I'd bet most really don't care. End results are near identical visually to most people.

The value proposition now is PS4, or add a hundred bucks to get kinect. Of course games libraries will start to become even more important over time.

A sans optical sku value proposition would be, for the same price, PS4 games or XB1 games plus kinect minus optical.

I just don't get the people saying at XB1 would have to be way cheaper to sale as well. The early sales lead is almost certainly largely driven by the price advantage. If both launched at equal price, sales may be much closer. Whether people value kinect more than optical is an unknown, but as usual the wild assumptions being thrown out surprise me.

 

[Nesh]

You may not be a kinect fan, but many are and leaving it out renders a value comparison incomplete.

Perhaps there are some people out there who really care the PS4 is performing better at this early point in the generation, but I'd bet most really don't care. End results are near identical visually to most people.

The value proposition now is PS4, or add a hundred bucks to get kinect. Of course games libraries will start to become even more important over time.

A sans optical sku value proposition would be, for the same price, PS4 games or XB1 games plus kinect minus optical.

I just don't get the people saying at XB1 would have to be way cheaper to sale as well. The early sales lead is almost certainly largely driven by the price advantage. If both launched at equal price, sales may be much closer. Whether people value kinect more than optical is an unknown, but as usual the wild assumptions being thrown out surprise me.

His point is pretty valid. Removing a standard feature to reach price parity is still a put off. People waiting for a price drop to get an XB1 because of Kinect arent necessarilly going to buy a 400euro/dollar XB1 without a disk drive even if they want Kinect. The consumer either loses a value in cash or in features. The extra cost is still there and it will depend on how that value is perceived. Kinect is not a substitude to the ability to play disks either so conclusions arent that clear cut. Otherwise you are also assuming most people prefer Kinect so much they are willing to get an XB1 that cant play physical games and BR movies

 

[-tkf-]

You may not be a kinect fan, but many are and leaving it out renders a value comparison incomplete.

Perhaps there are some people out there who really care the PS4 is performing better at this early point in the generation, but I'd bet most really don't care. End results are near identical visually to most people.

The value proposition now is PS4, or add a hundred bucks to get kinect. Of course games libraries will start to become even more important over time.

A sans optical sku value proposition would be, for the same price, PS4 games or XB1 games plus kinect minus optical.

I just don't get the people saying at XB1 would have to be way cheaper to sale as well. The early sales lead is almost certainly largely driven by the price advantage. If both launched at equal price, sales may be much closer. Whether people value kinect more than optical is an unknown, but as usual the wild assumptions being thrown out surprise me.

And for those that need Kinect 2 for their gaming it surely is an interesting possibility, i want a Kinect 2, if it wasn't included i would buy it, it's simple for me. But imho it's in no way confirmed to be important to a majority of customers, it will depend on the games.

And i am in no way convinced that the power deficit doesn't matter, i am actually pretty certain it's a bigger issue than most would expect. It's not like people like to buy the weaker version of anything.

 

[Zachriel]

Perhaps there are some people out there who really care the PS4 is performing better at this early point in the generation, but I'd bet most really don't care. End results are near identical visually to most people. The value proposition now is PS4, or add a hundred bucks to get kinect.

Completely agree with this statement. I enjoyed the first Kinect and see value in Kinect 2 so it was a contributing factor in my choice of purchase. The other was what system my friends were getting. No point in buying console A if all my friends are getting console B.

I have never understood the whole concept of winning a console war, the important thing for me is that my console of choice sells enough to get supported. If the Xbox One sold 60 million units during its lifetime versus it's rival at 100 million that would probably still be enough for it to see continued support. End result is that the overall unit sales have no impact on me as I still have games to play and people to play them against.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I have never understood the whole concept of winning a console war, the important thing for me is that my console of choice sells enough to get supported. If the Xbox One sold 60 million units during its lifetime versus it's rival at 100 million that would probably still be enough for it to see continued support.

For most of it's lifetime the PS3 lagged way behind the 360 in worldwide sales and got, for the most part, equal support in multiplatforms. Xbox One would have to fail on a Wii U scale for things to be a problem and there's little chance of that.

Like you I cared not if PS3 sold crazily worldwide, only that it sold enough for continued support.

 

[joker454]

And i am in no way convinced that the power deficit doesn't matter, i am actually pretty certain it's a bigger issue than most would expect. It's not like people like to buy the weaker version of anything.

I dunno, specs didn't seem to matter last gen. Last gen the ps3 had the weaker hardware of the two but in the end it did ok once they got their price out of the stratosphere. It was price that hurt Sony the most last gen, not their weaker console hardware. It certainly didn't matter here in this forum for example where those not so price sensitive went with ps3 regardless of it's limits. That's what they wanted and that's what they bought irregardless of specs. In the end once both last gen consoles entered the $300 space things evened out sales wise. Past gens have always had hardware differences but how often was that reflected in sales victories?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I have never understood the whole concept of winning a console war, the important thing for me is that my console of choice sells enough to get supported...

That's a tangential discussion. The rumour is MS releasing a download only box, and whether they'd entertain a Kinect free SKU. The added cost of Kinect must surely be discouraging some adopters.

For most of it's lifetime the PS3 lagged way behind the 360 in worldwide sales...

I don't want to go OT, but this isn't at all true if you think about it a moment, unless you use the term 'way behind' to mean 'somewhat'. PS3 was 10 million behind at launch, but got support because it was assumed it'd be successful as PS1 and 2 were. Sony already had a reputation worth the developers' considerable investment in trying to get something onto the PS3. After a year, it was something like 10 million PS3s to XB360's <20 million, so PS3 was at 1/3 the total install base (HD consoles, excluding Wii), outnumber 2:1 by XB360. After two years, it was PS3's 20 something million to XB360's 0 million, so PS3 was at about 40% worldwide HD consoles, some 70+% of XB360's install base, and kept climbing. So in real terms, for most of its life PS3 was in spitting distance from XB360's numbers. If PS3 had remained way behind, let's say 1/3 of XB360's numbers, it may have lost some franchises, especially given aggro in developing for it. If it dropped to a smaller fraction, like 20%, it may have suffered heavily.

Point being, PS3 isn't a reference point for how a console can still be supported when selling relatively badly, because it didn't sell relatively badly. If XB1 were to sell very poorly, it probably would end up being dropped by some titles, although the prevalence of cross-platform middleware makes that less likely than ever IMO. Hence MS doesn't want sales to be too low, and they want momentum, or else they'll pull an Ouya ('a what?', I hear you ask. That fancy new console that was DOA of course. Lots of attention and launch, fizzled out, now no-one cares. They've announced a new model. It's fallen on deaf ears). I think MS are doing just fine at the moment, but they could always do with more. Alternative models, if they appear, will be trying to get that more. I'm not convinced a driveless model will do that. I don't think savings will be significant, unless MS go lossy on it as others have suggested. MS will still lack performance and price advantage versus the competition. A lower priced model would only be good in getting existing XB fans to upgrade where $500 is too much, but $430-450 may be just enough to tempt them in.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

His point is pretty valid. Removing a standard feature to reach price parity is still a put off.

Making a value comparison but ignoring the highest tech component in either console, important enough that the whole philosophy of one was essentially built around it, is a put off.

Otherwise you are also assuming most people prefer Kinect so much they are willing to get an XB1 that cant play physical games and BR movies

I'm not assuming anything. Did you actually read my post?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't want to go OT, but this isn't at all true if you think about it a moment, unless you use the term 'way behind' to mean 'somewhat'.

Fair point, I used 'way behind' to indicate anything greater than marginal. I don't know if there's a place where worldwide sales of the two platforms are recorded accurately over each platforms lifetime but my recollection, based on North America NPD figures (accepted this aren't complete) and the occasional worldwide sale announcement was that even after the PS3 launched it consistently sold less than the 360 month on month so while the relative percentage difference reduced, the absolute difference continued to grow until a point where it began to shrink.

Whether than entirely accurate I don't know, but it felt that way.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

But imho it's [kinect] in no way confirmed to be important to a majority of customers, it will depend on the games.

Agreed. Its an unknown. We can only guess at why ps4 has sold better. I believe price is a huge part of that. We don't know what the situation would be if price were equal. But it has some importance, and you completely ignored that in your value comparison. That much is certain.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Fair point, I used 'way behind' to indicate anything greater than marginal. I don't know if there's a place where worldwide sales of the two platforms are recorded accurately over each platforms lifetime but my recollection, based on North America NPD figures (accepted this aren't complete) and the occasional worldwide sale announcement was that even after the PS3 launched it consistently sold less than the 360 month on month so while the relative percentage difference reduced, the absolute difference continued to grow until a point where it began to shrink.

Whether than entirely accurate I don't know, but it felt that way.

You must have missed a lot of the later worldwide numbers, often correlated with annual financials. PS3 sold a million or two per annum more than 360 over the generation and shrinking absolute as well as relative difference, to have pretty much equal unit sales at this point (I think PS3 is slightly ahead overall, but that's immaterial to the point). Only in the US did 360 maintain, and even extend, its lead.

 

[Rockster]

You must have missed a lot of the later worldwide numbers, often correlated with annual financials. PS3 sold a million or two per annum more than 360 over the generation and shrinking absolute as well as relative difference, to have pretty much equal unit sales at this point (I think PS3 is slightly ahead overall, but that's immaterial to the point). Only in the US did 360 maintain, and even extend, its lead.

Interesting considering it launched at a higher price point with the lesser versions of multiplatform titles early on.

 

[-tkf-]

I dunno, specs didn't seem to matter last gen. Last gen the ps3 had the weaker hardware of the two but in the end it did ok once they got their price out of the stratosphere. It was price that hurt Sony the most last gen, not their weaker console hardware. It certainly didn't matter here in this forum for example where those not so price sensitive went with ps3 regardless of it's limits. That's what they wanted and that's what they bought irregardless of specs. In the end once both last gen consoles entered the $300 space things evened out sales wise. Past gens have always had hardware differences but how often was that reflected in sales victories?

It had weaker games but to begin with it was considered anything but weak hardware.
There were plenty of excuses, first of all lead sku was the 360, then there was crappy development tools, and then we had difficult hardware. You were one if the first afaik, that made it clear to me that something else was going on. It had a pisspoor gpu..

And only thanks to extraordinary 1st party games and later excellent 3rd party developers was it able to keep up in the performance department.

Imho in the general public it was never considered weak.

I think gta5 is the first or maybe one of the few big 3rd party titles that ended up being better(?) on the ps3.

Anyway, problem for the ps3 was a high price, something the ps2 fans did not expect, Secondly so much later to market..

Now Microsoft is partly in the same boat, except this time the price difference is based on a peripheral and the cheaper competition is considered more powerful.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS3 sales really aren't on topic, so can people make sure the emphasis is on relevance to XB1 rumours, thanks. Else expect posts to disappear.

 

[joker454]

It had weaker games but to begin with it was considered anything but weak hardware.
There were plenty of excuses, first of all lead sku was the 360, then there was crappy development tools, and then we had difficult hardware. You were one if the first afaik, that made it clear to me that something else was going on. It had a pisspoor gpu..

Well here's the thing, skip to the moment when you realized that, once you understood that the ps3 had the weaker gpu. Now if you didn't own any console at the time, would that have made you go buy a 360? Or would you have still bought a ps3 because well you like the Playstation brand, or you want to play Metal Gear, or your friends are there, etc? Now apply that to the Xb1 today, assume a potential customer knows the Xb1 is technically weaker. Will that even matter, or will they still buy an Xb1 because they like the Xbox brand, or because they want to play Halo, or because their friends are there, etc. Point being that even if someone knows it's weaker doesn't mean it's a lost sale.

Now Microsoft is partly in the same boat, except this time the price difference is based on a peripheral and the cheaper competition is considered more powerful.

This brings me to the other type of people of which there are probably quite a few, those that don't know or don't believe that the Xb1 is the weaker hardware of the two. Remember that many people don't read these forums, or they don't really understand spec sheets. Further some people go purely by price, and a $500 console should be more powerful than a $400 one right? I mean it costs most so it must be! I bet there are legions of people out there that either don't know or don't believe that the Xb1 is at a technical deficit compared to the PS4 and hence that aspect of the two machines will have little affect on actually losing a sale.

Then you have to factor in those that simply don't believe that the Xb1 is weaker even when presented with all the tech details, and of course those people that don't really care. Hence why I don't see as much doom and gloom in future Xb1 sales as others do because I don't see a weaker gpu as being what people use as their primary purchase criteria, assuming they even know or believe that to begin with.

 

[Nesh]

Making a value comparison but ignoring the highest tech component in either console, important enough that the whole philosophy of one was essentially built around it, is a put off.


I'm not assuming anything. Did you actually read my post?

Nobody is ignoring anything. You are just putting too much emphasis on a feature that has proven is not enough to make the XB1 sell as much as competition at $500, an indication that the perceived value is not that big about it regardless how useful it may be. Therefore the customer obviously wants the XB1 to be sold at a cheaper price. This is how much the market values it.
Yourself said its the price difference that most likely contributed to the PS4 lead. Its a fact that PS4 has bigger demand at $400 with disk drive and no kinect 2. Regardless what MS was trying to convey and by building it around Kinect 2, its obvious it has not been succesfull at convincing the traditional market or the potential new market that the current price is ideal even if the market is interested in it. The two consoles are still perceived almost as perfect substitudes. Removing like for like features to achieve price parity would most likely be perceived as a reduction of value proposition. MS is more likely to increase the value proposition higher than the PS4 if they sell the XB1 at $400 or $450 while retaining both kinect 2 and the disk drive than removing it altogether. A much better value. Kinect would be a perceived as a more positive compromise in that price for the performance discrepancy

 

[Brad Grenz]

I'm hoping Sony will eventually support some kind of HDD migration, i.e. you connect your new replacement HDD to your PS4 with a caddy and it copies the contents to the new drive which you then swap in. The thought of downloading even 500Gb, let alone 1Tb, isn't pleasant even with a fibre connection.

Sony supported both a system to system migration utility over Ethernet and a backup utility to external storage on PS3. I would expect similar features for the PS4 eventually.

 

[Tap In]

Well here's the thing, skip to the moment when you realized that, once you understood that the ps3 had the weaker gpu. Now if you didn't own any console at the time, would that have made you go buy a 360? Or would you have still bought a ps3 because well you like the Playstation brand, or you want to play Metal Gear, or your friends are there, etc? Now apply that to the Xb1 today, assume a potential customer knows the Xb1 is technically weaker. Will that even matter, or will they still buy an Xb1 because they like the Xbox brand, or because they want to play Halo, or because their friends are there, etc. Point being that even if someone knows it's weaker doesn't mean it's a lost sale.




This brings me to the other type of people of which there are probably quite a few, those that don't know or don't believe that the Xb1 is the weaker hardware of the two. Remember that many people don't read these forums, or they don't really understand spec sheets. Further some people go purely by price, and a $500 console should be more powerful than a $400 one right? I mean it costs most so it must be! I bet there are legions of people out there that either don't know or don't believe that the Xb1 is at a technical deficit compared to the PS4 and hence that aspect of the two machines will have little affect on actually losing a sale.

Then you have to factor in those that simply don't believe that the Xb1 is weaker even when presented with all the tech details, and of course those people that don't really care. Hence why I don't see as much doom and gloom in future Xb1 sales as others do because I don't see a weaker gpu as being what people use as their primary purchase criteria, assuming they even know or believe that to begin with.

excellent points and largely ignored in many threads around here lately

 

[-tkf-]

Then you have to factor in those that simply don't believe that the Xb1 is weaker even when presented with all the tech details, and of course those people that don't really care. Hence why I don't see as much doom and gloom in future Xb1 sales as others do because I don't see a weaker gpu as being what people use as their primary purchase criteria, assuming they even know or believe that to begin with.

First of all, the difference between xbox 360 and ps3 was muddy because Sony had the best looking games thanks to 1st parties, secondly the difference was in no way as big on 3rd party titles as it is now, the xb1 is behind by fifty percent!*

Imho the xb1 will be known as the weaker console, it's simply a fact that is hard to get around. It's something that will become common knowledge just like the wii was easy to play with. Microsoft can counter with exclusives, great Kinect games and lower prices. And Sony can counteract with pretty much the same plus make the powerful claim again, but unlike the ps2 they are right.

*To be determined..

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Nobody is ignoring anything.

Erm... what? I posted a page or so ago to point out a glaring omission. I think the point was made well enough. Kinect isn't being ignored now, but it certainly was in the value comparison which prompted my post.

You are just putting too much emphasis on a feature…

What? Too much emphasis? I'm simply saying it can't be left out altogether. If that's "too much emphasis" then you too must think kinect can be ignored in any value comparison.

Regardless what MS was trying to convey and by building it around Kinect 2, its obvious it has not been succesfull...

I'd say the XB1 launch has certainly been successful. Of course MS wants more... any healthy business wants more, thus the discussion of possible sans-optical sku.

MS is more likely to increase the value proposition higher than the PS4 if they sell the XB1 at $400 or $450 while retaining both kinect 2 and the disk drive than removing it altogether. A much better value.

Well... that's like saying water is wet. Of course the exact same console at a lower price is a better value than at the higher price.

The proposition made (and I've seen many comments suggesting as much recently) is that even at price parity XB1 wouldn't sell as well (other than this thread, because "it's weaker"). In this case specifically, because PS4 with optical > pseudoPS4 without optical. But the XB1 isn't just "pseudoPS4." That may be accurate enough when describing CPU/gpu and overall architecture, where both will be relatively easy to develop for and port between, and end graphics are close enough to not matter for many. Kinect is a unique feature, core to the experience, and we really can't get even a decent handle on its importance because of the current price discrepancy. But alas, it can't just be ignored.

XB1 != pseudoPS4.
XB1 ~ pseudoPS4 + kinect.