By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - DF Justifying the X1X Price Point

vivster said:

If the Switch can cost $300, the XBOX can cost $500.

Switch is a different console though. Has a screen, is able to become a handheld.. It's just a different beast. XBX didn't need to be this pricey imo especially with the PS4 pro already cheaper and probably getting a price cut much much sooner. Sure it's value for money, only if the games that come on it justify it otherwise it's a shiny console.



Around the Network

Value = utility / price. If people are not seeing how the extra price is compensated by extra utility (power, games, quality, etc) they may find the value for money is lower compared to other systems.



j.thomaz said:
Value = utility / price. If people are not seeing how the extra price is compensated by extra utility (power, games, quality, etc) they may find the value for money is lower compared to other systems.

So far, "power" is only applicable here.



kopstudent89 said:
vivster said:

If the Switch can cost $300, the XBOX can cost $500.

Switch is a different console though. Has a screen, is able to become a handheld.. It's just a different beast. XBX didn't need to be this pricey imo especially with the PS4 pro already cheaper and probably getting a price cut much much sooner. Sure it's value for money, only if the games that come on it justify it otherwise it's a shiny console.

Guarantee the games wont justify it. Sony already said it best dev's will focus on the lowest one.



By the time Xbox One X launches, it will be a generation behind in GPU tech and  it will still use that dud of a CPU that is Jaguar. Sure, from the look of the hardware there is quite a bit in the the machine. Though MS could have pushed it an extra mile and skipped Polaris entirely and gone for a cheaper, more efficient machine.

If anything, MS have missed the boat. Should they have waited it a bit longer and gone for a 2018 launch. They could have used the latest tech; Zen, Vega plus GDDR6 and launched Xbox One X as a next generation console. And they would have had the jump on Sony on the tech front.

But meh.. like the PS Pro, they've made a console just to play 4K. And baseline at that, at 30fps; because the GPU just isn't strong enough (plus the CPU holding it back). One of the reasons why it too has checker-boarding, which we will see a lot third party games use - that can't hit that 4k goal.



Around the Network
torok said:
JRPGfan said:


Also kinda crazy to think Nintendo charges like 9 times as much as PS4/XB1 do for performance on their system.

By doing a simple teraflops/price math you're ignoring all aspects of the devices. It's a rough approximation of a rough approximation. The Switch is a mobile device, so it has a different thermal/power consumption requirement. It also packs a LCD touch screen and other components that add to the cost.

I could use the same math to say how worse the performace/price ratio of a Galaxy S8 is when compared to a GTX 1070. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Isnt everyone saying the switch is a console though? Im compairing performance levels and what you pay for them, for all 3 consoles.

Yes I know the switch has other parts the up the costs of the unit.  None the less, your still paying like 9 times as much pr Tflop on the nintendo side.

A galaxy S8 is a phone, a GTX1070 is a graphics card, not really apples to apples.

On the other hand, the switch, PS4 and XB1 are all consoles, so doing compairsons between them seems fair enough.



It's too expensive especially in comparison to the competition. The xbox one, xbox one x, PS4 and PS4 pro will play the same games except for exclusives but there will be no exclusives just for the upgraded consoles. You can't really justify the price of something that won't fully be utilized.



JRPGfan said:
torok said:

By doing a simple teraflops/price math you're ignoring all aspects of the devices. It's a rough approximation of a rough approximation. The Switch is a mobile device, so it has a different thermal/power consumption requirement. It also packs a LCD touch screen and other components that add to the cost.

I could use the same math to say how worse the performace/price ratio of a Galaxy S8 is when compared to a GTX 1070. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Isnt everyone saying the switch is a console though? Im compairing performance levels and what you pay for them, for all 3 consoles.

Yes I know the switch has other parts the up the costs of the unit.  None the less, your still paying like 9 times as much pr Tflop on the nintendo side.

A galaxy S8 is a phone, a GTX1070 is a graphics card, not really apples to apples.

On the other hand, the switch, PS4 and XB1 are all consoles, so doing compairsons between them seems fair enough.

Comparisons are always fine.  But, you have to add in everything if you are going to do that. 

The Switch, to me, isn't worth $299.  I'll probably get one when it's $199.  However, I can still see where people find the value in it.  For one, you have Nintendo's full efforts being put into it.  No more stretching 1st party games between two systems.  As far as HW is concerned, it's much weaker than a OG PS4/XBO, but it is also portable, so it has to be weaker. People are including in their concept of value the tiny, but powerful mobile chipset, touchscreen, the fan, the controllers w/ HD rumble, and the batteries that power it all.  It also comes with the dock, though, that's probably pretty cheap to make.

For PS4, you are getting good HW, but also at a good price.  This also comes with Sony's full efforts on getting out quality 1st party games, as well as great AAA 3rd party support.  And as icing on the cake, you have great Japanese and indie support.

For XBO/X, it has become apparent to even casual observers that MS has put less emphasis on the Xbox brand, at least when it comes to selling Xbox HW.  It's almost become a redundancy to the console market.  At the beginning of the gen they were announcing big AAA exclusives, timed or true.  This E3 they mostly announced Indie exclusives, timed or true.  With a few AAA multiplats that seemingly didn't even have exclusive content to Xbox.  And all of those games are going to be on PC, anyway.  Then, a few of the big AAA exclusives that MS kept showcasing were cancelled.  Other than decent 3rd party support, or if you can't stand the though of playing Halo, GeOW, or Forza on PC, than there is little reason to pick one up.



I'm fine with this generation lasting till 2020+



DonFerrari said:

The work more complaint is valid, but you know that there were greedy complaints as well.

And just may have read wrong, but how does X1S have on its worst case scenario a bandwidth that is equal to PS4Pro, have the X1S changed all its memory structure or you were talking about X1X?

The Crossbar could limit things. It might not either. Which is why we need more information.

thismeintiel said:
Pemalite said:

GDDR6 will certainly have the price advantage.
Micron elaborated on it's plans for that technology too.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11543/micron-discusses-gddr5x-gddr6-and-gddr5

Then, GDDR6 it is.  And they are aiming for twice the speed of GDDR5, so that should get the job done.

That is the first iteration of GDDR6 as well. Don't be surprised if you see larger speeds and densities once they start making GDDR6 chips at say... 7nm.
GDDR5 saw massive improvements over it's life.

hinch said:

Though MS could have pushed it an extra mile and skipped Polaris entirely and gone for a cheaper, more efficient machine.

We don't know if the Xbox One X is using Polaris. It could be an older design that takes on some "Polaris Enhancements".

Just like how the Playstation 4 Pro isn't using Vega, but takes on some "Vega Enhancements" such as packed math.






--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--