Phil Spencer Says Xbox Series X Games Aren't Being Held Back By Xbox One

[DonFerrari]

zero129 said:

DonFerrari said:

Shave of cost and price is different. Look again the price I put.

I put specifics on what I expect the discless Series S to save on cost and after that gave subsiding for it so it is Series S at 299 versus XSX at 549 so it is 250 difference not 150.

And for PS5 discless I put 100 of Sony eating the cost to make it more attractive to market not that it will cost 100 less to make, that will also be like only 30 bucks or some couple dollar due to packging and shell.

Again XSS at 299 (MS losing 50 per unit), PS5 no disc 399 (100 more than Series S, but Sony taking 100 loss), PS5 with disc 499 (Initially I imagined PS5 would be at most 449, but with two models I can see they going for 499 on the disc version and losing like 50 per console like PS4 did), and XSX going for 549 (50 loss per console) and could even be 599 if they want to say they are premium and not take loss because they really want to sell XSS.

PS5 BOM versus XSX difference in estimative is 30-50 bucks (Daniel Ahmad).

Do you honestly think MS is only willing to lose 50 on Series-S vs Sony losing 100?.

In all honestly i could see a 299 "Disc" Series-S but if its all Digital too like the PS5 digital imo no way MS will only be 100 Cheaper and take a 50 lose while Sony takes a 100 lose. IF its all digital i 100% expect the system to sell for max 249. Unless they release just the Series X now in a few months release Series-S and Series-S Digital for 299 and 249. So pretty much we have XBSD@259 XBSS@299 and XBSX@499.

Why not? If MS releases Lockhart to cheap it can be seem as devaluation, plus it takes room for future pricecuts. As I said I can be wrong in all the prices I put, the real point was just to show to goopy that he was wrong on Series S costing 1/3 of Series X. And a discless version for just 40 saving is pointless, that is why I put Sony losing 100 to make the PS5 discless worthy instead of just 30-40 cheaper.