MS is going to give you the option to buy the Series X on an installment plan, like companies do with phones, and yes, it's going to be a $600 console.

They technically already do that.

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-all-access?&OCID=AID2000034_SEM_SLoxQPmw

Installment plan is only available in the US and maybe a couple other countries which doesn't make the strategy based around it that great. $600 is a lot for a console. So, I hope to be surprised when the pricing is announced but I'm also starting to fear that Series X is indeed $600 especially considering that MS has Lockheart SKU for next gen as an entry device.

If they launch at $600 I expect a larger than normal drop in post launch sales.  I could see the consoles trailing the Ps4 and XBO.

The...perfect...response. LOLOLOLOLOL

I also think $599 is unlikely for both. I do think $599 for a higher tier console, that's worth way more than that when compared to PC, competing against a worthy $499 console, is a possibility. More expensive for less or the same clearly isn't acceptable. More expensive for clearly more? It won't be the lead seller, but it would sell enough. Most likely, if there's a gap, it's $399 and $499 again though.

In terms of the people who don't want a console that's too expensive for them, or who don't want multiple SKU's of different performance for many reasons, the best a $599 situation could be, is one where Lockhart exists, but is actually $399 and worth every penny. A very similar type of situation as this gen, just right out of the gate. Games made for a worthy next gen system, that perform better on the more expensive SKU, but are held back slightly because of the base system. It worked ok this gen, so no reason why it really shouldn't work next gen.

This was where I was getting my $599 for both from. If they both want to offer a massive jump like PS3 did, as long as they both had a similar price with similar worthy hardware, the sales wouldn't be as bad as some would think. They wouldn't be stellar mind you, but over time they would end up similar to how PS3 did overall. Mostly casuals would save up and 3-5 years down the road they would upgrade.

How would this impact mid gen sales though, if that takes place again? Would it be better or worse? Upgraders should have more willing buyers for their older cheaper hardware.

Is $599 a reasonable price? In general no, but if the only direct competition is also the same price, then that to a degree justifies it.

Also take into account what that would mean for a next gen Switch. If it can barely play downgraded games from a $399 launch console, what about when those next gen launch consoles are $599? 

Got the 500 points for doing the Gears 5 task was easier then I thought it would be just played some horde mode and got an achievement for it.

In which universe has a cartridge game ever cost $240 million dollars in cartridges? The 40 million Super Mario Bros. games out there wouldn't have costed 240 million dollars. Even at the highest price anyone has ever claimed for the fee Nintendo charged for N64 cartridges late in the 90s - $35 which also included Nintendo's licencing fees, by the way - that'd still be an initial order of over 6 million cartridges. Needless to say, there's no game back then that came anywhere close to this. Not even from Nintendo itself. And the fact most N64 games were no more than $10 - $20 than the competition points out to developer fees being lower than that on average.

Also, notice there's some 150 million active Steam accounts and, according to Steam's own hardware survey, half of them game on GTX 1060s or above. CPU-wise, 75% have four core CPUs or more. These two components alone translate to about $400 at the very least. The remainder who don't fit the mentioned specs are mostly people on laptops. While I can't say for certain the entire system will exceed $1000 for more than 50% of them, that still sound way more than "an extreme minority."

Also, it seems a bit rich to talk about "extreme backlash" (extreme again, my dude?) without evidence of what would actually happen (no one knows) while the same term could be applied, with far more evidence, to the same strategies developers are adopting to increase their profit margins, incluiding DLC, microtransactions, season passes, GAAS, etc.

600 Bones for the Series X is definitely something that can happen. The case would be if the performance over the competition justify the price. It really does not matter how much TF the Series X has over the PS5, the only thing that matter is if those extra TF show a significant difference between the 2 systems. The problem with the PS3 when it launch at 600 bones was not its price, it was the fact that the games did not look or perform better at the time of release then the 360. As developers were struggling to get the power out of the system, there were a lot of games that just performed better on the 360 then PS3 which caused gamers to have to justify paying that extra cost.

If the latest rumors are true, the Series X chip is going to be a beast. This thing is going to be huge and cost a pretty penny and MS has already shone they are not willing to subsidize cost just to gain marketshare. I believe the Series X will be 100 dollar difference between the PS5 but it will be up to MS to show the performance difference and have the right game line up at launch to justify the price or Sony probably will kill it. If there is a lockhart to coming in at 300 to 350 bones, then MS may have their mass market device but if its at 4TF compared to PS5 9.2, then I would believe it would definitely have to be 300 or below if its going to compete.

Jurassic World Evolution is pretty much all I'm playing lately. Really good park building simulator, even if it has some flaws. Some of them are easily fixable in a patch but that probably won't happen anymore. Very happy about this GwG title.