By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, the leading rumor so far is that XSX is around 11-12 tflop while PS5 is around 9-10 tflop on GPU, both with about the same CPU and RAM, though there are some rumors that the PS5 has a faster SSD than XSX, which will mean faster load times on PS5. But regardless of specs, I'm hoping that neither costs more than $500. I'm willing to pay $500 for XSX on launch, but if it is more than that I might go with PS5 first instead, assuming PS5 is $500 or less. Lockhart/Series S is a possibility for me if it has a disc drive version and has high enough specs for the same graphics settings as Series X, only at 1080p (since I don't own a 4K monitor yet), but if it is digital only as rumored it is not an option for me. 

Yeah current rumors have the PS5 at 9.2TF and 14Gbs gddr6 with a faster SSD than the Series X but the Series X at 12tf and 16gb gddr6 with a slower SSD. Hopefully MS is competitive in prising with the Series X. If rumors are true they should avoid being more than $50 more.

If this recent info about the consoles hardware is accurate, I'd imagine you're still going to see $100 gap between PS5 and XBSX. Whether that's $399 vs $499 or $499 vs $599.

How do you market the speed of the console when it comes to static numbers? People will see 8 cores vs 8 cores, and 9TF vs 12TF. They are going to want to see a reasonable price difference because of that TF gap.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
shikamaru317 said:

5th Annual Xbox Empire Game of the Year Awards- 2019

It's that time of year again folks, time to crown XBE's favorite games of the year. 

Rules

1. Any game that released on Xbox One in 2019 is eligible for voting, even if it released on another platform on a previous year, except for remasters (full remakes like Res 2 Remake are ok) 

2. Vote for as many or as few categories as you feel like, if you didn't play any games in a category this year don't feel pressured to make up a vote.

3. Voting ends on December 31

Ballot 

Category Top Pick Runner-Up
Best Shooter Borderlands 3 Gears 5
Best Action/Action-Adventure Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice Control
Best RPG Code Vein Tales Of Vesperia: Definitive Edition
Best Platformer Gunvolt Chronicles: Luminous Avenger iX Bloodstained: Ritual Of The Night
Best Fighter Dead or Alive 6  
Best Horror Resident Evil 2 (2019)  
Best Sports/Racing F1 2019  
Best Soundtrack River City Girls Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
Best Art Design River City Girls Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
Best Graphics Gears 5 Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
Best Male Performance    
Best Female Performance    
Best Moment/Sequence in a Video Game Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice - Final Boss Battle Control - Ashtray Maze
Best Singleplayer Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice Code Vein
Best Multiplayer Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) Apex Legends
Best Story Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice Code Vein
Best Games With Gold Release List Celeste Bloodstained: Curse Of The Moon
Best Backwards Compatibility Release List    
Best Indie    
Best Xbox Console Exclusive Natsuki Chronicles  Gears 5
Overall Xbox Game of the Year Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice Code Vein
Most Anticipated 2020 Multiplat Tales Of Arise Doom Eternal
Most Anticipated 2020 Xbox Console Exclusive Ori And The Will Of The Wisps Halo Infinite

Previous Year Results

2018

2017

2016

2015



 

EricHiggin said:
jason1637 said:

Yeah current rumors have the PS5 at 9.2TF and 14Gbs gddr6 with a faster SSD than the Series X but the Series X at 12tf and 16gb gddr6 with a slower SSD. Hopefully MS is competitive in prising with the Series X. If rumors are true they should avoid being more than $50 more.

If this recent info about the consoles hardware is accurate, I'd imagine you're still going to see $100 gap between PS5 and XBSX. Whether that's $399 vs $499 or $499 vs $599.

How do you market the speed of the console when it comes to static numbers? People will see 8 cores vs 8 cores, and 9TF vs 12TF. They are going to want to see a reasonable price difference because of that TF gap.

I think that MS would be foolish to allow a $100 gap, even if they do have the more powerful system. They should subsidize and aim for $50 more than PS5 at most imo. 



ironmanDX said:
shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, the leading rumor so far is that XSX is around 11-12 tflop while PS5 is around 9-10 tflop on GPU, both with about the same CPU and RAM, though there are some rumors that the PS5 has a faster SSD than XSX, which will mean faster load times on PS5. But regardless of specs, I'm hoping that neither costs more than $500. I'm willing to pay $500 for XSX on launch, but if it is more than that I might go with PS5 first instead, assuming PS5 is $500 or less. Lockhart/Series S is a possibility for me if it has a disc drive version and has high enough specs for the same graphics settings as Series X, only at 1080p (since I don't own a 4K monitor yet), but if it is digital only as rumored it is not an option for me. 

I'm hoping for 500 also. Hopefully that translates to 599 Australian dollars but more likely 650-750. A man can dream. 

I have a 4k TV but I haven't got a monitor either. Which is the way I prefer to play tbh.

If you have a Gamepass sub that runs past sx launch period, it may work out better to still get the xsx as you'll have halo and Forza to play day one. 

Yeah, I game in my bedroom and there really isn't room in here for a 4K tv (which start at about 40 inches), so I game and watch tv at night on my 21 inch 1080p monitor currently. Problem is that upgrading to a 4K monitor that has the features I want like HDR 10 and AMD's Freesync (which both next-gen consoles are expected to be compatible with) is quite expensive, like $400 currently. That is alot to spend when I also want to get both next-gen consoles by Holiday 2021, I'd end up spending like $1200-1300 in total. So yeah, if Series S/Lockhart has a disc-drive option it might be worth it to me to buy it Holiday 2020 for like $350, buy PS5 Holiday 2021 (which hopefully will have it's first price cut in a black friday deal), and then later in the gen upgrade to a 4K monitor and the mid-gen upgrade Xbox. So I'm just taking a wait and see approach until Series S is announced and the pricing for all 3 systems is announced. 



shikamaru317 said:
EricHiggin said:

If this recent info about the consoles hardware is accurate, I'd imagine you're still going to see $100 gap between PS5 and XBSX. Whether that's $399 vs $499 or $499 vs $599.

How do you market the speed of the console when it comes to static numbers? People will see 8 cores vs 8 cores, and 9TF vs 12TF. They are going to want to see a reasonable price difference because of that TF gap.

I think that MS would be foolish to allow a $100 gap, even if they do have the more powerful system. They should subsidize and aim for $50 more than PS5 at most imo. 

To be fair, even at $499, such a hypothetical PS5 with a 300mm2 7nm APU and NVMe SSD is likely still going to be subsidized to some extent, and Phil's comments in an Eurogamer interview talking about "not sacrificing performance for price" and learning the lesson of "not releasing the weaker console for $100 more" - notice the specific choice of words - does make me believe we're going to see a more expensive launch price for the Series X than the competition.

Of course, Prisoner's dilemma is a thing, and it's not impossible that MS kickstarts a price war even though it would be in their best interests that both the PS5 and the Series X remain at $499 and $599 respectively, and not $399 and $499 with heavier losses.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
haxxiy said:
shikamaru317 said:

I think that MS would be foolish to allow a $100 gap, even if they do have the more powerful system. They should subsidize and aim for $50 more than PS5 at most imo. 

To be fair, even at $499, such a hypothetical PS5 with a 300mm2 7nm APU and NVMe SSD is likely still going to be subsidized to some extent, and Phil's comments in an Eurogamer interview talking about "not sacrificing performance for price" and learning the lesson of "not releasing the weaker console for $100 more" - notice the specific choice of words - does make me believe we're going to see a more expensive launch price for the Series X than the competition.

Of course, Prisoner's dilemma is a thing, and it's not impossible that MS kickstarts a price war even though it would be in their best interests that both the PS5 and the Series X remain at $499 and $599 respectively, and not $399 and $499 with heavier losses.

I don't think that subsidizing hardware hurts that much in the grand scheme of things. PS3 was selling at like a $200+ loss early gen, but they still made a profit on the gen overall. MS/Sony can make back anything they lose by subsidizing hardware with accessory and game sales. Controllers cost like $20 or less to manufacture, yet they sell them for $60, play and charge kits cost like $10 to make, but they sell them for $25, etc. Console digital sales continue to increase and MS/Sony get a cut on the sale of all 3rd party digital games on their system, not to mention the full value on their 1st party digital games. MS could easily afford a $100 subsidy early gen; so if XSX costs $600 to manufacture and ship, sell it for $500. Even a $150 subsidy should be within the realm of possibility for them.

I think that going above $500 for either PS5 or XSX would be a mistake, and I think that MS allowing anything more than a $50 price gap between PS5 and XSX would be a mistake when XSX is only about 20% more powerful yet has a slower SSD according to leaks.  



shikamaru317 said:
EricHiggin said:

If this recent info about the consoles hardware is accurate, I'd imagine you're still going to see $100 gap between PS5 and XBSX. Whether that's $399 vs $499 or $499 vs $599.

How do you market the speed of the console when it comes to static numbers? People will see 8 cores vs 8 cores, and 9TF vs 12TF. They are going to want to see a reasonable price difference because of that TF gap.

I think that MS would be foolish to allow a $100 gap, even if they do have the more powerful system. They should subsidize and aim for $50 more than PS5 at most imo. 

haxxiy said:
shikamaru317 said:

I think that MS would be foolish to allow a $100 gap, even if they do have the more powerful system. They should subsidize and aim for $50 more than PS5 at most imo. 

To be fair, even at $499, such a hypothetical PS5 with a 300mm2 7nm APU and NVMe SSD is likely still going to be subsidized to some extent, and Phil's comments in an Eurogamer interview talking about "not sacrificing performance for price" and learning the lesson of "not releasing the weaker console for $100 more" - notice the specific choice of words - does make me believe we're going to see a more expensive launch price for the Series X than the competition.

Of course, Prisoner's dilemma is a thing, and it's not impossible that MS kickstarts a price war even though it would be in their best interests that both the PS5 and the Series X remain at $499 and $599 respectively, and not $399 and $499 with heavier losses.

shikamaru317 said:
haxxiy said:

To be fair, even at $499, such a hypothetical PS5 with a 300mm2 7nm APU and NVMe SSD is likely still going to be subsidized to some extent, and Phil's comments in an Eurogamer interview talking about "not sacrificing performance for price" and learning the lesson of "not releasing the weaker console for $100 more" - notice the specific choice of words - does make me believe we're going to see a more expensive launch price for the Series X than the competition.

Of course, Prisoner's dilemma is a thing, and it's not impossible that MS kickstarts a price war even though it would be in their best interests that both the PS5 and the Series X remain at $499 and $599 respectively, and not $399 and $499 with heavier losses.

I don't think that subsidizing hardware hurts that much in the grand scheme of things. PS3 was selling at like a $200+ loss early gen, but they still made a profit on the gen overall. MS/Sony can make back anything they lose by subsidizing hardware with accessory and game sales. Controllers cost like $20 or less to manufacture, yet they sell them for $60, play and charge kits cost like $10 to make, but they sell them for $25, etc. Console digital sales continue to increase and MS/Sony get a cut on the sale of all 3rd party digital games on their system, not to mention the full value on their 1st party digital games. MS could easily afford a $100 subsidy early gen; so if XSX costs $600 to manufacture and ship, sell it for $500. Even a $150 subsidy should be within the realm of possibility for them.

I think that going above $500 for either PS5 or XSX would be a mistake, and I think that MS allowing anything more than a $50 price gap between PS5 and XSX would be a mistake when XSX is only about 20% more powerful yet has a slower SSD according to leaks.  

Basically the more expensive PS5 is, the better it is for XBSX. Not only for comparison, but for tactics. If MS is willing to budge on price, it makes more sense to do so if it's only $100 more. If XBSX is a $599 monster, and PS5 lands at $399, then choices are going to need to be made, if they still can be. Does or can MS just subsidize $100, and is that on top of a subsidy already? Does XBSX drop only $50 or stay put, while 'XBSY' drops at $299 or $399 to corner PS5?

If Lockhart is going to happen, and if it's Pro to XB1X level performance, then they have little reason to compete with PS on the high end. MS would likely want to leave the price high because it's all about bragging rights at that point. 'We have the most powerful console, which also costs the most, because it's so darn powerful, so how do you like that PS?' This would be a worthy marketing tactic in this scenario. The Trump approach if you will. No reason to dumb down your 'monster' console to try and compete with PS5. Let people choose whether they want the cheaper, mid, or expensive console, and hope they choose less and more, which then benefits you, and not PS.

It depends a lot of if Lockhart is real and could happen, and if PS isn't going to follow suit and stick with tradition. Just throwing a third console into the mix muddies the waters enough to where the traditional tactics will no longer be enough. A $599 XBSX is totally doable with a $499 PS5 and $299-$399 'XBSY'.

Then again, what if there's just two consoles, and they're both $599? Than what?



shikamaru317 said:

Category Top Pick Runner-Up
Best Shooter Gears 5 Metro Exodus
Best Action/Action-Adventure Crackdown 3
Best RPG
Best Platformer
Best Fighter DOA 6
Best Horror RE2 Remake
Best Sports/Racing F1 2019
Best Soundtrack DMC5
Best Art Design
Best Graphics Gears 5 Metro Exodus
Best Male Performance
Best Female Performance Laura Bailey (Kait - Gears 5)
Best Moment/Sequence in a Video Game
Best Singleplayer RE2 Remake Gears 5
Best Multiplayer DOA 6
Best Story
Best Games With Gold Release List Celeste Inside
Best Backwards Compatibility Release List KOF XIII Ninja Gaiden 2
Best Indie Blazing Chrome Untitled Goose Game
Best Xbox Console Exclusive Gears 5 Crackdown 3
Overall Xbox Game of the Year RE2 Remake Gears 5
Most Anticipated 2020 Multiplat RE3 Remake Cyberpunk 2077
Most Anticipated 2020 Xbox Console Exclusive Ori And the Will of the Wisps Halo Infinite



EricHiggin said:

Then again, what if there's just two consoles, and they're both $599? Than what?

Time to get... 2 new jobs? 



I personally just can’t see $600 happening. MS and Sony know that gamers are highly resistant to price increases, it’s why the price of AAA games has stayed at $60 for like 15 years, when everything else from food to movies to utilities has gone up by 30%+ in that same time frame, publishers know that they would face extreme backlash if they increased to $70 or $80. The vast majority of console gamers will not spend $600 on a console, even $500 is too much for most of them.