Forums - Gaming Discussion - In your mind, what will the Xbox SX conference have to do to beat the PS5 conference?

Tagged games:

Answer the damned question!

Fantastic games 65 51.18%
 
100% backwards compatible with every Xbox 3 2.36%
 
VR Support 3 2.36%
 
Shockingly low price 21 16.54%
 
There's NOTHING they can do 31 24.41%
 
Other (please explain) 4 3.15%
 
Total:127
chakkra said:
eva01beserk said:

Look at the steam monthly player stats for it.

https://steamcharts.com/app/1172620#1m

Hardly any increase in players and after the first week when it hit its peak it never got close again. The game being in the top 5 of a sale of old games does not mean anything. Thouse are games that where not even selling anymore. 

Like I said before, People are jumping to conclusions already. Give it more time before trying to own people with incomplete data. This game could see a new breath of life or it could be a fizzle. Just have to wait a bit to find out. 

Still not enough time?

Its looking promising. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
Wman1996 said:
I ultimately think a console's must-own value tends to be the software itself. However, a cheap price would put Microsoft in a great spot. Imagine the rumored Lockhart being $199.99 and the Xbox Series X only $399.99. Crazy low prices and Sony would panic. They'd either have to price that low as well and take an even bigger hit than they probably already will with profit, or price higher and risk losing a lot of market share.

A $199 next gen console doesn't make a whole lot of sense tbh. First of all it would seriously fragment the Xbox install base with a huge performance gap between both platforms. Developers won't be able to really tap into those 12Tflops of the Series X and "code to the metal" as everything has to run on a 4TB Lockhart too.

Secondly, people expect a next gen console to be around 399 - 499, so why make it 200? Everybody is familiar with the concept of buyers remorse and "you get what you pay for." I mean there's a reason why people aren't buying $100 budget phones for example, even if they are almost as good as the $600 ones. Products can actually be too cheap for their own good and I would definitely feel underwhelmed if I could buy a next gen console, that's supposed to give me years of entertainment, for the price of one good night of drinking or 3 retail games. 



For me, announce that BC will also increase games resolution and frame rate WITHOUT the need of a developer patch.
Like being able to play GTA4, Mass effect trilogy, Dragon Age origins and others on launch day at 1080 60fps.
I doubt it will happen but it would be a game changer for me.



For me, they'd have to show numerous totally new games that I would find more interesting than Sony's exclusives from the past few years and the future. I doubt it's going to happen.



"Buy 2-year Xbox game pass (monthly or upfront) and get Xbox Series S for free". And boom ... you have a successful console. Or $149 upfront + 2-year game pass gets you, Series X. If they do something like that, I'm buying XBox this year.

Last edited by Kristof81 - on 03 July 2020

Around the Network

-Halo Infinite gameplay demo.
- Reveal Playground RPG
- Reveal Initiative IP
- Reveal Obsidian IP
- Flight SIM trailer/release date
- Forza 8 reveal
- Forza Horizon trailer (no biggie if not)
- Game Pass big game announcements
- Compulsion game announcement
- Double Fine announcement
- Surprise A-AA announcement from XGS publishing



 

 

goopy20 said:
Wman1996 said:
I ultimately think a console's must-own value tends to be the software itself. However, a cheap price would put Microsoft in a great spot. Imagine the rumored Lockhart being $199.99 and the Xbox Series X only $399.99. Crazy low prices and Sony would panic. They'd either have to price that low as well and take an even bigger hit than they probably already will with profit, or price higher and risk losing a lot of market share.

A $199 next gen console doesn't make a whole lot of sense tbh. First of all it would seriously fragment the Xbox install base with a huge performance gap between both platforms. Developers won't be able to really tap into those 12Tflops of the Series X and "code to the metal" as everything has to run on a 4TB Lockhart too.

Secondly, people expect a next gen console to be around 399 - 499, so why make it 200? Everybody is familiar with the concept of buyers remorse and "you get what you pay for." I mean there's a reason why people aren't buying $100 budget phones for example, even if they are almost as good as the $600 ones. Products can actually be too cheap for their own good and I would definitely feel underwhelmed if I could buy a next gen console, that's supposed to give me years of entertainment, for the price of one good night of drinking or 3 retail games. 

You or I can’t speak for the casuals. They think different then us. The ones who just play the games and buy on price. Especially in a global recession brought on by a pandemic I think many would be interested in a entry level next gen machine. And if you want to upgrade you trade it in. 

Let it fragment the install base. So long as development is optimized for each console it makes no difference. Leave your performance gap comments at the door because at this stage in the game it’s FUD. 

Is this all just a smokescreen for concern that Lockhart will put a dent in PS market share in less developed regions of the world, not just in NA?



 

 

sales2099 said:
eva01beserk said:

I was to young to care at all about rare in the 90's. and while I did like conker I dint even know or cared who made it.

Im sure that there are plenty of people who do hate it cuz it was bought by MS or because they hate multyplayer.

Depends of what you mean by genre. If games as a service is considered a genre, then definetly I hate that.

I will admit that I am pessimistic, not because is rare or MS, because this type of game is what I believe could be the next big thing that could potentially damage gaming for all as companies chase this baren products wich will slowly drip content and hopefully be good in the future.

Got it, thank you. You hate Games as a Service. To be fair it’s a double edged sword. The game opens light and gets better year after year. The pros are a more rewarding game that keeps you coming back and ultimately have more content then if it where a single package (depends on popularity to get to that level).

The cons is the early bad metacritic score and early adopters can leave rather quickly if content is too light day 1. I feel if a developer says this in advance, that it is a GaaS, then people won’t feel tricked into playing it right away. They can wait a bit and jump in when enough is added. 

For me the problem of GaaS is that I like single player games with story, and I prefer to play it in one go.

But yes there is a very good to keep GP feed, put a chapter a month and people will need to keep signed to keep playing, do that with 3 or more studios there is value for customer and viable revenue for studios.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

A $199 next gen console doesn't make a whole lot of sense tbh. First of all it would seriously fragment the Xbox install base with a huge performance gap between both platforms. Developers won't be able to really tap into those 12Tflops of the Series X and "code to the metal" as everything has to run on a 4TB Lockhart too.

Secondly, people expect a next gen console to be around 399 - 499, so why make it 200? Everybody is familiar with the concept of buyers remorse and "you get what you pay for." I mean there's a reason why people aren't buying $100 budget phones for example, even if they are almost as good as the $600 ones. Products can actually be too cheap for their own good and I would definitely feel underwhelmed if I could buy a next gen console, that's supposed to give me years of entertainment, for the price of one good night of drinking or 3 retail games. 

You or I can’t speak for the casuals. They think different then us. The ones who just play the games and buy on price. Especially in a global recession brought on by a pandemic I think many would be interested in a entry level next gen machine. And if you want to upgrade you trade it in. 

Let it fragment the install base. So long as development is optimized for each console it makes no difference. Leave your performance gap comments at the door because at this stage in the game it’s FUD. 

Is this all just a smokescreen for concern that Lockhart will put a dent in PS market share in less developed regions of the world, not just in NA?

Lockhart attached to GP plan for a 2-5 year contract with a very nice price could make a good splash and make Sony need to run after and improve PSNow or PS+ to offer cheaper PS5 and subs with games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

EnricoPallazzo said:
For me, announce that BC will also increase games resolution and frame rate WITHOUT the need of a developer patch.
Like being able to play GTA4, Mass effect trilogy, Dragon Age origins and others on launch day at 1080 60fps.
I doubt it will happen but it would be a game changer for me.

I'm pretty sure that is what both XSX and PS5 are going to do minimum (it's what XBX and PS4 pro do too)

But it's a case by case situation. Games hard-locked at 30fps will not get a jump.