Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Leaked Lockhart specs

Conina said:
Nautilus said:

I don't agree. Given that graphics won't receive THAT much of an upgrade, and even some 8th gen games will look as good as a 9th gen game(or maybe even better), alongside many games being crossgen, people will just stick to their XOne or PS4 if MS brings nothing enticing to the table regarding their 9th gen consoles.

Most of the PS4 and XBO users still have the base models, NOT the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X.

For them even the Lockhart would be a generational leap with much better graphics, fast loading times and access to all new games (except the Sony and nintendo exclusives).

Even after Pro and X launched 80% of the sales kept being the baseline.



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

Around the Network
Conina said:
Nautilus said:

I don't agree. Given that graphics won't receive THAT much of an upgrade, and even some 8th gen games will look as good as a 9th gen game(or maybe even better), alongside many games being crossgen, people will just stick to their XOne or PS4 if MS brings nothing enticing to the table regarding their 9th gen consoles.

Most of the PS4 and XBO users still have the base models, NOT the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X.

For them even the Lockhart would be a generational leap with much better graphics, fast loading times and access to all new games (except the Sony and nintendo exclusives).

But will they care, with Lockhart bringing almost nothing new to the table? And that apparently includes exclusive games too.

Thats the point. Without innovation and games, the sales will be similar to the PS4 Pro and X.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
Conina said:

Most of the PS4 and XBO users still have the base models, NOT the PS4 Pro or the Xbox One X.

For them even the Lockhart would be a generational leap with much better graphics, fast loading times and access to all new games (except the Sony and nintendo exclusives).

But will they care, with Lockhart bringing almost nothing new to the table? And that apparently includes exclusive games too.

Thats the point. Without innovation and games, the sales will be similar to the PS4 Pro and X.

It would bring the ability to play all games of the 9th gen for a cheaper entry price.



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

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

But will they care, with Lockhart bringing almost nothing new to the table? And that apparently includes exclusive games too.

Thats the point. Without innovation and games, the sales will be similar to the PS4 Pro and X.

It would bring the ability to play all games of the 9th gen for a cheaper entry price.

But when most games will be crossgen, including MS own first party games, will it matter?



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

It would bring the ability to play all games of the 9th gen for a cheaper entry price.

But when most games will be crossgen, including MS own first party games, will it matter?

For the first 2 years crossgen is the norm anyway, and sure people won`t replace their X1X for Series S on launch, but people that have regular X may do it, and then 2 years after the release there will be people that will look at the only cheap option for 9th gen games and buy Series S.



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

But when most games will be crossgen, including MS own first party games, will it matter?

For the first 2 years crossgen is the norm anyway, and sure people won`t replace their X1X for Series S on launch, but people that have regular X may do it, and then 2 years after the release there will be people that will look at the only cheap option for 9th gen games and buy Series S.

Well, I don't agree, but I concede that your point has some validation.

I still think that Lockhart is a mistake, only because of MS "all our games is crossgen" policy, but we will see.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

One year, not two years



A gimped SKU has never worked out well in the past, but the circumstances would be different this time around, so we need more information, especially regarding pricing.

What I will say, though, is that Microsoft better not run a sandwich pricing strategy for their own sake. If they come out with "XSX will cost more than the PS5, but Lockhart is cheaper than the PS5", it's not going to bode well. Early adopters don't want gimped, so the actual comparisons will always be PS5 vs. XSX, and the XSX doesn't have a big enough performance advantage to really justify a higher price.

If XSX costs the same as the PS5 while Lockhart is merely a (much) cheaper option, then that could turn out okay. Still leaves the question if console gamers properly understand the scaling of graphics, because if they did, they'd be PC gamers. If they don't, then Lockhart will become known for holding back next gen graphics which is a bad narrative for Microsoft and in turn drives people towards the PS5 where people know what they'll get.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

If it's $200 cheaper than XSX or PS5 and not the giant sized monstrosity that both are, I can see it doing reasonably well.

I think the Switch 2 could achieve Lockhart of performance or better as well without too much fuss.



Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

For the first 2 years crossgen is the norm anyway, and sure people won`t replace their X1X for Series S on launch, but people that have regular X may do it, and then 2 years after the release there will be people that will look at the only cheap option for 9th gen games and buy Series S.

Well, I don't agree, but I concede that your point has some validation.

I still think that Lockhart is a mistake, only because of MS "all our games is crossgen" policy, but we will see.

I to think that Lockhart is more probably a mistake, but for other reasons.

RolStoppable said:
A gimped SKU has never worked out well in the past, but the circumstances would be different this time around, so we need more information, especially regarding pricing.

What I will say, though, is that Microsoft better not run a sandwich pricing strategy for their own sake. If they come out with "XSX will cost more than the PS5, but Lockhart is cheaper than the PS5", it's not going to bode well. Early adopters don't want gimped, so the actual comparisons will always be PS5 vs. XSX, and the XSX doesn't have a big enough performance advantage to really justify a higher price.

If XSX costs the same as the PS5 while Lockhart is merely a (much) cheaper option, then that could turn out okay. Still leaves the question if console gamers properly understand the scaling of graphics, because if they did, they'd be PC gamers. If they don't, then Lockhart will become known for holding back next gen graphics which is a bad narrative for Microsoft and in turn drives people towards the PS5 where people know what they'll get.

Basically what I think. And that was before PS5 without disc. Now that Sony revealed it a possible scenario that would be a nightmare to MS would be PS5 without disc (heavier subside) 399 and regular PS5 (break even) 499, probably most will buy the disc one anyway but that way they kept mass market price point.

Let`s say MS needs to have a cheaper system to market, with PS5 without disc being same power as the regular one then Series S would need to be no more than 299 to justify its price and then their premium one since is stronger than PS5 they decide to make 599 to make profit. In that scenario PS5 would reign supreme (even if Series X is 549 it would be hard for MS). Because that way regular customer would think well for only 100 more (Series S to without disc PS5) I get three times more power, and on the other hand (PS5 with disc versus Series X) why would I pay 100 more for just 20% power difference?

I`m quite curious to see what will be the price point of all systems to better guess what will be the impact on initial sales and reception.



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