Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Leaked Lockhart specs

DonFerrari said:
BraLoD said:

MS will be sued like never if they do this exactly.

Not really, companies have been doing it. If I'm not wrong Xbox One use similar stuff. Most powerful console, best multiplats, starting at and show the lowest price for Xbox SAD.

Car companies do the same, show their most luxury version of the car and say starting at and show the price of the barebone.

Specifically saying you get get the most powerful console for the price of the least powerful one is straight false advertisement and if MS did something like this their entire marketing team would be fired instantly.



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.

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.

XB1X owners are likely to grab XBSX asap. I don't see many of these people keeping their XB1X. How many will trade it in for XBSX and how many will go straight to the second hand market is tough to say, but this is likely where the majority of the early XBSX sales go.

XB1S owners are much less likely to buy an XBSX assuming it's $499 or higher, even at 12TF. I would assume Halo Infinite will also be miles better on the XBSX, and will likely look and run quite poorly on an XB1S. This will give many a good reason to upgrade, and instead of having to pay $399 like consumers had to for PS4 and Pro, or $499 for XB1, XB1X and XBSX, they will have the option to get Lockhart at around $299, and it should play Halo better overall than XB1X would.

Now Lockhart may suffer later into the gen like XB1S might now, but there will be a much cheaper XBSX by that point and possibly a mid gen upgrade beyond that to step up to, if you so choose. MS may focus more on getting people to buy Lockhart now and persuade to upgrade to XBSX later. Most of those earlier XBSX adopters are likely going to upgrade again as soon as they can.

Lockhart can work for MS, but they need to be very strategic about how they handle it. If they aren't careful they could botch this gen worse than last.

*Totally forgot to add this. Also depends a lot on whether or not XB1X and/or XB1S remain on shelves and what their prices are.

Last edited by EricHiggin - 6 days ago

Barozi said:
KratosLives said:

When you are sitting withing a metre or 2 of the tv gaming, the difference between 4k and 1080p isn't that noticeable. However the jump from 720 to 1080p is big. 

It depends on distance AND TV size.

Also believe it or not but there's a combination of these two where there isn't much of a difference between 720p and 1080p.

Try sitting 1 meter in front of my TV. You would easily be able to see the difference between 4k and 8k, so this grand epic 1080p would look like shit on that distance.

I tried that at a electronic store. There was no difference between them. As for gaming, you will only notice if you zoom in.p



BraLoD said:
DonFerrari said:

Not really, companies have been doing it. If I'm not wrong Xbox One use similar stuff. Most powerful console, best multiplats, starting at and show the lowest price for Xbox SAD.

Car companies do the same, show their most luxury version of the car and say starting at and show the price of the barebone.

Specifically saying you get get the most powerful console for the price of the least powerful one is straight false advertisement and if MS did something like this their entire marketing team would be fired instantly.

They will just need an asterisk or instead of saying the most powerful, they can use "the best games", "the best version of multiplats", etc... anything that get the misleading message but can't generate a suit.

Just look at the promotions and deals "up to 80% discount" and they put products that have 5% discounts and just a couple of high discounts and call a day.

EricHiggin 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.

Nautilus said:

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.

XB1X owners are likely to grab XBSX asap. I don't see many of these people keeping their XB1X. How many will trade it in for XBSX and how many will go straight to the second hand market is tough to say, but this is likely where the majority of the early XBSX sales go.

XB1S owners are much less likely to buy an XBSX assuming it's $499 or higher, even at 12TF. I would assume Halo Infinite will also be miles better on the XBSX, and will likely look and run quite poorly on an XB1S. This will give many a good reason to upgrade, and instead of having to pay $399 like consumers had to for PS4 and Pro, or $499 for XB1, XB1X and XBSX, they will have the option to get Lockhart at around $299, and it should play Halo better overall than XB1X would.

Now Lockhart may suffer later into the gen like XB1S might now, but there will be a much cheaper XBSX by that point and possibly a mid gen upgrade beyond that to step up to, if you so choose. MS may focus more on getting people to buy Lockhart now and persuade to upgrade to XBSX later. Most of those earlier XBSX adopters are likely going to upgrade again as soon as they can.

Lockhart can work for MS, but they need to be very strategic about how they handle it. If they aren't careful they could botch this gen worse than last.

*Totally forgot to add this. Also depends a lot on whether or not XB1X and/or XB1S remain on shelves and what their prices are.

Yep mostly agree.



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:
Immersiveunreality said:
With the cheaper options for PS5 and XBOXSX i do think this will be one of the more steeper priced generations if you like to buy the best versions.

If both MS and Sony were selling their consoles for break even or small loss I would be very fine with they putting a budget entry version for 399 and a premium one 999 at the start of the gen as long as they ensure all games of the gen will be workeable on the base unit. Since 999 is a lot of money I would probably hold on buying the budget and after 2 years buy the premium hoping for a discount (when considered I bought base and pro and VR in the end I got near 999 on HW)

I wouldn't pay 999 for a premium model after seeing what happened with the pro and XBox One X. For that price I expect games to take full advantage of that system, not just run the same games at native 4K and/or 60 fps. The fact that they need to be workable on the base unit lessens the hype for a more expensive better model. It's the same as buying the best $800 GPU atm, just to boast about running games at 240 fps yet (besides star citizen) not having anything to actually use your expensive GPU to the fullest.

Using myself as an example: When MS announced the XBox One S it seemed like the exact machine I had been waiting for, turning the XBox One into a desirable console for a good price. However just minutes later they announced the XBox One X which left me scratching my head. What's going to happen now. Well, the XBox One X was too expensive here to justify getting it as a secondary console while games on the One S suffered. The One X made the One S look bad, yet the One S kept the One X back not really taxing the more expensive hardware, just running the same stuff at native 4K.

This feels like the same situation to me. I have no interest in a gimped console, and far less interest in the series X now it will have an anchor weight in Lockhart for the entire generation.

Thanks MS I guess, more money left over to spend on PSVR2 and games!



Around the Network
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.

quite sure the switch was a gimped SKU of the nvidia shield



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

SvennoJ said:
DonFerrari said:

If both MS and Sony were selling their consoles for break even or small loss I would be very fine with they putting a budget entry version for 399 and a premium one 999 at the start of the gen as long as they ensure all games of the gen will be workeable on the base unit. Since 999 is a lot of money I would probably hold on buying the budget and after 2 years buy the premium hoping for a discount (when considered I bought base and pro and VR in the end I got near 999 on HW)

I wouldn't pay 999 for a premium model after seeing what happened with the pro and XBox One X. For that price I expect games to take full advantage of that system, not just run the same games at native 4K and/or 60 fps. The fact that they need to be workable on the base unit lessens the hype for a more expensive better model. It's the same as buying the best $800 GPU atm, just to boast about running games at 240 fps yet (besides star citizen) not having anything to actually use your expensive GPU to the fullest.

Totally understand that. But on HW we are talking at getting a very beefy console considering what a console of 399 can get you because of subside on the bulk purchase.

Using myself as an example: When MS announced the XBox One S it seemed like the exact machine I had been waiting for, turning the XBox One into a desirable console for a good price. However just minutes later they announced the XBox One X which left me scratching my head. What's going to happen now. Well, the XBox One X was too expensive here to justify getting it as a secondary console while games on the One S suffered. The One X made the One S look bad, yet the One S kept the One X back not really taxing the more expensive hardware, just running the same stuff at native 4K.

This feels like the same situation to me. I have no interest in a gimped console, and far less interest in the series X now it will have an anchor weight in Lockhart for the entire generation.

Thanks MS I guess, more money left over to spend on PSVR2 and games!

That would be the choice of most people



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

KratosLives said:
zero129 said:

Lower to 720P lower textures etc, ya know the kinda stuff engines have been doing for years now.

No one will want to go back to 720p after getting used to 1080.

Well thats why you have Series X...



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

720p with image reconstruction tech isn't the same as 720p of the 7th gen per se.

Also, dynamic resolutions help keep the average resolution higher.

Many titles of the 7th gen weren't even 720P... Halo 3, Call of Duty and so forth being prime examples.
Plus many games opted for morphological anti-aliasing rather than MSAA or such... So images were terrible.

There is a big difference between 1080P and 2160P, but the extent of which depends on a myriad of factors like individual eyesight acuity, display size, display technology, display resolution, distance seated away from the display, even the ambient lighting.

I would assume a vast majority of 360 games were 720p or just slightly below. I'm aware of some exceptions.

Whether Series S is doing 720p or 1080p, it should look good thanks to better AA and reconstruction techniques.



Recently Completed
Gears 5
for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

Many titles of the 7th gen weren't even 720P... Halo 3, Call of Duty and so forth being prime examples.
Plus many games opted for morphological anti-aliasing rather than MSAA or such... So images were terrible.

There is a big difference between 1080P and 2160P, but the extent of which depends on a myriad of factors like individual eyesight acuity, display size, display technology, display resolution, distance seated away from the display, even the ambient lighting.

I would assume a vast majority of 360 games were 720p or just slightly below. I'm aware of some exceptions.

Whether Series S is doing 720p or 1080p, it should look good thanks to better AA and reconstruction techniques.

Majority of 7th gen games were sub 720p.



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