Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer Says Xbox Series X Games Aren't Being Held Back By Xbox One

zero129 said:
DonFerrari said:

Shave of cost and price is different. Look again the price I put.

I put specifics on what I expect the discless Series S to save on cost and after that gave subsiding for it so it is Series S at 299 versus XSX at 549 so it is 250 difference not 150.

And for PS5 discless I put 100 of Sony eating the cost to make it more attractive to market not that it will cost 100 less to make, that will also be like only 30 bucks or some couple dollar due to packging and shell.

Again XSS at 299 (MS losing 50 per unit), PS5 no disc 399 (100 more than Series S, but Sony taking 100 loss), PS5 with disc 499 (Initially I imagined PS5 would be at most 449, but with two models I can see they going for 499 on the disc version and losing like 50 per console like PS4 did), and XSX going for 549 (50 loss per console) and could even be 599 if they want to say they are premium and not take loss because they really want to sell XSS.

PS5 BOM versus XSX difference in estimative is 30-50 bucks (Daniel Ahmad).

Do you honestly think MS is only willing to lose 50 on Series-S vs Sony losing 100?.

In all honestly i could see a 299 "Disc" Series-S but if its all Digital too like the PS5 digital imo no way MS will only be 100 Cheaper and take a 50 lose while Sony takes a 100 lose. IF its all digital i 100% expect the system to sell for max 249. Unless they release just the Series X now in a few months release Series-S and Series-S Digital for 299 and 249. So pretty much we have XBSD@259 XBSS@299 and XBSX@499.

Why not? If MS releases Lockhart to cheap it can be seem as devaluation, plus it takes room for future pricecuts. As I said I can be wrong in all the prices I put, the real point was just to show to goopy that he was wrong on Series S costing 1/3 of Series X. And a discless version for just 40 saving is pointless, that is why I put Sony losing 100 to make the PS5 discless worthy instead of just 30-40 cheaper.



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
SvennoJ said:
sales2099 said:

That’s easy, each one will make way for Lockhart. Lockhart is overall superior to Xbox X and also digital like the Series S Digital. Both consoles are obsolete soon and might as well clear them out before launch. 

It's unprecedented to discontinue current gen consoles before the next gen starts. But I guess the X sales were so low, might as well stop production now and sell what's left. It was a well made machine, but if Lockhart is truly full BC and runs all XBox One games better or equal than they did on the X for equal or better price, then it makes sense. Perhaps the XBox One X is still pretty expensive to make, it never came down in price here. Heck already removed from best buy, only available from online marketplace for CAD 590. CAD 650 on Amazon, 4 left!

I’m from Ontario myself, ya I haven’t seen massive sales since Boxing Day. Otherwise now this is just rumor, but I read somewhere MS planned to launch Series X as early as September. I dunno, covid probably changed their plans but I suspect they need to clear out stock to minimize SKU confusion regardless. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
SvennoJ said:

It's unprecedented to discontinue current gen consoles before the next gen starts. But I guess the X sales were so low, might as well stop production now and sell what's left. It was a well made machine, but if Lockhart is truly full BC and runs all XBox One games better or equal than they did on the X for equal or better price, then it makes sense. Perhaps the XBox One X is still pretty expensive to make, it never came down in price here. Heck already removed from best buy, only available from online marketplace for CAD 590. CAD 650 on Amazon, 4 left!

I’m from Ontario myself, ya I haven’t seen massive sales since Boxing Day. Otherwise now this is just rumor, but I read somewhere MS planned to launch Series X as early as September. I dunno, covid probably changed their plans but I suspect they need to clear out stock to minimize SKU confusion regardless. 

I know that in a couple years on a paw shop X1X will be cheap enough to join my collection.



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:
SvennoJ said:

It's unprecedented to discontinue current gen consoles before the next gen starts. But I guess the X sales were so low, might as well stop production now and sell what's left. It was a well made machine, but if Lockhart is truly full BC and runs all XBox One games better or equal than they did on the X for equal or better price, then it makes sense. Perhaps the XBox One X is still pretty expensive to make, it never came down in price here. Heck already removed from best buy, only available from online marketplace for CAD 590. CAD 650 on Amazon, 4 left!

I’m from Ontario myself, ya I haven’t seen massive sales since Boxing Day. Otherwise now this is just rumor, but I read somewhere MS planned to launch Series X as early as September. I dunno, covid probably changed their plans but I suspect they need to clear out stock to minimize SKU confusion regardless. 

This gen I was at the midnight launch, long line up at Microplay. I guess it will all be different this year, curb-side pick up? I haven't been to a game store since the start of March.



I like Phil, and for the most part I've given him a pass on the Xbox One as he inherited a train-wreck from Mattrick and Co. I will say however that he has had several years at the helm now and they NEED to show games at the event next week. Games that blow the doors off the competition and showcase the power of the console. They need a "killer app" and a ton of other games beside it. These games need to run as well or better than their PS5 versions and Microsoft need to show gamers what they hell they've been doing for all this time.
This could be a huge week for Microsoft, but if they don't have much to show Sony and Nintendo are going to eat them for breakfast once more in the 9th generation



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
zero129 said:

Do you honestly think MS is only willing to lose 50 on Series-S vs Sony losing 100?.

In all honestly i could see a 299 "Disc" Series-S but if its all Digital too like the PS5 digital imo no way MS will only be 100 Cheaper and take a 50 lose while Sony takes a 100 lose. IF its all digital i 100% expect the system to sell for max 249. Unless they release just the Series X now in a few months release Series-S and Series-S Digital for 299 and 249. So pretty much we have XBSD@259 XBSS@299 and XBSX@499.

Why not? If MS releases Lockhart to cheap it can be seem as devaluation, plus it takes room for future pricecuts. As I said I can be wrong in all the prices I put, the real point was just to show to goopy that he was wrong on Series S costing 1/3 of Series X. And a discless version for just 40 saving is pointless, that is why I put Sony losing 100 to make the PS5 discless worthy instead of just 30-40 cheaper.

I understand what your saying. But if MS launch a Digital Only Series S for 299 compared to a much more powerful PS5 digital that only costs 100 in the difference would do more harm to the value of the Series-S. Its not their premium console its known to be a weaker cheaper version so launching for 249 wouldn't do any harm to the value of Series-S just the same as a low samsung phone model doesnt lower the value of their brand as its not their main marketed devices they are just cheaper versions.

But imo if MS wants any chance against the PS5 they need to be at least 150 cheaper then their cheapest model.



zero129 said:
DonFerrari said:

Why not? If MS releases Lockhart to cheap it can be seem as devaluation, plus it takes room for future pricecuts. As I said I can be wrong in all the prices I put, the real point was just to show to goopy that he was wrong on Series S costing 1/3 of Series X. And a discless version for just 40 saving is pointless, that is why I put Sony losing 100 to make the PS5 discless worthy instead of just 30-40 cheaper.

I understand what your saying. But if MS launch a Digital Only Series S for 299 compared to a much more powerful PS5 digital that only costs 100 in the difference would do more harm to the value of the Series-S. Its not their premium console its known to be a weaker cheaper version so launching for 249 wouldn't do any harm to the value of Series-S just the same as a low samsung phone model doesnt lower the value of their brand as its not their main marketed devices they are just cheaper versions.

But imo if MS wants any chance against the PS5 they need to be at least 150 cheaper then their cheapest model.

I agree, and that have kinda be my position since Lockhart rumour appeared. If we had something like Lockhart 299, PS5 399 XSX 499 (or any similar 100-100 difference between them) Sony would win by a landslide, because one side people would think there is no point in buying something with 1/3 the power for just 100 less or expending 100 more for just 20% better performance. That way PS5 would basically have a very strong middle ground position. And after they put two models that became easier because they can lower the price of the discless to combat Lockhart without making the disc version look cheapo. On the other hand there is a floor on how much can MS lower on the Lockhart without either looking cheapo and also leaving not much room for holidays promotion and price cuts.

That is why I`m very excited on what the prices will be, and also probably why both companies aren`t releasing the prices until the last minute. They want to go second to leave little maneuvering space, because whoever announce first if the second go lower won`t be able to cut again without looking bad (either greed because they could had been lower but wanted more profits, at least on consumer mind, or that is in a weak position and need to lower the price to compete).



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

SvennoJ said:
Pemalite said:

1080P scales perfectly to a 4k TV.

4k is 3840x2160.
1080P is 1920x1080.

You are just quadrupling your pixel counts or doubling on each axis instead of triple with 720P.

Scaling is a tricky and complex issue, mostly due to scalers doing a few passes on an image to clean it up and thus have different effectiveness.

1440P is 2560x1440.
720P is 1280x720.

That is also a quadrupling in pixel counts.


Consoles do the upscaling as well now and can use a lot more temporal information to get great results when upscaling to 4K.
Last gen you had actual 720p output which a 1080p tv would display with overscan.

4K tvs simply triple the pixels per axis (with some smoothing I assume) for 720p while the consoles scale to 4K from variable resolutions for the best result. Hence 1440p to 4K upscale looks much better than last gens 720p to 1080p tv.

It depends on what Lockhart does with the image how good a 720p game will look. I guess there will be plenty options in system settings.
Output 720p for 720p tvs and 4K tvs.
Output 1080p with internal upscale to 1080p for the best results on 1080p tv.
Actually it will probably just use an internal scale for whatever display resolution you connect it to. Less latency if the tv doesn't have to do it.

Last gen the 360 also had an internal scaler but it wasn't that great. I remember setting the output to 720p to get a sharper image on my 1080p projector while playing Alan Wake. With the 360 set to 1080p the image looked slightly worse. Not a fair comparison though, $4000 projector with high end scaling vs a cheap console.



I was a bit obsessed with image quality last gen lol. For example my analysis of 360 vs ps3 output

Standard grey palette from RGB 0,0,0 to 255,255,255 with ps3 set to Full RGB and 360 to Expanded and projector calibrated to use the full range for both. Picture taken with a Nikon D40 (which had a smaller contrast range than the projector but the difference is visible)

The 360 applied a gamma correction to make everything darker. Hence if you calibrated your TV for the 360, ps3 would look washed out. If you calibrated your TV for ps3, 360 suffered from black crush. Calibrating both to make full use of the brightness range, 360 still looks a bit darker overall. (Can't have 128,128,128 at 50% brightness while still having both 0,0,0 and 255,255,255 at black and full white)

Developers had to compensate for that gamma correction. It makes visuals pop more, but black crush destroyed details in darker areas. It was still there at the beginning of this gen with XBox One, dunno if MS has abandoned it now or if developers are still compensating for the gamma correction. I guess it should be gone with HDR. (Seems XBox One still has black crush https://www.reddit.com/r/xboxone/comments/f28gsv/black_crush_is_ruining_the_xbox_one_x_for_me/ https://www.avforums.com/threads/xbox-one-s-black-crush.2126564/)

Leave the display to do the color, brightness and contrast corrections, while the console handles the upscaling.

I am merely talking about taking the output resolution and up-scaling it to display resolution.
Internal resolution is obviously an entirely different factor that needs to be considered.

But in general... I would rather an upscaled 1080P image to 4k than a 720P image upscaled to 4k, you are just getting a significant amount more information to work with.

The Xbox 360's scaler was certainly hit or miss, part of that was because the scaler is extremely rudimentary as it released when pixel-perfect displays were just gaining traction, good for the time when a large % of televisions were being sold as 720P panels, but definitely comes up short with more modern displays.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

I guess we got our answer. Phil lied.



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

eva01beserk said:
I guess we got our answer. Phil lied.

What ever could you mean?