Support NeoGAF

[rhodesianshepard]

IDK, but I'm guessing more Playstation users would be willing to shell out money for Series S if its under 300$. I think sales are underperforming for Series S currently because Xbox still has no system seller game on the market. That should change in next couple years. I've never owned an Xbox in my life, and even I will most likely get a Series S sometime soon. Xbox just didn't have any games I wanted to play on Xbox One, and owning a PS3 alongside a 360 was massive financial burden. It's 300$ cheaper owning both PS5 digital and Series S compared to PS3/360 and that was 16 years ago

 

[RCU005]

I imagine their production ratio between Series X and Series is like 20:80 respectively. They are more interested in selling the Series S.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

IDK, but I'm guessing more Playstation users would be willing to shell out money for Series S if its under 300$. I think sales are underperforming for Series S currently because Xbox still has no system seller game on the market. That should change in next couple years. I've never owned an Xbox in my life, and even I will most likely get a Series S sometime soon. Xbox just didn't have any games I wanted to play on Xbox One, and owning a PS3 alongside a 360 was massive financial burden. It's 300$ cheaper owning both PS5 digital and Series S compared to PS3/360 and that was 16 years ago

Not sure that I agree. It'll take a lot more than just a couple of system sellers.

Even at 240.... that's 3 brand new PS5s games or 4 PS5 games at 60 dollars... but with realistic discounts, you're looking at nearly 5 games.

Have to look at the reason to buy a second console when they play 95% the same games. The bar to be a system seller has never been higher because there are so few exclusives.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I imagine their production ratio between Series X and Series is like 20:80 respectively. They are more interested in selling the Series S.

I seriously doubt that ratio.

It's obviously not the best market to compare things to, but if you look at Japanese sales, the Series S has sold only slightly more than the Series X. It's nearly 1:1.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Not sure that I agree. It'll take a lot more than just a couple of system sellers.

Even at 240.... that's 3 brand new PS5s games or 4 PS5 games at 60 dollars... but with realistic discounts, you're looking at nearly 5 games.

Have to look at the reason to buy a second console when they play 95% the same games. The bar to be a system seller has never been higher because there are so few exclusives.

I'm very skeptical of Microsoft's ability to successfully manage all of their new studios and produce top tier games, but they will have a lot more exclusives than the last generation. And it will no longer just be sequels to rundown franchises like Halo, Gears, and Crackdown. Plus you can get their games for 15$ on gamepass a month, so that will surely save money. And if they only have 1-2 "must have" games, they will surely have a bunch of good AA exclusives on gamepass, like Hi-Fi Rush.

But I just strongly disagree, I think this generation will be marked by how many exclusives each system has, especially compared to previous generations.

 

[coffinbirth]

"The news comes via a new interview with CEO of Microsoft Gaming Phil Spencer (via CNBC), who confirmed Microsoft loses around $100 on every Xbox Series X sold. As this is their premium, flagship home console, they’re losing even more on the cheaper, less powerful Xbox Series S, where they lose up to $200 on each console sold."

I'll just put this here for the geniuses that actually believe Microsoft is pushing Series S over X.

Crazy thought...but maybe, just maybe Series S being plentiful on store shelves and Series X nearing Unicorn status is because they are selling them hand over fist?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I'm very skeptical of Microsoft's ability to successfully manage all of their new studios and produce top tier games, but they will have a lot more exclusives than the last generation. And it will no longer just be sequels to rundown franchises like Halo, Gears, and Crackdown. Plus you can get their games for 15$ on gamepass a month, so that will surely save money. And if they only have 1-2 "must have" games, they will surely have a bunch of good AA exclusives on gamepass, like Hi-Fi Rush.

But I just strongly disagree, I think this generation will be marked by how many exclusives each system has, especially compared to previous generations.

I think Microsoft's biggest problem is they're chasing the dragon, which is Halo. They so desperately want/need a GOTY type candidate to pin up Xbox for a year and in the future.

Microsoft has several studios now, but I'm not sure that the quality is there. I don't think there are a ton of gamers sitting on the edge of their seat to get a Ninja Theory game. And what I think is happening is these games keep getting delayed so they can become larger more epic titles with larger scopes, but the studio quality isn't there to really deliver.

By size alone, they're certainly going to have more exclusives, but you have to ask yourself if these exclusives are system sellers.

I think they have to change their GamePass strategy and not have games day and date on GamePass and day and date on PC. They're diluting the xbox brand by doing both. They've greatly diminished the importance of their console AND their exclusives. There isn't much incentive to buy an Xbox at the moment when you can basically rent these games for low cost on PC with GamePass and with better performance than Xbox Series X.

And you just echoed what I said. I said that exclusives matter more than ever now.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

"The news comes via a new interview with CEO of Microsoft Gaming Phil Spencer (via CNBC), who confirmed Microsoft loses around $100 on every Xbox Series X sold. As this is their premium, flagship home console, they’re losing even more on the cheaper, less powerful Xbox Series S, where they lose up to $200 on each console sold."

I'll just put this here for the geniuses that actually believe Microsoft is pushing Series S over X.

Crazy thought...but maybe, just maybe Series S being plentiful on store shelves and Series X nearing Unicorn status is because they are selling them hand over fist?

Microsoft THOUGHT the Series S would sell better. That doesn't mean they're pushing it more than the X.

As for the X selling hand over fist... that's not bearing fruit in the NPD reports or Microsoft financial results. I get that you would like to believe that, but it just isn't true.

The biggest question is whether they have a supply issue and a demand issue or just a supply issue.

They're almost certainly over-leveraged on Series S and that's going to cost them in the interim.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

I think Microsoft's biggest problem is they're chasing the dragon, which is Halo. They so desperately want/need a GOTY type candidate to pin up Xbox for a year and in the future.

Microsoft has several studios now, but I'm not sure that the quality is there. I don't think there are a ton of gamers sitting on the edge of their seat to get a Ninja Theory game. And what I think is happening is these games keep getting delayed so they can become larger more epic titles with larger scopes, but the studio quality isn't there to really deliver.

By size alone, they're certainly going to have more exclusives, but you have to ask yourself if these exclusives are system sellers.

I think they have to change their GamePass strategy and not have games day and date on GamePass and day and date on PC. They're diluting the xbox brand by doing both. They've greatly diminished the importance of their console AND their exclusives. There isn't much incentive to buy an Xbox at the moment when you can basically rent these games for low cost on PC with GamePass and with better performance than Xbox Series X.

And you just echoed what I said. I said that exclusives matter more than ever now.

Sooner Xbox realizes Halo is no longer system selling franchise the better. Arena shooters are no longer a thing.

Gamepass all depends if they can reach 80-100mil subscribers to make their business model work. I don't think that is possible unless cloud gaming takes off in a major way. And i don't think big AAA games, like what Sony produces yearly, will be a profitable endeavor for Microsoft if they don't hit that subscriber goal

 

[Alan Wake]

Both are available here in Sweden atm (not that it says anything) and the Series X has always been a bit easier to find (with the Series S never out of stock since launch). But wasn't there rumours about Microsoft paying for chip priority back in 2021 or 2022?

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Well according to sales numbers MS only needs a fraction of the production volumes of PS5.

 

[onQ123]

"The news comes via a new interview with CEO of Microsoft Gaming Phil Spencer (via CNBC), who confirmed Microsoft loses around $100 on every Xbox Series X sold. As this is their premium, flagship home console, they’re losing even more on the cheaper, less powerful Xbox Series S, where they lose up to $200 on each console sold."

I'll just put this here for the geniuses that actually believe Microsoft is pushing Series S over X.

Crazy thought...but maybe, just maybe Series S being plentiful on store shelves and Series X nearing Unicorn status is because they are selling them hand over fist?

They was willing to take the hit in hopes that it would undercut PS5 but the fact that PS5 broke even awhile ago at $499 while Xbox Series consoles taking a $100 to $200 hit tells me that they fucked up somewhere & I'm not sure why they haven't fixed it yet .

"Another area that we focused on was our console economics. I am pleased to say that the PlayStation 5 standard edition will break even from next month's production. And from then on, we project that it will become increasing profitable," Ryan said

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/7966...le-next-month-and-beyond-sony-says/index.html

Sony might have saved a lot of money by using soldered on storage vs the standard NVMe .


If I'm remembering right removable harddrives have been a problem for consoles reducing their price since the original Xbox & the reason Sony released the 12GB Super Slim PS3 & it might be the reason Sony jumped to the PS5 so quickly while PS4 was still selling like hotcakes Sony didn't try to target a lower price market with cheap PS4's they went all in on PS5.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sooner Xbox realizes Halo is no longer system selling franchise the better. Arena shooters are no longer a thing.

Gamepass all depends if they can reach 80-100mil subscribers to make their business model work. I don't think that is possible unless cloud gaming takes off in a major way. And i don't think big AAA games, like what Sony produces yearly, will be a profitable endeavor for Microsoft if they don't hit that subscriber goal

Halo was such an early success for them, that they defined their entire business around it.

Sony on the other hand had Gran Turismo, but as racing game revenue waned and they realized they couldn't really compete with 3D platformers, they shifted course fairly quickly.

It's time for Microsoft to shift its focus, call GamePass what it is, and deviate from the model.

Stop doing Day 1 releases on GamePass for large first party games
Stop releasing Day 1 on PC
Focus on new brands and IP and sensible exclusivity deals

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They was willing to take the hit in hopes that it would undercut PS5 but the fact that PS5 broke even awhile ago at $499 while Xbox Series consoles taking a $100 to $200 hit tells me that they fucked up somewhere & I'm not sure why they haven't fixed it yet .




Sony might have saved a lot of money by using soldered on storage vs the standard NVMe .


If I'm remembering right removable harddrives have been a problem for consoles reducing their price since the original Xbox & the reason Sony released the 12GB Super Slim PS3 & it might be the reason Sony jumped to the PS5 so quickly while PS4 was still selling like hotcakes Sony didn't try to target a lower price market with cheap PS4's they went all in on PS5.

That's a great point. Sony probably could have sold an extra 10-15 million PS4s by dropping the price to say 150-200 dollars, but Sony had to ask themselves at what point does taking a loss on PS4 sales make sense when you aren't going to get high revenue from software attach rates. PS4 probably could have chased the PS2, but at what cost. They didn't even use it as a deterrent to the XSS.

 

[Putonahappyface]

PS5 yields are worse from what I was told, because of the "oVeR-cloCkod gPu".

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Supply issues because they aren't supplying any more units, because they aren't making any more units

Except they are clearly making more units so this doesn't make sense.

Yes. Just like they did with the 1x and it was the smartest move Microsoft made last gen. It was just 18 months too late. If the 1X had have dropped in early/mid 2016, it would have closed the gap between Xbox and PS4 considerably.

No it wouldn't, Phil still would have reduced their 15 or so studios to 4-5, 343 would still have Halo, odd third-party exclusive deals with the wrong games that won't sell systems, and still likely wouldn't launched One X with exclusive. Not to mention still not pushing the new system selling exclusives, Screamride and Quantum Break weren't going to change anything.

Yeah, 1X would get the Mp's, and the power gap would increase sales maybe (if they could fit in a price drop which they couldn't do now) 1X along with the others may have helped XBO reach 60-65 million but it still wouldn't have done that much.

Maybe in US and UK where XBO and PS4 weren't far apart they would be closer by a nose.

 

[Brucey]

Poor Series S demand also lends itself to poor demand for GamePass.

If they can't get people to drop down 240 just to get access to these games... people aren't that interested. This means they're approaching a ceiling on GamePass subscriptions.

I'd love to know their strategy to offload 7.2+ million Xbox Series S units. That's not a trifling amount. It's nearly as many units as the Dreamcast sold.

Ironic that the Series S is selling for less than a Dreamcast in September 2020 adjusted for inflation.

I wonder how long until they drop the price to 200 and if they do, if they ultimately discontinue the Series S. Or if they'll stand at 240 and just clear the warehouses over time.

They had the series s down to $199 equivalent last holiday season didn't they, with gift cards? Do they really have 7.2 millions series S laying around? Where did that number come from?

 

[Brucey]

Same Wafer IIRC.

The S and X don't share the same wafer. It's not like the S is using X APUs that failed to make the X grade, big differences in the gpu and the buses etc. I believe the X APUs are also used in the ms cloud streaming equipment, potentially four 1080p streams there? Good news for cloud but perhaps not ideal for a console.

 

[Riky]

Expanding the cloud availability worldwide and increasing capacity for a huge Starfield launch, it makes sense.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Expanding the cloud availability worldwide and increasing capacity for a huge Starfield launch, it makes sense.

No it doesn't. Cloud isn't viable outside of cities in the west and won't be for a good long time. You can laugh, disagree and be snarky about this if you wish to do so, but your choice will highlight your lack of understanding of the world outside of your bubble.

 

[Riky]

No it doesn't. Cloud isn't viable outside of cities in the west and won't be for a good long time. You can laugh, disagree and be snarky about this if you wish to do so, but your choice will highlight your lack of understanding of the world outside of your bubble.

You lack the reading comprehension, that's their plan it's not mine they are expanding the amount of countries for Xcloud. They may also be building up consoles for Starfields launch, including a bundle option.

 

[onQ123]

People really think MS is keeping all the Xbox Series X for themselves while selling us the Series S?

 

[Topher]

Expanding the cloud availability worldwide and increasing capacity for a huge Starfield launch, it makes sense.

Was that reported somewhere or a guess?

 

[Daneel Elijah]

People really think MS is keeping all the Xbox Series X for themselves while selling us the Series S?

There is less Xbox series X sold this year than last year, and they are harder to get than PS5, who are having sales records in the last few months. We know that from Microsoft and Sony declared numbers and market analysis. There can be only few ways for that to happen : Microsoft made less consoles than Sony did. But why?
Lack of demand? Maybe.
Supply issues ? But Sony fixed theirs and those problems were more of a pandemic problem, so it should be okay.
Microsoft choose to make less consoles? But there is demand for the Series X, where the S is discounted and still easily found in stores shelves.
If someone refuse to accept that the demand is a lot weaker than Sony, and in the absence of an AMD/TSMC issue in the manufacturing of consoles then either Microsoft choose to make less of them, and be left in the dusk by Sony, or they made them and used them for something else, like the cloud.
Some theories about why there is difficulty in Microsoft juggling adequatly between SEries S and X demand has been emited by posters like the fact that they can't augment the number of Series X without doing the same for Series S. It seems logical to me. What is your opinion on this ?

 

[onQ123]

There is less Xbox series X sold this year than last year, and they are harder to get than PS5, who are having sales records in the last few months. We know that from Microsoft and Sony declared numbers and market analysis. There can be only few ways for that to happen : Microsoft made less consoles than Sony did. But why?
Lack of demand? Maybe.
Supply issues ? But Sony fixed theirs and those problems were more of a pandemic problem, so it should be okay.
Microsoft choose to make less consoles? But there is demand for the Series X, where the S is discounted and still easily found in stores shelves.
If someone refuse to accept that the demand is a lot weaker than Sony, and in the absence of an AMD/TSMC issue in the manufacturing of consoles then either Microsoft choose to make less of them, and be left in the dusk by Sony, or they made them and used them for something else, like the cloud.
Some theories about why there is difficulty in Microsoft juggling adequatly between SEries S and X demand has been emited by posters like the fact that they can't augment the number of Series X without doing the same for Series S. It seems logical to me. What is your opinion on this ?

My guess is that the current model is dragging down the finance so they slowed down on making them until they transition into a cheaper model.

Sure they have enough money to cover it but they don't want to show too much of a decline in their reports while things are down..

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

There are no XSX supply issues or constraints. It's manufactured in an attempt to improve demand.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

My guess is that the current model is dragging down the finance so they slowed down on making them until they transition into a cheaper model.

Sure they have enough money to cover it but they don't want to show too much of a decline in their reports while things are down..

Maybe. Sony is doing that too, we have rumors of a PS5 with detachable disc drive since last year. But there is no need to reduce production to a noticeable point. Most compagnies try to make it so the stock are constant until just after the new model is there. Nintendo too made the Switch OLED relatively recently, and they did not slow down Switch production to do so. And new consoles is the best way to make new Gamepass subs I think so there is still incentive to sell those consoles to consumers. E3 is in June, that is in 4 months. Do you believe that they will talk about a potential Slim version before then, or that we will continue to have those supply issues until then?

There are no XSX supply issues or constraints. It's manufactured in an attempt to improve demand.

Bold claim. The Series S is discounted in many countries and retailers, but Microsoft would at the same time limit the amount of Series X? Why would they do this ?

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Bold claim. The Series S is discounted in many countries and retailers, but Microsoft would at the same time limit the amount of Series X? Why would they do this ?

Because they didn't get rich by accident. Microsoft are a big business and know how to play the business side of consumerism pretty well.

To increase demand you reduce supply. It worked great for the PS5, Wii and Nintendo Handheld (2ds, 3ds? I can't remember).

 

[onQ123]

Maybe. Sony is doing that too, we have rumors of a PS5 with detachable disc drive since last year. But there is no need to reduce production to a noticeable point. Most compagnies try to make it so the stock are constant until just after the new model is there. Nintendo too made the Switch OLED relatively recently, and they did not slow down Switch production to do so. And new consoles is the best way to make new Gamepass subs I think so there is still incentive to sell those consoles to consumers. E3 is in June, that is in 4 months. Do you believe that they will talk about a potential Slim version before then, or that we will continue to have those supply issues until then?


Bold claim. The Series S is discounted in many countries and retailers, but Microsoft would at the same time limit the amount of Series X? Why would they do this ?

Sony already did it when they transitioned to a cheaper PS5 model last year now they are going all in manufacturing PS5s but supply was low earlier in the year https://wccftech.com/sony-updated-p...eron-plus-soc-smaller-cooler-power-efficient/

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Sony already did it when they transitioned to a cheaper PS5 model last year now they are going all in manufacturing PS5s but supply was low earlier in the year https://wccftech.com/sony-updated-p...eron-plus-soc-smaller-cooler-power-efficient/

Yeah. But those supply issues where accepted by Sony as a failure. Sony failed to bring enough consoles to market and publicly said it, and worked hard to fix it. And now we can see them fly off the shelves with records sales. But it is true that the new model may have contributed to the supply issues. We will have to see about Xbox.

To increase demand you reduce supply. It worked great for the PS5, Wii and Nintendo Handheld (2ds, 3ds? I can't remember).

So you think that they will do the same for Series S and reduce supply too?

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

So you think that they will do the same for Series S and reduce supply too?

They will push the S out of the supply channels. It was marketed (and shilled on forums/youtube) as the console of choice over the x. Combine that with the cheapskate demographic of xbox fans - no offense to those fans, i enjoy cheap games too but it isn't a good consumer demographic to chase. Now Microsoft have to convince those people to upgrade or be happy with their lot.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

They will push the S out of the supply channels. It was marketed (and shilled on forums/youtube) as the console of choice over the x. Combine that with the cheapskate demographic of xbox fans - no offense to those fans, i enjoy cheap games too but it isn't a good consumer demographic to chase. Now Microsoft have to convince those people to upgrade or be happy with their lot.

So what? Microsoft made a console like the S for just 3 years? And lose the gains that a cheap version allows while retaining all the problems that the Series X have with highter costs and fractured playerbase?
I hope that the S is either there to stay and get even cheaper (at Microsoft cost and for our benefit of course)or that if it goes out the devellopers will be authorized to build games with the Series X as a baseline.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

So what? Microsoft made a console like the S for just 3 years? And lose the gains that a cheap version allows while retaining all the problems that the Series X have with highter costs and fractured playerbase?
I hope that the S is either there to stay and get even cheaper (at Microsoft cost and for our benefit of course)or that if it goes out the devellopers will be authorized to build games with the Series X as a baseline.

Don't be shocked at the idea that Microsoft will cancel or replace SKU's. It has happened every generation and this generation is no different.

 

[BlackTron]

Yeah. But those supply issues where accepted by Sony as a failure. Sony failed to bring enough consoles to market and publicly said it, and worked hard to fix it. And now we can see them fly off the shelves with records sales. But it is true that the new model may have contributed to the supply issues. We will have to see about Xbox.

So you think that they will do the same for Series S and reduce supply too?

Sony's supply issues were not intentional. They wanted to ship as many systems as they could. That doesn't change the fact the shortage significantly raised its reputation as a desirable, luxury, in-demand item that is still paying dividends today.

In Microsoft's case. He's right, I thought this the second I read the thread title. MS is taking a page from Nintendo's book and limiting supply.

"Hey, did you get the new DS yet? I just got one from Walmart. They have 20 on the shelf" "Nah not yet."

or

"Hey, have you seen the new DS anywhere? I want one, but can't find it". "Aw really? Damn they must be selling out. I'll keep an eye out for them".

The effect magnifies the perceived value and desirability of the item exponentially. This is MS's way of going "it's not that nobody wants to buy it, it's that we can't ship enough!" and a wise move for them.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Don't be shocked at the idea that Microsoft will cancel or replace SKU's. It has happened every generation and this generation is no different.

I think that the S is different than the previous generations. Those had only cosmetic differences. The Series S is weaker than the SX and stopping it when it had sold probably less than the Wii U won't help the studios that will have to dedicace ressources to make games for it. But yes sku change often.

Sony's supply issues were not intentional. They wanted to ship as many systems as they could. That doesn't change the fact the shortage significantly raised its reputation as a desirable, luxury, in-demand item that is still paying dividends today.

In Microsoft's case. He's right, I thought this the second I read the thread title. MS is taking a page from Nintendo's book and limiting supply.

"Hey, did you get the new DS yet? I just got one from Walmart. They have 20 on the shelf" "Nah not yet."

or

"Hey, have you seen the new DS anywhere? I want one, but can't find it". "Aw really? Damn they must be selling out. I'll keep an eye out for them".

The effect magnifies the perceived value and desirability of the item exponentially. This is MS's way of going "it's not that nobody wants to buy it, it's that we can't ship enough!" and a wise move for them.

Sony and Nintendo indeed often do this. But more in the early adopter phase. When the console is a success( or in the Wii U case, a failure) they can adapt and make the right number to be as close to demand as possible.
Once we are in the third year pf a 6/7 years circle is when they want to sell the most consoles, not do a dip voluntarily. Who knows? Maybe you are right.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

I think that the S is different than the previous generations. Those had only cosmetic differences. The Series S is weaker than the SX and stopping it when it had sold probably less than the Wii U won't help the studios that will have to dedicace ressources to make games for it. But yes sku change often.

Not entirely true. The first launches of the 360 came with detachable HDD's. As the generation went on, the HDD became a requirement for games and while it continued to be a detachable feature with the Elite, it eventually became mandatory to have a HDD. Even to the point where xbox 360 game cases had an image and information saying "HDD required to play this game".

The HDD requirement came before the requirement of been able to connect online.

Then we saw a similar situation with Kinect on Xbox one. It was initially a requirement to have it plugged in and turned on. Then they phased it out

The Series S will find itself in a similar position - not with HDD/SDD but for power under the hood. It is entirely possible that the S will be phased out or redesigned to keep developers - both 1st party and 3rd, happy bunnies.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Not entirely true. The first launches of the 360 came with detachable HDD's. As the generation went on, the HDD became a requirement for games and while it continued to be a detachable feature with the Elite, it eventually became mandatory to have a HDD. Even to the point where xbox 360 game cases had an image and information saying "HDD required to play this game".

The HDD requirement came before the requirement of been able to connect online.

Then we saw a similar situation with Kinect on Xbox one. It was initially a requirement to have it plugged in and turned on. Then they phased it out

The Series S will find itself in a similar position - not with HDD/SDD but for power under the hood. It is entirely possible that the S will be phased out or redesigned to keep developers - both 1st party and 3rd, happy bunnies.

Those were in my humble opinion, and I hope that you won't take it badly, more of a competition problem. Sony had a HDD for all consoles, and the benefits were clear enough that Xbox " had" to get up to par. Online ddl needs a HDD after all.
Kinect was the same. The public did not like the strategy of Xbox for the Xbox one and having a costlier and weaker console hurt thel against Sony. They had to reduce the price and Kinect got cut in the process.
For the S yes that could happen. But we are only getting out of the crossgen period. So cutting the S now means that it was not "future proof" if you understand what I mean. I think that as gamed takes years to make now a lot of studios would love to know if and when support of the S would wane. But we will wait for E3 in all cases.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Those were in my humble opinion, and I hope that you won't take it badly, more of a competition problem. Sony had a HDD for all consoles, and the benefits were clear enough that Xbox " had" to get up to par. Online ddl needs a HDD after all.

True but the HDD was a double-edged sword. Microsoft had the correct strategy as the early PS3's were expensive, due in part to the HDD. Microsoft were able to offer a cheap 360 by removing the HDD and then selling it as an additional component, making money on the sale. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Kinect was the same. The public did not like the strategy of Xbox for the Xbox one and having a costlier and weaker console hurt thel against Sony. They had to reduce the price and Kinect got cut in the process.

The xbox one was wrong right out of the gate. MS had plenty of feedback on how the kinect could be improved, but it would be best if it was ditched. When the durango leaks happened in 2011, the internet at large- minus the shills, told MS to stick that idea up their arse or it would cost them the generation. The X1 scramble and mess of a time line is on the shoulder of Mattrick and Phil Spencer (who was the higher-up who signed off on Mattrick making that console)

For the S yes that could happen. But we are only getting out of the crossgen period. So cutting the S now means that it was not "future proof" if you understand what I mean. I think that as gamed takes years to make now a lot of studios would love to know if and when support of the S would wane. But we will wait for E3 in all cases.

We are only out of the cross-gen period and already we are seeing that one of, or both of, the Series consoles cannot keep up. The S is struggling to maintain 1080p, which is would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny. Larian (baldurs gate 3) are the first 'next gen' 3rd party company to admit having problems with these consoles. They will not be the last.

As I said to Topher in another thread. The Series S will be discontinued. The Series X as we know it will be discontinued and a new redesigned X will be launched. Knowing microsoft and looking at the charts, it wouldn't surprise me if a 'discless' X was launched at a cheaper price, with internals rejiggered to make it run properly.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

How did Microsoft manage to make a console that is both less powerful and more expensive to produce for the second generation in a row

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

How did Microsoft manage to make a console that is both less powerful and more expensive to produce for the second generation in a row

How did a console maker think splitting the ram for the 3rd generation in a row (Ps3, Xbone, XSS) would work this time?

 

[Daneel Elijah]

True but the HDD was a double-edged sword. Microsoft had the correct strategy as the early PS3's were expensive, due in part to the HDD. Microsoft were able to offer a cheap 360 by removing the HDD and then selling it as an additional component, making money on the sale. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.


The xbox one was wrong right out of the gate. MS had plenty of feedback on how the kinect could be improved, but it would be best if it was ditched. When the durango leaks happened in 2011, the internet at large- minus the shills, told MS to stick that idea up their arse or it would cost them the generation. The X1 scramble and mess of a time line is on the shoulder of Mattrick and Phil Spencer (who was the higher-up who signed off on Mattrick making that console)

We are only out of the cross-gen period and already we are seeing that one of, or both of, the Series consoles cannot keep up. The S is struggling to maintain 1080p, which is would be a joke if it wasn't so unfunny. Larian (baldurs gate 3) are the first 'next gen' 3rd party company to admit having problems with these consoles. They will not be the last.

As I said to Topher in another thread. The Series S will be discontinued. The Series X as we know it will be discontinued and a new redesigned X will be launched. Knowing microsoft and looking at the charts, it wouldn't surprise me if a 'discless' X was launched at a cheaper price, with internals rejiggered to make it run properly.

True about the 360. Going 1 year early helped them, and the HDD was not necessary back then. For the S I tried to answer that in your thread with the xbox consoles graph.

 

[Tiamat2san]

This must be a US issue because in Europe the Series X is available and has always been pretty much. The PS5 on the other hand is still difficult to track down, but it's gottaen much better lately.

Not in France.
we get at least 25 times more PS5 (mostly bundles) than series X. (Fnac stores or website )
S in always in stock but X really, really rarely.

 

[kazuyamishima]

Not in France.
we get at least 25 times more PS5 (mostly bundles) than series X. (Fnac stores or website )
S in always in stock but X really, really rarely.

Amazon France shows both the standalone and the Forza horizon 5 bundle as in stock and ready to buy. I suppose some places will be without some stock but there are options to buy the system throughout Europe.

 

[Astray]

The biggest question is whether they have a supply issue and a demand issue or just a supply issue.

Anecdotal evidence, but definitely a demand issue alone.

I literally saw like a dozen Series Xs at my electronics retailer, and like, 3 dozen Series S units! And it's not hard to find on my local Amazon site either (not to mention other online retailers), they have utterly failed at launching the device with actual momentum.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Amazon France shows both the standalone and the Forza horizon 5 bundle as in stock and ready to buy. I suppose some places will be without some stock but there are options to buy the system throughout Europe.

This is the logic I'm seeing a lot of in this thread, there were "options" to get the PS5 when it was having low stock as well, but people were still saying it was low stock based on the average persons accessibility.

I'm not sure why the rules are changing here for Xbox, there's no difference.

How did Microsoft manage to make a console that is both less powerful and more expensive to produce for the second generation in a row

Series X is more powerful than the PS5.

Also Xbox One wasn't expensive to produce, the One X was, which was also more powerful than the PS4 and PS4 pro.

Even the base Xbox One wasn't expensive to produce, with and without Kinect.

 

[onQ123]

This is the logic I'm seeing a lot of in this thread, there were "options" to get the PS5 when it was having low stock as well, but people were still saying it was low stock based on the average persons accessibility.

I'm not sure why the rules are changing here for Xbox, there's no difference.



Series X is more powerful than the PS5.

Also Xbox One wasn't expensive to produce, the One X was, which was also more powerful than the PS4 and PS4 pro.

Even the base Xbox One wasn't expensive to produce, with and without Kinect.

Prove it

 

[Brucey]

Sony's supply issues were not intentional. They wanted to ship as many systems as they could. That doesn't change the fact the shortage significantly raised its reputation as a desirable, luxury, in-demand item that is still paying dividends today.

In Microsoft's case. He's right, I thought this the second I read the thread title. MS is taking a page from Nintendo's book and limiting supply.

"Hey, did you get the new DS yet? I just got one from Walmart. They have 20 on the shelf" "Nah not yet."

or

"Hey, have you seen the new DS anywhere? I want one, but can't find it". "Aw really? Damn they must be selling out. I'll keep an eye out for them".

The effect magnifies the perceived value and desirability of the item exponentially. This is MS's way of going "it's not that nobody wants to buy it, it's that we can't ship enough!" and a wise move for them.

I read it differently. That Phil Spencer said stock was going to be tighter last holiday season because they knew their sales were going in the crapper compared to the surging PS5. Not to play mental games to create false sense of urgency to go buy one. They had access to the NPD numbers, the numbers started to look really bad when comparing to the competition. When you look at Phil's comments, he certainly seems to have given up on any of the hardcore fans still looking for Xs and just promoting the S + Gamepass to avoid paying that scary $70 for a game.

"18 November 2022"

"The undersupply of current-gen consoles will especially be noticeable during the holiday season. On a recent episode of The Verge show Decoder, Phil Spencer stated that the Xbox Series X will still be hard to find in retailers for those shopping during the holidays, though the Series S may fare better. He maintained that Microsoft's goal is to have enough consoles ready for consumers looking to buy them either online or in-person, despite the recent history of Xbox hardware shortages.

Spencer went on to affirm that the Xbox Series S is a great option for those shopping for consoles during the holidays. "The fact that we do have an S console that is less expensive than our X console is helpful to families," Spencer said. "The fact that we do have a subscription means I don’t have to pay $70 for every one of my video games, and I can build my library in a different way.""

https://gamerant.com/xbox-series-x-hard-find-holiday-2022/

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

Series X is more powerful than the PS5.

Which raises the question; "why are we seeing so much parity with 3rd party developers between a powerful and less-powerful console, and why does the less-powerful consoles often edge out the more powerful console and run consistently better?"

Regardless who your favourite plastic box company is, that question needs addressing.

 

[Brucey]

Which raises the question; "why are we seeing so much parity with 3rd party developers between a powerful and less-powerful console, and why does the less-powerful consoles often edge out the more powerful console and run consistently better?"

Regardless who your favourite plastic box company is, that question needs addressing.

If a developer has a finite set of resources, are they going to expend some of that creating a performance differential between an x and a PS5, or spend that time trying to prevent the series S version from looking like a dog's breakfast? The drop to the series S is far greater than the delta between series x and PS5.

 

[Talkin Hawkin]

If a developer has a finite set of resources, are they going to expend some of that creating a performance differential between an x and a PS5, or spend that time trying to prevent the series S version from looking like a dog's breakfast? The drop to the series S is far greater than the delta between series x and PS5.

Very true. But you would expect the one with the most power under the hood to perform the best. 1x out performed PS4pro on multiplatforms. Why doesn't the Series X do the same?

I take your point though. Get it to parity and waste resources on making the Series S not look unplayable.