What price does Project Scorpio need to be to succeed?

  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for liquiddragon
Posted by liquiddragon (1699 posts) 14 days, 13 hours ago

Poll: What price does Project Scorpio need to be to succeed? (467 votes)

Dead on Arrival 7%
$300 USD (and international equivalent) 8%
$350 USD 13%
$400 USD 46%
$450 USD 8%
$500 USD 12%
$550 USD 1%
$600 USD 2%
$600 USD+ 1%
I think there is an untapped premium console market ready to be filled no matter the price. 2%

Of course the price of the console isn't everything but I think it's certainly a key component when launching a console. The cost is especially important when the competition is stiff with PS4, PS4 Pro, and now the Switch on the market.

The Xbox One S sells for MSRP $300 USD but often found for $250 or lower on the regular for a reference. It should be noted that the XB1 isn't doing bad whatever the perception may be. While the PS4 is breaking records and have the potential to become the best selling console of all time, XB1 is actually slightly ahead of the 360 when comparing the 1st three years of their life.

Avatar image for iigrayfoxii
#51 Edited by IIGrayFoxII (362 posts) -

I think it needs to be $400 to sell competitively but I could see it being a $500 premium machine since the Xbox One S is $250.

Microsoft really needs games though to showcase how powerful this thing is. With no more Lionhead, the cancellation of Scalebound, things are looking slim. I imagine we would see Crackdown 3, Forza and maybe the next Halo running on it, but they really really need to have games and show how much better they run versus the Xbox One S and PS4 Pro. They can tout the specs and how many more Teraflops it has then its competitor, but we need visual proof.

I am excited to see it though. I am curious about the look and specs of the machine.

Avatar image for oursin_360
#52 Edited by OurSin_360 (4450 posts) -

@ir0n said:

Well if you think you will get a machine that is capable to run native 4k (which MS claims Scorpio will be able to) at 500 bucks - think again.

Then they really need to do something different, maybe say "hey this is a true pc where you can run windows etc and run games at 4k" price the thing like a pc and try and compete in the pc market. Or offer some upscaling like the ps4 pro but give better performance, i doubt most people will notice the difference from 4k and 1440p upscaled honestly. They need to do something to compete or it's just a waste of production money.

Avatar image for thepanzini
#53 Edited by ThePanzini (397 posts) -

@zevvion: We always know when a games does well because the publisher will shout about it even MS who won't talk numbers shouted about Forza Horizons success, the anecdotal evidence we have regarding the Windows Store is show the opposite like Gear 4 PC social play being merged with XB1 likely due to low pop numbers. Most who care about Halo own an XB1, H5 sold half what its predecessors did shows Halo is not the juggernaut it used to be, H5 did ~5 million how many will buy it on PC? And how many will shift to the Windows Store?

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#54 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (5710 posts) -

It would be a strong competitor at $400. I can see it being $450 but $500 would be crazy. They should have learned that lesson with the Xbox One launch.

This is me knowing that $500 is technically a steal for a 4k native game machine but I'm assuming they want this to sell big, not to a niche power user consumer market because at the end of the day if you're really looking for true processing power you would already have a PC.

Avatar image for big_denim
#55 Edited by Big_Denim (308 posts) -

Anything over $400 and it's dead in the water, imo. All I see it really offering over the original X1 is a bump in resolution and better VR. That isn't something most day-to-day gamers will care about. And all of the folks that do care about 4k, tflops, VR, etc probably have a gaming PC where they can already play X1 games and have access to top-of-the-line VR HMDs.

Just my two cents.

Avatar image for clagnaught
#56 Posted by clagnaught (1259 posts) -

The only thing I can think of is it can't be anymore than $600. The Xbox One fell behind the PS4 early on partially because it was $500 and the PS3 had a lot to catch up on far arriving late and being $600. If it's more than $600 you have to ask who is Scorpio really for? PC gamers? People who bought a PS4? People who are still holding onto their 360? The more expensive obviously the smaller the market will be, but I'm just wondering what that market is.

Avatar image for cheetoman
#57 Posted by Cheetoman (298 posts) -

I mean if they want to compete with Sony and the pro then it has to be $400. More importantly, there needs to be exclusives otherwise people will just stick with there PS4.

Avatar image for hunkulese
#58 Edited by Hunkulese (4008 posts) -

Depends on what it is and what they want. No one can answer these questions yet.

I'm about due for a new PC and if the Scorpio If it can compete with a decent PC and is less than $1000, I'd get one.

People's spending habits these days are out of control, and it will be a success if they can justify the price.

Avatar image for zombievac
#59 Edited by zombievac (392 posts) -

@humanity said:

@isomeri: I think people might have been a lot more willing to spend that premium money in the past, before these companies broke the console cycle. Now it seems a lot more risky to invest large chunks of money into a console model that might get leapfrogged again in the same generation. It's not the same type of long term investment as a videocard and honestly at some point you're just better off investing in a pc instead. The entire idea of these pro and premium gamer consoles is really misguided as it's fracturing not only your consumer base but putting a bigger workload on developers as well who now have to push out multiple sku's for the same console. Games were buggy and I optimized as it were, and now you need to make a version that runs well on PS4 basic as well as a version that runs with the bells and whistles on a Pro.. but doesn't offer anything the basic can't give you.. it's a headache and sucks for consumers that in the past only had to make one big hardware investment.

I spent $150 on my PS4 Pro after selling my barely-used original (non-slim) PS4 on eBay. I don't think that's a bad deal AT ALL for what it offers, that's like a memory upgrade in a gaming PC!

And neither company is "breaking the console cycle", because these premium console mid-gen releases are just a step up in the same direction they've always gone - release cheaper, better, but still compatible new console SKUs over the life of the generation... and now, they're just more powerful and cost more, and still have the older SKUs and Slim SKUs for the people who can't afford the premium versions - this entices consumers to upgrade who can afford it, and to save money on the manufacturing so they actually make some money on the console sales themselves eventually, or at least don't lose money per console.

It's also an entirely different thing to optimize a game for two console SKUs with VERY similar hardware that is just clocked at better speeds mainly. It takes FAR less work than optimizing a multi-platform title to work on a PS4, XB1, AND a very wide range of PC configs. It's probably 10% more work, instead of 100% more to port a game to all platforms and make a good PC version that works on all those different configs out there.

Also, despite being fully compatible with all the current and future titles for both SKUs, it still can offer much more than what the lesser priced verison of the console can. VR, for example, or 4K support, or UHD Blu rays. VR's just bad on a regular PS4 with any game that has ANY decent graphical intensity going on, for example.

Avatar image for zevvion
#60 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@zevvion: We always know when a games does well because the publisher will shout about it even MS who won't talk numbers shouted about Forza Horizons success, the anecdotal evidence we have regarding the Windows Store is show the opposite like Gear 4 PC social play being merged with XB1 likely due to low pop numbers. Most who care about Halo own an XB1, H5 sold half what its predecessors did shows Halo is not the juggernaut it used to be, H5 did ~5 million how many will buy it on PC? And how many will shift to the Windows Store?

Halo 5 is not available on PC. When Halo 6 will be announced for Windows Store, as it will, do you really think that less than a million people will buy it on PC? I really doubt that. It doesn't need to be the juggernaut it was, it needs to be Halo. It will cause people to interact with the Windows Store, which means at least a few million people will now have opened that thing that never opened it before. Then they most likely have a plan laid out for a free game here and there after Halo 6 releases and Windows Store will be something people will glance at once in a while, which is more than nothing.

Avatar image for zombievac
#61 Edited by zombievac (392 posts) -

@thepanzini said:

@zevvion: We always know when a games does well because the publisher will shout about it even MS who won't talk numbers shouted about Forza Horizons success, the anecdotal evidence we have regarding the Windows Store is show the opposite like Gear 4 PC social play being merged with XB1 likely due to low pop numbers. Most who care about Halo own an XB1, H5 sold half what its predecessors did shows Halo is not the juggernaut it used to be, H5 did ~5 million how many will buy it on PC? And how many will shift to the Windows Store?

While mostly agreed, or see the logic in, your original comment that Zevvion replied to, don't bother getting into his fabricated argument schtick.

Notice the crazy post count? It's his schtick. He also tried to start the argument/"debate" based on a premise that you didn't say at all, no reasonable person would read your comment and think "well he clearly is claiming NOBODY WILL EVER BUY ANYTHING FROM WINDOWS STORE"... of course they will, and you wouldn't have to specify that anyway.

Your point, which is reasonable and backed up by history so far, is that Windows Store is absolutely not preferred by anyone - not the consumers, not the developers, and it probably WILL fail because MS is using the stupidest tactics possible to force people to buy games there and devs to sell games there when there is no good incentive (yet, and probably ever) for either party to do so, unless they're paid or forced to do so in some way.

Avatar image for zevvion
#62 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@thepanzini said:

@zevvion: We always know when a games does well because the publisher will shout about it even MS who won't talk numbers shouted about Forza Horizons success, the anecdotal evidence we have regarding the Windows Store is show the opposite like Gear 4 PC social play being merged with XB1 likely due to low pop numbers. Most who care about Halo own an XB1, H5 sold half what its predecessors did shows Halo is not the juggernaut it used to be, H5 did ~5 million how many will buy it on PC? And how many will shift to the Windows Store?

While mostly agreed, or see the logic in, your original comment that Zevvion replied to, don't bother getting into his fabricated argument schtick. Notice the crazy post count? It's his schtick. He also tried to start the argument based on a premise that you didn't say at all, no reasonable person would read your comment and think "well he clearly is claiming NOBODY WILL EVER BUY ANYTHING FROM WINDOWS STORE"... of course they will, and you wouldn't have to specify that anyway. Your point, which is reasonable and backed up by history so far, is that Windows Store is absolutely not preferred by anyone - not the consumers, not the developers, and it probably WILL fail because MS is using the stupidest tactics possible to force people to buy games there and devs to sell games there when there is no good incentive (yet, and probably ever) for either party to do so.

Oh, please passively aggressively respond to me again to prove you haven't read anything.

@thepanzini said:

I don't see how Scorpio is attacking steam if they want people to use the Windows Store then they need a killer app

His point was not that people prefer Steam over Windows Store. His point was that Windows Store won't get a competitive cut of the PC marketplace. That is what this argument is about. And my point was not that 'someone will buy it', my point was that it will get them a cut into that marketplace.

If you're going to bother responding to me again, at least do it with respect and valid arguments. Also, read into the actual argument we are having, which was civil before you stepped in. I get that I'm an opinionated person and that very fact might push people's buttons, but don't put words in my mouth just because you can't take it.

Avatar image for humanity
#63 Posted by Humanity (16204 posts) -

@zombievac: You sold your console sure, but I am not the type of person that ever sells anything for various reasons so my option is to buy another whole PS4 that does exactly the same thing, only slightly better. If my original unit breaks (and I hope that doesn't happen) I would just buy a Pro, but other than that the few perks it offers aren't enough to get me to go and spend $400.

As for how much work goes into making two versions of the same game, well I can't really speak for that and I won't make any assumptions as I'm not a developer. All I know is that developers have been having a rough time getting a lot of these games we are playing these days to run even O-K at times - and thats when they only had one system to worry about. Dishonored 2, a recent title, runs questionably at best. So I'm not going to guess if it's 10% more work or 50% more work, because hey I don't know, but I do know that when it was 0% more work they were still having a hard time getting games to run reliably.

Finally, they most certainly did break the console cycle, whether ultimately it was for the better or worse we will see, but they subverted the typical cycle. It was always one console per generation and thats all you had to worry about. Sure there were slims and newer models with slightly upgraded innards, but they never offered significant performance boosts the way the Pro is advertised as doing. There was a certain comfort and safety in knowing that what you buy is what you get, and what everyone else gets, and there are no better or worse options. Now you get to choose framerate or graphical fidelity and thats a crummy choice to make when an upgraded PC can give you both.

I've said this many times before but ultimately I don't think developers needed better hardware to make better games. Some of the best games of all time were released on the 360 and PS3. This generation is constantly trying to wow us with flashy visuals while the gameplay itself is typically undercooked or underwhelming. I don't care if I'm playing in a huge, beautiful world with zero loading screens if the gameplay itself is stiff and uninteresting. Zelda Breath of the Wild is a prime example of this idea, where fun gameplay and a clever art style make for a fantastic game.

Avatar image for zevvion
#64 Posted by Zevvion (5217 posts) -

@humanity: I do think power can drive games forward, but I don't think it works in this particular situation because both Sony and Microsoft require developers to make the games able to run on both consoles without leaving out features. That means that within those guidelines, games running slightly better just is the best-case scenario. At which point the value of such an updated machine diminishes greatly if you already own the regular one.

I think most people would handle it the same as you: not going to buy a new one, but if mine breaks, I will pay a little more to get the better one.

Avatar image for teddie
#65 Posted by Teddie (1490 posts) -

@humanity said:

It will definitely be great PR for them if everything works as advertised, unless the price will be so prohibitive as to overshadow any of those technical improvements. Then again, people ARE buying that XB1 Elite controller quite a lot which I guess was a good test case of how willing people are to pay a high price for premium gaming products.

Aside from the obvious price difference factoring into that, there's also an audience in PC gamers with the Elite controller that the Scorpio won't get in on.

Avatar image for ir0n
#66 Posted by Ir0n (131 posts) -

Again - Scorpios objective is not to close the gap to Sony in terms of hardware sales.

I don't really get why people are so far off the point with their expectation if Phil quite openly told the public what to expect.

He clearly stated he expects the One S to be the model that stands for the vast majority of their sales going forward as well - the Scorpio is aimed at a minor subset of players who are willing to pay significantly more (aka "premium") for a beefed up console but have no ambition to alternatively go for a gaming pc instead.

This seems foremost to be about brand positioning, being associated with the most powerful console on the market in itself has value for MS beyond that machines expected sales figures.

Source

Avatar image for oursin_360
#67 Posted by OurSin_360 (4450 posts) -

@ir0n: well the topic of the thread is what should they do to be able to succeed not what they are actually going to do. I think you are right ans they will make a beast of a console for a premium from 500-700$, i don't think its actually a good idea though.

Avatar image for werupenstein
#68 Posted by Kidavenger (4168 posts) -
Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#69 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (5710 posts) -

I guess we won't know how small or big the market is for people that want high end hardware but also don't want to get a PC. My opinion is that the market is small which is why it seems crazy to me that they would make such a big push for a high end system that may cost a premium price.

Only one way to find out

Avatar image for ir0n
#70 Posted by Ir0n (131 posts) -
Avatar image for zombievac
#71 Posted by zombievac (392 posts) -

@humanity said:

@zombievac: You sold your console sure, but I am not the type of person that ever sells anything for various reasons so my option is to buy another whole PS4 that does exactly the same thing, only slightly better. If my original unit breaks (and I hope that doesn't happen) I would just buy a Pro, but other than that the few perks it offers aren't enough to get me to go and spend $400.

As for how much work goes into making two versions of the same game, well I can't really speak for that and I won't make any assumptions as I'm not a developer. All I know is that developers have been having a rough time getting a lot of these games we are playing these days to run even O-K at times - and thats when they only had one system to worry about. Dishonored 2, a recent title, runs questionably at best. So I'm not going to guess if it's 10% more work or 50% more work, because hey I don't know, but I do know that when it was 0% more work they were still having a hard time getting games to run reliably.

Finally, they most certainly did break the console cycle, whether ultimately it was for the better or worse we will see, but they subverted the typical cycle. It was always one console per generation and thats all you had to worry about. Sure there were slims and newer models with slightly upgraded innards, but they never offered significant performance boosts the way the Pro is advertised as doing. There was a certain comfort and safety in knowing that what you buy is what you get, and what everyone else gets, and there are no better or worse options. Now you get to choose framerate or graphical fidelity and thats a crummy choice to make when an upgraded PC can give you both.

I've said this many times before but ultimately I don't think developers needed better hardware to make better games. Some of the best games of all time were released on the 360 and PS3. This generation is constantly trying to wow us with flashy visuals while the gameplay itself is typically undercooked or underwhelming. I don't care if I'm playing in a huge, beautiful world with zero loading screens if the gameplay itself is stiff and uninteresting. Zelda Breath of the Wild is a prime example of this idea, where fun gameplay and a clever art style make for a fantastic game.

I hear ya, and I would feel the same if I didn't want to sell my old one - this is one of few cases where I am fine selling my old one, because the Pro is all the regular is - with more. Normally I hate getting 1-10% of the value of an item trading it in, or even selling it on eBay is largely not worthwhile in many cases (I lucked out and got $250 for my PS4 on eBay to put toward the Pro). I am a collector too, of sorts, so I get it.

I do think all titles should be on all platforms capable of supporting them (exclusivity is a curse for consumers, but almost necessary for the console manufacturers to compete)... but that is just not reality, especially with Nintendo.

So, since there are actually quite a few PS4 exclusives that are among my favorite games, I'm happy to have the option to play it at slightly better resolution, framerate, and/or graphical settings (with Boost now, even the old games benefit). They didn't leave the owners of a previous PS4 out at all, and yes I agree they were already having trouble optimizing games this generation... but the Pro, in essence, should help resolve that, more and more as time goes on, once games of the highest technical prowess are released when built with the Pro and Regular in mind from the get-go.

I do think the upgrades in graphical and general horsepower are justified though, for this generation. I think Sony and MS were silly to pick AMD as their internal CPUs and GPUs this generation (or any, really), because that left us with way too little CPU power on both systems, compared with what is needed for modern AAA graphically intensive games. That's generally why we're seeing performance problems, even though most games still underutilize the GPU most of the time. So the Pro is a step in the right direction in that way - to get AI, physics, etc & where they need to be to compete this gen with PCs and each other. I don't think the Pro will change that situation, but it will improve it in some or many cases.

But, for a full $400 when one already has a non-Pro is pretty silly, unless they're buying into a nice 4K HDR TV too and want to enjoy all the content they can in 4K/HDR and game performance/graphics are important to them.

Avatar image for humanity
#72 Posted by Humanity (16204 posts) -

@zombievac: I fully sympathize with their bad decision with betting on AMD. A few years ago I decided to build a new PC so I told my brother, who for some reason is an avid AMD supporter, to build it for me. Now I knew how to build PC's and had done so all my life but quite frankly I was a little out of the game at that point and didn't feel like bothering with it. So I ended up with an AMD system and boy did that end up hurting in the long run. I re-educated myself on PC parts and just recently built another brand new PC with an Intel CPU and a Nvidia graphics card and I couldn't be happier.

Also I hear ya. I mean if I had a really good reason to upgrade to a Pro I probably would because like you say there are only really benefits of having one. That said, my current system is still ticking along, my TV isn't some fancy new 4K model so I don't really miss out on any of that jazz, and games like Horizon are still running and looking great. Initially my plan was to ride out my base PS4 until the Scorpio rolls out and then switch to that as my primary console and pick up stray Sony exclusives here and there to play on my old base unit. That was the plan anyway but I don't even know anymore, consoles are in a weird place and while last generation I could definitely draw a line in the sand and say "yes I'm a 360 sort of person and the PS3 library doesn't really interest me much" this generation it's not so clear. That said there haven't been that many XB1 exclusives that I really needed to play and since I built my new PC and a lot of the exclusives will come out on Windows buying a beefier Microsoft console almost seems like a pretty dumb move.

Consoles are weird now.

Avatar image for patchmaster
#73 Edited by PatchMaster (310 posts) -

Definitely sounds like it's supposed to be a half-step between consoles and PC (Steambox anyone?), so I'd honestly be shocked if it sold for under $500.

Avatar image for meierthered
#74 Posted by MeierTheRed (5328 posts) -

I feel like price point won't matter at all if Microsoft can't show people why they should buy one. Their software library still seems weak, at least when it comes to first party, and that's what counts right now.

Online
Avatar image for ir0n
#75 Posted by Ir0n (131 posts) -

@meierthered said:

I feel like price point won't matter at all if Microsoft can't show people why they should buy one. Their software library still seems weak, at least when it comes to first party, and that's what counts right now.

Yeah there is a lot of truth in that one - at the end of the day they have to show unique experiences that raises the urge to pick up the Scorpion. If you look at this summary of Xbox exclusives they really have to turn around their software strategy big time if they want the Scorpio to make a lasting impression.

Avatar image for tyrrael
#76 Posted by Tyrrael (461 posts) -

I think $500 is the highest they will be able to comfortably get away with. Like many have said, it was always supposed to be a "premium" product and Microsoft never said any different, so $500 seems reasonable. The Xbox One S is already at a lower price point for those that still want to play Xbox games but don't need the extra features, like 4K, for example, or still want to play but are on a tighter budget.

If they do go any higher than that, they risk doing what Sony did with the PS3, and if memory serves, that didn't work out so well.

Avatar image for justin258
#77 Posted by Justin258 (14373 posts) -

@willyod: In US dollars, a GTX 1070 is around the $400 mark, usually just a little above that. The GTX 1080 just recently dropped to around $500, also usually only a little more than that. I seriously doubt a Scorpio will be as powerful as a GTX 108p, but that's beside the point of this thread.

On topic, I don't know. I used my Xbox One a lot for about a year and haven't really done much with it since, so I'm not the target audience for this thing. I think it would be cool to see a premium console where 1440p60 is the normal resolution/framerate and they keep the regular Xbox One as a 900p/30 machine.

Avatar image for notnert427
#78 Posted by notnert427 (1474 posts) -

$450 is where it should probably be priced, all things considered. After all, basically everyone but me said fuck no to the $500 launch price of the Xbox One and used the Kinect excuse when most were really just being cheap, so history suggests the price needs to fall under that to generate interest. Whether Scorpio is even viable at that price point remains to be seen. MS would seemingly lose money on every console in that scenario, just as they did with the OG Xbox when it, too, was priced lower than the sum cost of its parts. They'd really be taking a bath on it at $400 or $350, so $450 seems like a reasonable effort to both try and price it for the consumer while also not completely losing their ass on it.

I think it's already kinda bullshit that people are expecting this thing to be priced near the PS4 Pro when their respective performance (by all appearances) isn't going to be remotely comparable. I'm fully expecting that if/when Scorpio sells for less than it costs but more than people want to pay, everyone is going to act all affronted and claim it's "too expensive" when it quite literally isn't, and that's going to be brutal. I can't even imagine the backlash if this thing comes in at or north of $500 like it might. Pricing will be crucial, especially since the market deemed the Xbox One to be overpriced. There are already people ready and waiting to drop "greedy M$ hates consumers" comments the second pricing gets revealed.

It will be a feat if Scorpio doesn't get roundly shit upon wherever its priced. It's a premium product, but seemingly can't really be priced as one because people are assholes and think they're "owed" a complete steal on Scorpio because MS overestimated the market for a Kinect the last go-round. I really don't think it's going to matter at all how powerful/capable Scorpio is, or what games come out for it, or really anything if they don't get the pricing right. I don't know if the poll here is accurately measuring people's expectations or if people are instead recognizing that MS may need to cater that much to a chintzy consumer (perhaps untenably so), but the fact that the current PS4 Pro price of $400 is running away with it perfectly exemplifies the problem MS will probably soon face.

It seems like people are wanting a Ferrari for the price of a BMW with Scorpio, and are ready to balk hard if they don't get that. Additionally, others seemingly have no actual interest in Scorpio at any price, but are eager to criticize the fuck out of its price point anyway. That informed consumers here who understand what native 4K gaming is are thinking $400 is the sweet spot is fairly scary. It might well have to be, as Joe Rando will probably conflate the PS4 Pro's 4K compatibility with Scorpio's (purported) native 4K, and even then, all Sony has to do is drop the PS4 Pro price to $350 at Scorpio launch to successfully undercut MS again. I really hope Scorpio somehow finds a niche, but based on the general sentiments I'm seeing, I'm getting more pessimistic by the day.

Avatar image for zombievac
#79 Posted by zombievac (392 posts) -
@humanity said:

@zombievac: I fully sympathize with their bad decision with betting on AMD. A few years ago I decided to build a new PC so I told my brother, who for some reason is an avid AMD supporter, to build it for me. Now I knew how to build PC's and had done so all my life but quite frankly I was a little out of the game at that point and didn't feel like bothering with it. So I ended up with an AMD system and boy did that end up hurting in the long run. I re-educated myself on PC parts and just recently built another brand new PC with an Intel CPU and a Nvidia graphics card and I couldn't be happier.

Also I hear ya. I mean if I had a really good reason to upgrade to a Pro I probably would because like you say there are only really benefits of having one. That said, my current system is still ticking along, my TV isn't some fancy new 4K model so I don't really miss out on any of that jazz, and games like Horizon are still running and looking great. Initially my plan was to ride out my base PS4 until the Scorpio rolls out and then switch to that as my primary console and pick up stray Sony exclusives here and there to play on my old base unit. That was the plan anyway but I don't even know anymore, consoles are in a weird place and while last generation I could definitely draw a line in the sand and say "yes I'm a 360 sort of person and the PS3 library doesn't really interest me much" this generation it's not so clear. That said there haven't been that many XB1 exclusives that I really needed to play and since I built my new PC and a lot of the exclusives will come out on Windows buying a beefier Microsoft console almost seems like a pretty dumb move.

Consoles are weird now.

They are, but I think it's a natural progression... and it does benefit the consumer who wants to play on console but still have a near-PC-like graphical experience, and hurts no one, as long as they keep their compatibility - and other promises - like not to leave the original PS4 behind. Everyone wants, even needs in many ways, to be like Apple now... having sold tech/IT equipment and software myself years ago, even then the margins were SO thin on most PCs and notebooks that nobody was really making any money - except Apple after the iPhone (even Apple was making little on their Macs, shortly before that).

Hence IBM selling their ThinkPad/Think"X" to Lenovo a few years back, and others doing the same. The ones hanging in there, or even entering the market are moving toward the Apple model - price sets the expectation of quality on the machine for many consumers (again, because of Apple), so as long as MS/Apple make it better than average, it will seem justified (enough, at least) to the people who can afford that pricing anyway.. in theory, though we're yet to see if that market is already too competitive as well (it likely will be shortly, if not). Microsoft is now manufacturing and marketing their own PCs - now, of all times, to finally make some of the machines their OS runs on... which is so weird to me (I know they have made some unsuccessful devices that run some form of Windows in the past)! Yet, it's working out for them, so far... Their Surface products are a great example of this - whatever gave them the right to think they could enter the market with a new Apple clone product, at HIGHER prices than Apple's, and actually succeed at it - that actually shows how bad the situation is for PC manufacturers and sellers, until now... maybe... for a little while.

Dell is another example of this, but a bad one so far - I'll leave it at their attempts to do the same... namely, a half-assed pricing increase, and a half-assed attempt at new products more like Surfaces or iPads/MacBooks. How far they've fallen.

Game consoles are even worse, as these companies not only make nothing on the console itself, but they often take a hit on each and hope to make up for it with software and add-ons - except Nintendo, which is kind of the Apple of consoles - some people worship anything they do and buy it, but overall, they make a worse product (hardware is what I mean here) than they should or easily could... because they can, and anything else would not be as profitable anyway (in their minds at least), not in the way they want to be, anyway.

I own a Switch and an iPhone/iPad here, so I'm not saying they both suck - I like them a lot, because of their more closed nature, ease of use, and with the iPhone - the reliability (less so recently though), but they definitely could be better and cost a lot less - they both take advantage of a certain segment of a market who is otherwise mostly falling into commoditization - except them, because the products that have brand-name value have less of that commoditization issue, so far... Apple, Nintendo, etc.

Releasing new hardware more frequently, with a similar or maybe even longer compatibility period for the older models, is likely the way the market is going to go from now on for a while. Otherwise, they're not only NOT tapping into a market that exists for a higher end console, but letting that market segment move to the PC instead, in droves... so they're trying to evolve with the times and put a stop to that.

Just like TVs and appliances are becoming computers that need to up upgraded more often for the "good" experience, so are the game consoles.

Avatar image for willyod
#80 Edited by WillyOD (94 posts) -

@justin258:

I forgot that US technology prices are way below the prices in Europe. I paid 550 EUR (~$590 USD) for a 1070 maybe four months ago. I just looked up and the price hasn't changed (in Finland).

I've also got Xbox One S and PS4Pro (and even more powerful PC), so I really, really don't need a new console, but I've most enjoyed my time with Xbox One over the last years. Right now (maybe the whole 2017...) I'm planning to enjoy the many PS4 exclusives out now. Hopefully we'll see some good games on Scorpio. Nintendo's Switch Only Zelda Matters Launchup was kinda bummer for me.

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
#81 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (6219 posts) -

If Xbox One S (Slim) is selling for $299 then I think the ceiling for Scorpio is $400. Well, if they actually want to it sell beyond a niche of the very hardcore market. I have a funny feeling Microsoft WANTED to sell it at $500 or even $600, but I think PS4 Prop coming out at $399 has made that impossible. I think Scorpio will have to see if what PS 4 Pro sells for, and when Pro drops in price I think Scorpio need to drop as well.

I think it would be fascinating if Microsoft tried for $499, but I think the fascination would be how many people jump on at that price. I bet there are still some "dyed in the wool" Microsoft fans would will buy whatever MS puts out because they are committed to that platform, that fair enough. But I do wonder if they could sell enough at that price and what not being able to do that would demonstrate about this concept of 'iterative' hardware. I think unlike smartphone buyers there is a cap on how often console buyers will 'upgrade their hardware' and how much is acceptable. I honestly think after three years consumer might be willing for buy a mild backwards compatible upgraded machine at the same launch pricing, but that is about - no sooner that 2 years & 11 months and no more that $399.

Avatar image for thepanzini
#82 Edited by ThePanzini (397 posts) -

@monkeyking1969: It doesn't matter if Scorpio sells or not neither does the price $400/$500 every Scorpio sold will be profit quantity is not the point XB1 S will still be 90% of sales were in the back end of the generation most consumers left are very price conscious their never going to by Scorpio almost at any price. The new generation will start in 3-4 years with or without MS they better be ready this time, Scoprio will do two things generate good PR in prep for XB2 and lockin and upsell a small number of XB1 users.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.