(UPDATE: Series S 100% Confirmed) Xbox Series X and Series S Prices and Launch Dates Leaked - $500 for X and $300 for S

[Ein0r]

I will probably stay a pc player for many more years  but I really dig those finance options. If you are not only out for the latest, greatest and most up to datest, you get so much game it is an incredible deal. And you can still get the new releases. If they are any good, of course.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, Ein0r said:

I will probably stay a pc player for many more years  but I really dig those finance options. If you are not only out for the latest, greatest and most up to datest, you get so much game it is an incredible deal. And you can still get the new releases. If they are any good, of course.

Ill mention it again, I may get the XSS and finance it, so I can have something in my living room. I cant route a HDMI to my tv from my pc.

[Fatih19]

They've put out this tweet since.

https://twitter.com/Xbox/status/1303680112156524544?s=20

[maartendc]

Those are some very competitive prices.

 

I am seeing general online discourse turn in favor of Xbox now, instead of the lukewarm reception they have been getting so far.

 

I can't see Sony beating or even matching these prices. Sony has been hinting at the fact that the PS5 is expensive to produce, and will be an expensive device. Perhaps Sony will go $599 for the disc version, and $549 for the discless version. Perhaps they can try to go as low as $499 for their discless version, but perhaps they could lose money on every console sold in that case.

 

Meanwhile, Xbox still has a way cheaper option with the $299 Series S. Good system for those who don't need 4K. Smart.

[BroliviaWilde]

It appears that MS will be sellling at a loss.

[GoodBytes]

30 minutes ago, BroliviaWilde said:

It appears that MS will be sellling at a loss.

All console beside Nintendo's (might have some exceptions in the console early life) are sold at a loss at release.

The console manufactures makes its money back from the game purchases. 

 

Update/Correction:

This is not the first time where console are sold at a loss. In the recent years, beside Nintendo, console can be sold at a loss.

 

Traditionally, each game you buy for a game console, around $8 to $10 US goes to the console manufacture, part of license fee.

New gen games are now expected to be sold at $70 US up from $60 US for new big releases. This suggests that the license fee has doubled for both Sony and Microsoft.

 

So yes, it is a gambling game. For example, Sony almost went under due to the PS3 losses in its early days, where people bought the console as an inexpensive, but rather good, BlueRay player and never bought a game, or just 1 or 2, which wasn't sufficient. Of course, luck changed for Sony with the PS3, and started to sale well to actual gamers after... but was pretty scary for Sony at the time, considering that nearly all other department of the company where also in the red.

 

Considering that the XBox Series S does not have an optical drive, it also ensure no second hand market purchases are done, and only purchases on MS online stores are allowed (this also makes Microsoft not have to pay the retailers, maximizing revenue to pay back the console). So yes, in a way, it is same story as what Microsoft wanted to do with the XBox One originally, and people freaked out. (That said, people have better internet now, than ~6 years ago, and you have the option).

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

All console beside Nintendo's (might have some exceptions in the console early life) are sold at a loss at release.

The console manufactures makes its money back from the game purchases. 

Well, not exactly. Selling consoles at a loss from the get-go is really a more recent thing; although if memory serves, neither the PS4 nor Xbox One were sold at losses at launch. 

PS3 definitely was sold at a loss at launch, with many reports saying that the console costed around $800+ to manufacture. 

[SeraphicWings]

That $299 xbox and game pass will be a KILLER combo for family entertainment

 

 

[GoodBytes]

9 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Well, not exactly. Selling consoles at a loss from the get-go is really a more recent thing; although if memory serves, neither the PS4 nor Xbox One were sold at losses at launch. 

PS3 definitely was sold at a loss at launch, with many reports saying that the console costed around $800+ to manufacture. 

Ah yes, come to think about it, very true. I stand corrected.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

Ah yes, come to think about it, very true. I stand corrected.

Console marketing and selling is really odd to think about, honestly. I won't be shocked if the Xbox Series X and S (and the PS5, for that matter) are sold at losses, but traditionally, there's generally room for profiting off of consoles sales even at the beginning. 

Although, I will add an asterisk for the PS4 and Xbox One sales at the start of that generation: the PS4 was reported to cost around $370 total to make and ship out, so it probably wouldn't have netted much profit, if any at the very beginning of the generation. 

 

Still, economies of scale works massively in favor of bulk manufacturing of things like console hardware, so they start turning profits really quickly even with game sales and accessories accounted for.

[GoodBytes]

6 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Console marketing and selling is really odd to think about, honestly. I won't be shocked if the Xbox Series X and S (and the PS5, for that matter) are sold at losses, but traditionally, there's generally room for profiting off of consoles sales even at the beginning. 

Although, I will add an asterisk for the PS4 and Xbox One sales at the start of that generation: the PS4 was reported to cost around $370 total to make and ship out, so it probably wouldn't have netted much profit, if any at the very beginning of the generation. 

 

Still, economies of scale works massively in favor of bulk manufacturing of things like console hardware, so they start turning profits really quickly even with game sales and accessories accounted for.

I don't know those figures, but I'll just mentioned this as a general note for things.

Keep in mind, that these manufacturing cost, only considers manufacturing, not the cost of marketing, R&D, company operational expenses, warranty, support, QA failures costs (which is distributed in the overall actual cost), etc.

 

Example: A top of the line GPU or CPU costs around $30-50 to manufacture, yet it is sold much higher price. And if you check the companies profits, they are not actually high to what it should be, considering the manufacturing cost compared to the MSRP of the product in retail stores.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

[wanderingfool2]

On 9/10/2020 at 3:13 AM, maartendc said:

Meanwhile, Xbox still has a way cheaper option with the $299 Series S. Good system for those who don't need 4K. Smart.

The Series S actually scares me.  In terms of game development, it might have the same API but if the rumors that it has lower ram (and definitely lower GPU specs), then that means games won't be as optimized.  It becomes, will developers sacrifice the quality of the game to make sure it runs on the Series S and X "equally".

[tkitch]

14 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The Series S actually scares me.  In terms of game development, it might have the same API but if the rumors that it has lower ram (and definitely lower GPU specs), then that means games won't be as optimized.  It becomes, will developers sacrifice the quality of the game to make sure it runs on the Series S and X "equally".

you're getting that a little mixed up:

A 3060 and 3090 will both be just as optimized for the same games, since they're the same CPU.  The 3090 will just be faster, because of what it is.

 

The RAM in both will be fine, but slower ram does mean fewer FPS.

[wanderingfool2]

18 minutes ago, tkitch said:

you're getting that a little mixed up:

A 3060 and 3090 will both be just as optimized for the same games, since they're the same CPU.  The 3090 will just be faster, because of what it is.

 

The RAM in both will be fine, but slower ram does mean fewer FPS.

No, I'm not wrong.  Console optimizations aren't like PC optimizations.  You can use hardware in different ways; and example being imagine if you had a guaranteed 32 CUDA cores and utilized it as part of the physics engine...but now you are told that you have 2 systems, one that has 16 and another that has 32 and you have to support both.  You are instantly losing functionality that could have been in the 32 system.  (That's an oversimplified example, but it's the concept of it).

 

The benefit that consoles get over PC is that they have predicable hardware that performs at a certain metric, and if you have a lower end tier and a higher end tier you cap yourself (in that if you might no longer be able to do something that would push the higher end tier to the red line if it means breaking the lower end tier).

 

You say RAM in both is fine...but no it's not.  If, and that's an IF, because the final numbers weren't released the rumored RAM amount is true, then you effectively limit yourself again (yes, you can have lower res textures and etc to save on RAM space...but that means larger game files or two separate game files)

[maartendc]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

No, I'm not wrong.  Console optimizations aren't like PC optimizations.  You can use hardware in different ways; and example being imagine if you had a guaranteed 32 CUDA cores and utilized it as part of the physics engine...but now you are told that you have 2 systems, one that has 16 and another that has 32 and you have to support both.  You are instantly losing functionality that could have been in the 32 system.  (That's an oversimplified example, but it's the concept of it).

 

The benefit that consoles get over PC is that they have predicable hardware that performs at a certain metric, and if you have a lower end tier and a higher end tier you cap yourself (in that if you might no longer be able to do something that would push the higher end tier to the red line if it means breaking the lower end tier).

 

You say RAM in both is fine...but no it's not.  If, and that's an IF, because the final numbers weren't released the rumored RAM amount is true, then you effectively limit yourself again (yes, you can have lower res textures and etc to save on RAM space...but that means larger game files or two separate game files)

I understand your point, but I don't know if it is entirely true.  If Microsoft is to be believed, the Series X targets 4K and the Series S targets 1440P.

 

It makes sense therefore that both systems are identical, and the Series X just needs more GPU power and VRam to push the higher resolution.

 

I think Microsoft would have kept this in mind while designing the Series S, making sure not to kneecap the whole generation.

[wanderingfool2]

56 minutes ago, maartendc said:

I understand your point, but I don't know if it is entirely true.  If Microsoft is to be believed, the Series X targets 4K and the Series S targets 1440P.

 

It makes sense therefore that both systems are identical, and the Series X just needs more GPU power and VRam to push the higher resolution.

 

I think Microsoft would have kept this in mind while designing the Series S, making sure not to kneecap the whole generation.

Inherently one has to design for the lowest common denominator (and it does limit what developers can do).  Actually from what it is though, less ram, slower cpu, slower gpu...so yea it might mean a sacrifice in what is capable of being done

[centurion_08]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

 

Considering that the XBox Series S does not have an optical drive, it also ensure no second hand market purchases are done, and only purchases on MS online stores are allowed (this also makes Microsoft not have to pay the retailers, maximizing revenue to pay back the console).

That's a good and a bad thing. Yes, good internet equals less hastle and being up to date in a blink. What sucks donkey dick is that your on mercy of the MS Store and it's prices.

Yes, it's the same story with steam, but you have alternatives. cdkeys, kinguin etc etc, and no used copies. You win some, you lose some. Personally, i like to see what i paid for.

[GoodBytes]

 

Quote

Yes, it's the same story with steam, but you have alternatives. cdkeys, kinguin etc etc, and no used copies. You win some, you lose some. Personally, i like to see what i paid for.

Piracy is not a valid alternative. Paying piracy is just silly on your part.

[dalekphalm]

On 9/9/2020 at 2:08 PM, centurion_08 said:

Doesn't matter how you slice it. Gaming-wise, this much heat, packed in for 499? That's a really good option. Huge amount of people don't want to fuck with pc parts etc etc. Having to play the newest, the hottest games on a cheap hardware that will last for 5-6 years+? Let's be honest, the console with gamepass is a huge hitter. Your move Sony.

 

It's very compelling. I have an Xbox One S that I bought as a media centre box, but I do game on it now and then (more than I do PC gaming these days).

 

I'm heavily considering selling it and upgrading to the Series X - I already pay for GamePass (though I use the cheeky method where I buy discounted Costco Live Gold passes, and convert it into GamePass - it works out to be cheaper per month), so doing the financing option that includes GamePass may well be a good choice.

 

I looked up the CAD pricing - it's $599 for the Series X and $379 for the Series S. Those are very reasonable prices, given the exchange rate.

[centurion_08]

19 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

 

Piracy is not a valid alternative. Paying piracy is just silly on your part.

What you on about? Didn't said anything about pirating. Searching for the cheaper seller isn't a crime.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, centurion_08 said:

What you on about? Didn't said anything about pirating. Searching for the cheaper seller isn't a crime.

No, it's not. If I were to guess, I'd say he's talking about the fact that some key resellers (particularly G2A, but others as well) are notorious for allowing sales of keys acquired using stolen credit cards.

 

In those cases, it's effectively still piracy. Or worse, since chargebacks cost the devs actual money in the form of fees charged by their paymenbt processor, whereas traditional piracy doesn't.

[GoodBytes]

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

No, it's not. If I were to guess, I'd say he's talking about the fact that some key resellers (particularly G2A, but others as well) are notorious for allowing sales of keys acquired using stolen credit cards.

Exactly! And you can include key generator as well, although this is more for small programs that doesn't have an activation server protection system, or features an offline activation option that is being taken advantage off (although, you see that disappearing, due to the easy piracy route).

 

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

In those cases, it's effectively still piracy. Or worse, since chargebacks cost the devs actual money in the form of fees charged by their paymenbt processor, whereas traditional piracy doesn't.

Exactly.

[centurion_08]

23 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Exactly! And you can include key generator as well, although this is more for small programs that doesn't have an activation server protection system, or features an offline activation option that is being taken advantage off (although, you see that disappearing, due to the easy piracy route).

 

Exactly.

Ok, i know where you going with this one, but as an end consumer i'm not moraly or by law obligated to verify how he obtained the keys. I'm just paying for staff. He's the one to feel bad, IF he gives a flying fuck of course.

[dalekphalm]

5 minutes ago, centurion_08 said:

Ok, i know where you going with this one, but as an end consumer i'm not moraly or by law obligated to verify how he obtained the keys. I'm just paying for staff. He's the one to feel bad, IF he gives a flying fuck of course.

Legally speaking, you're likely in the clear in the sense that you're not at fault. You're usually not liable for buying stolen goods if the transaction was in good faith. But just like if it was found out that you did buy stolen goods (unknowingly), you'd have to return those goods to the lawful owner.

 

In this context, if you bought a key paid for with a stolen credit card, the dev can revoke the key.

 

Morally speaking, I'd argue that you should at least be aware of the possibility of where the key came from. Not everyone cares or has the same moral code though.

 

In any case, while I personally will never buy a game key from G2A or any other similar key reseller due to the scum business practices those sites tend to have (again, G2A being the worst culprit), and due to the fact that game sales are freaking constant, with regular Steam Sales, and annual massive Steam Sales, that if I can't (or decide not to) afford a new game upon release, I can just wait for a good discount.

 

I also recognize that others are going to use those sites, even if I won't.