> That was half the problem with the launch though, wasn't it? They forced the Kinect
> on the price tag which heavily inflated the SKU cost and made it difficult to tell
> just how much the actual cost of the hardware under the hood was at the time. Considering
> it quickly dipped almost $200 once they cut it, you'd have to assume the hardware
> cost was pretty low unless they've been selling at a loss since two Christmases ago.
At the time I believe both companies were just breaking even on hardware costs, so minus the Kinect, I would probably guess the X1 cost MS $350/console since the PS4 was costing Sony about $400. The X1 also didn't drop to $200 very quickly after the Kinnect was dropped, it took years, I believe its pretty recent that it dropped to those levels actually, so it took more like 3 years to drop.
> If I'm being frank, I don't think the market or hardware justified a 2014 launch,
> echoed by developer "meh"s at the development kits. If your profile's that bad and
> that expensive, you don't HAVE to bring out a new machine. I don't think the first
> two years of the PS4 or Xbox One were ...good at all, really. Just slightly more
> polished Xbox 360/PS3 upscales with some extra effects overall. Since then they've
> found a few new tricks to use, but just imagine if the Xbox One had launched even
> a year later at $600 with its current profile, where we'd be at TODAY with that hardware
> profile. It'd be completely sick.
I don't either, neither console really had much for quite a while other than multiplats and slightly higher res versions of last gen games. I remember MS being surprised at the PS4's announcement because they thought it was too early and had to scramble to get their console to stores. I think this next gen we're going to see a much bigger boost in CPU since the GPU in the X is already really good. Using the Jaguar core is probably the biggest hindrance on the current gen of consoles.
> I haven't really seen any games come out since either launch that I could point to
> and say "Well you couldn't have done anything like that on the last generation".
> Most of the best performing titles on these systems WERE from the last generation.
There have been some game that could have been last gen and others that couldn't have been. I think all those indi games probably could have, they're not graphically demanding, but the higher end AAA games probably not. Ones like Forza 7, Horizon, etc.... would have had to make large compromises.
Despite that, I think that Nintendo has been killing it with their hardware that is weaker than the X1 was when it launched back in 2013.