Tears will be shed in Digital Foundry comparisons lol.
The whole argument will change though. With the Pro it mattered that performance was better than the Xbox. In the future better performance wont matter at all.....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox One X Review Thread
- Thread starter munroe
- Start date
Tears will be shed in Digital Foundry comparisons lol.
The whole argument will change though. With the Pro it mattered that performance was better than the Xbox. In the future better performance wont matter at all.....
Swass
Member
Wasn't warning anyone, just stating an opinion based on another post.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Welcome to Neogaf! Where everything is made up and the resolutions don't matter!
Swass
Member
Didn't the whole argument already change? Xbox fans use to say you couldn't see the difference.. digital foundry has to pause and zoom in to see the difference.. power doesn't matter it's about the games.. on and on.. and now it's about the power.. exclusives don't matter I play multiplats.. digital foundry the salt the salt.. blah blah.
Lol
Out of everything that article said. Out of how they think the Xbox x is the "go to for third parties by a large margin"....you select that quote? Hmmmmm
Darklor01
Might need to stop sniffing glue
Console warriors always have moving goalposts. I own both. My personal posts are always shifting for myself. If I try to look at my own mentality in a logical fashion, it breaks all the time.
Up until the X, in the current gen , Base PS4 mostly beat performance of OG XBO and XBO S. With X beating performance of all versions on PS4, I want the X. I want the exclusive games of Sony and the ones of MS. Its a multi-fronted battle. Two different posts constantly moving. My favorite system is usually the one that is most powerful. Most of my time will be spent playing 3rd party games.
Yearsoflurking
Member
Who are these "xbox fans"
shpankey
not an idiot
Spot on
Yeah the argument changes for anyone that's blindly loyal to a plastic box. I just don't understand the loyalty to be honest.
These companies don't give a shit about us, so I just buy whatever meets my needs.
I'm the same as you. I like to play the best possible version of a game. I don't care who makes the box to play the game on.
Apple, Amazon or Google could release a console tomorrow with all the third party games, and I'd buy whichever one was the most powerful
It sounds corny but I just like video games in general, the brand on the device is irrelevant to me.
Slightly faster CPU clock, loads more ram, more powerful GPU etc. The ram alone offers options of higher textures that the Pro cannot really offer. Time will tell if that pays off.
spookyfish
Member
I'm traditionally a Nintendo loyalist, because I like abuse, but I agree: I'm console agnostic. Bought a Pro last year, and will pick up my Scorpio on Tuesday.
Taliban Stan
Member
For me $500 would be a very expensive next-gen system. This is like next-gen system with next-gen pricing, but no next gen games. Add to that, the reviews I saw often said there wasn't an immediate and noticeable difference between the S, which is nearly or actually half the price of the $500 X.
That makes it a really hard purchase for me. It's an expensive next gen system with no next gen games. Last gen, I purchased a PS3 for $300. I never would have purchased a PS3 if they said it literally could only play PS2 games @ 1080p AND you had to pay $500 for this. If I pay $500, I want to feel like jumping from PS1 to PS2, PS2 to PS3, PS3 to PS4, etc. I'm not the type of consumer that always jumps for the most expensive option so "pay $500 to play XB1 games rather than $250-$300" is like the polar opposite of a great marketing pitch. N64 spoiled me in that an extra $70-100 is about all I'm willing to pay for high res mode Even then, Nintendo let devs make games that were advanced to the point that they could not run without the expansion. MS has explicitly barred that and said everything still has to run fine on a XB1 so devs can't even make games that fully take advantage of all the extra power the X has to offer.
And that's just like the core concept of the system. The games library of the XB1 is one where I'd try to get in as cheap as possible rather than as expensive as possible. This is coming from someone who has a XB1 as their next gen console (owned OG Xbox and a 360.. PS3 literally the only PS i've ever owned so I'm pretty far from a Sony/Nintendo fanboy).
That makes it a really hard purchase for me. It's an expensive next gen system with no next gen games. Last gen, I purchased a PS3 for $300. I never would have purchased a PS3 if they said it literally could only play PS2 games @ 1080p AND you had to pay $500 for this. If I pay $500, I want to feel like jumping from PS1 to PS2, PS2 to PS3, PS3 to PS4, etc. I'm not the type of consumer that always jumps for the most expensive option so "pay $500 to play XB1 games rather than $250-$300" is like the polar opposite of a great marketing pitch. N64 spoiled me in that an extra $70-100 is about all I'm willing to pay for high res mode Even then, Nintendo let devs make games that were advanced to the point that they could not run without the expansion. MS has explicitly barred that and said everything still has to run fine on a XB1 so devs can't even make games that fully take advantage of all the extra power the X has to offer.
And that's just like the core concept of the system. The games library of the XB1 is one where I'd try to get in as cheap as possible rather than as expensive as possible. This is coming from someone who has a XB1 as their next gen console (owned OG Xbox and a 360.. PS3 literally the only PS i've ever owned so I'm pretty far from a Sony/Nintendo fanboy).
Exactly my feeling as well. Wouldnt mind dropping $500 if i actually got a next gen console. But paying that price for a mid-gen upgrade? No.
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Xbox/Sony Fans =/= Xbox/Sony Fanboys. They're not all crazy
OnlookerDelay
Member
Nor would we expect you to with the buying leverage you have;-) We truly do appreciate your making this noble sacrifice in the interest of bringing true objectivity to your opinions once you've received the X. Your posts about your experience will become appointment forum reading for me because of these extraordinary measures you've so dutifully pursued
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
55 mph vs 75 mph.
same
GTR R35_Supra RZ
Banned
Look at any top 10 list. Multi-platform games are what sells and those will look and play the best on the Xbox One X.
I understand that, but hardware wise, PS5 is still going to be well beyond Xbox One X as far as CPU, GPU and RAM.
The difference will almost certainly be greater than the difference between PS4 Pro and Xbox One X.
It would certainly be a disaster if it wasnt lol.
Hopefully they release it in 2019, until then millions will be happy playing on their Pro and X.
Im certainly hoping that the developers really try and push the X. My concern is that it ends up like the Pro where most developers just couldnt care less and do half assed upgrades, although even if that is the case the X will still have the better version in all likelihood.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Seems pointless when it's truly vaporware, I agree. Gonna be a long three years.
Exactly.
As far as the amount of RAM, I think those people that are saying PS5 will have a maximum of 16 GB are like the same people in 2011-2012 that were saying PS4 would have 4 GB max.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
You mean like Gears 4?
shpankey
not an idiot
Gears 4 doesn't quite fit that scenario though, it was made to take advantage after the fact. It would be interesting to see it in the reverse (set out to maximize the 1x from the start, then ported down after)
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Considering the PC version was built with 4k and high res textures i don't think that's entirely fair assessment.
MilkyJoe
Member
Only if said person is an idiot, on all of your counts.
Remember when people wanted new consoles for better graphics? When did that suddenly change?
PS don't millions of people buy the same os on iPod every year?
geordiemp
Member
10 % on CPU, so if Pro is locked 30 so will Xb1X. If Pro cant do 60, its unlikely X will either...Yawn unless Pro is at 55 FPS then maybe...
The main difference is if you apreciate say 1800p to 2160p on your 4K, and stare closely at still screens ....and far off ground textures.
I have an LG 55 B7 and cant tell anything above 1440p at 8ft except the HDR really stands out on some games.
So its not that interesting - wake me up when we get games that were 30 FPS and are now 60 FPS, then we are talking
Please someone make a Ryzen console, for the love of god.
Annd no, this has been my opinion when Pro was called a Morpheus and was a glint in Cerny's eye. Nothing has changed.
What you want is never happening on consoles. There are some developers that will choose to have 30fps and higher quality visual effects regardless of how powerful consoles become.
The only way we'd ever get 60fps across all games is if Sony and MS made it mandatory, which again is never going to happen, and before anyone misconstrues my "mandatory" comment. I don't mean that if Sony suddenly made it mandatory that developers could make games like Just Cause 3 suddenly 60fps out their ass on the Pro, but moving forward if developers had a 60fps baseline to hit, then they'd have to sacrifice elsewhere to hit it when developing new games.
I think the most realistic outcome is what we're starting to see now, i.e visual and performance modes in games. That way people who would rather have 60fps can do so. I think it's the best compromise. I'd certainly always choose framerate over image quality.
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
You'll last long here.
geordiemp
Member
Nah, developers give PC players 60 for every game because they have I5class CPU's and its within the hardware capability without culling the game into oblivion with dumb AI and low enemy counts.
Devs choose money - what sells, not graphics or frame rate - 101. If devs can give 1800p and 60 FPS over a competitors 4K30, you bet they will. What do you think consumers would buy, 4K 30 or 1800p60 ?
Jaguar is not capable so there is no choice.
Too intillectual comment for me to respond.
Frame rate on PC is dependant on hardware and the user's preference. There are endless settings both within the game, and using your graphic card control panel, as well as third party tools like Rivatuner.
I could lock the v-sync at 30hz and max all the settings, and crank up AA. Or I could aim to max framerate on a 144hz monitor, or lock it to 60hz and call it a day. PC gives users a choice, the developers don't decide what framerate someone on pc will play.
Even on PC people who game at 4k 60fps or 1440p 144hz are in a minority. The most used resolution is 1080p and lower end gpus that are a year old or more. Steam hardware surveys give an eye opening look at the reality of it's users.
I agree that developers (and more importantly Publishers) will aim to produce something that will maximise revenue, hence the sheer amount of micro transactions we see, and the push on online games.
I think you're overestimating the importance of framerate. People on forums like this are a minority, the average person who just walks into a shop buys Fifa and Call of Duty doesn't give a shit about the technology behind things. I bet if you were to stop 10 random people in a game shop and ask them if they heard of Digital Foundry the majority would have no idea what you were talking about.
It's the same principle with the likes of AVS and Avforums where members will get their tv's professionally calibrated, use receivers, examine the panel for defects such as backlight bleed, or uniformity issues on the lower IRE on an Oled.
The mainstream do not care about spending 2k on an oled, they walk into a brick and mortar store, buy a cheap Samsung as big as they can get and then burn their retina's in Dynamic mode watching sd sources on their 4k tv lol.
I cannot wait to see what Project Cars 2 is like after X1X Enhanced patch.
I'm also desperate for new METRO: Exodus footage and a more specific release window than just '2018'.
Forza 7 on X1X will be my first Forza experience.
Rise of the Tomb Raider and Titanfall 2 should be glorious!
I'm also desperate for new METRO: Exodus footage and a more specific release window than just '2018'.
Forza 7 on X1X will be my first Forza experience.
Rise of the Tomb Raider and Titanfall 2 should be glorious!
EtherMagic
Member
Good luck with that, because at this pace each new console release is gonna feel like a mid-gen upgrade. The days of big leaps like that of SNES to PlayStation, ect, are over.
Next jump will be better CPU for performance purposes (FPS, ect), but don't expect to much more if you want to pay under $500 for your next console.
Bolded is not true.
You can see the difference when the two consoles are running side-by-side, even at 1080p.
The question is, how much is that difference worth to you?
The fact we now have two consoles that can make games look a lot better should bode well. Both XB1X and Pro owners should be happy.
My main bugbear with Sony and the Pro is they've very much not looked like they had a firm idea what they wanted to impress on devs in the case of patches, better looking versions etc, and it's all been very haphazard and messy.
MS has had a clear plan to offer better looking versions of their games as well as upgrading older titles at the system level.
Seeing some of the improvements on old games like Fallout 3 and Oblivion and even Daytona has been astounding.
I don't think we'll need to worry devs won't use most of this power.
JareBear: Remastered
Banned
The reviews perfectly sum up my feelings about X
Its a fantastic piece of hardware but Microsoft has a huge games problem right now
I will buy an X probably this time next year. Until then my Pro and PC will remain my mainstays
Its a fantastic piece of hardware but Microsoft has a huge games problem right now
I will buy an X probably this time next year. Until then my Pro and PC will remain my mainstays
geordiemp
Member
Your right, most dont know COD is 60 FPS, but they know its fast and responsive and it sells 20 million every year.
Go figure.
Yeah Microsoft definitely seem to have implemented things better than Sony so far. The fact things like anisotropic filtering etc are at a system level rather than being reliant on developers is a good thing.
It's still very early days (the console's not even been released yet) but it'll be interesting how things pan out, especially with the big AAA games.
Something that not many people are talking about is FreeSync 2 and VRR, which will be massive once tv's start implementing it in 2018. That alone will make a massive difference to games, especially due to the fact that FreeSync 2 and VRR that's proposed has a broader range. Some FreeSync monitors for example operate between 40-72hz which is practically pointless on a console where most games are 30fps and below.
I think the games problem really depends on the individual rather than being factual.
The majority of games even on the PS4 are third party, not exclusive games.
Infact if we just forgot about exclusive games altogether there would be no shortage of games to play.
For people like yourself that own a PC and PS4 then I can see that there's definitely less reason to consider the console. Although Phil Spencer said himself in the GameSpot interview that they're not expecting the X to sell large volumes, they know the console is niche, and he likened it to the Elite controller, something that won't be mainstream, but an option for those that want the best.
There's definitely a market for people who only game on console and want to play the best versions of games though....
I wonder if Sony will respond with another faster PS4 Pro version...most likely they will stand pat until the PS5...no matter how well the One X does they are not catching Sony in terms of overall sales...that's all that really matters in the long run...PS4 won this generation and Sony is focusing all its efforts on PS5 + more amazing exclusives such as Last of Us 2, more Uncharted, Bloodborne etc...the Sony exclusives alone are probably enough to counter the One X
They've got no need to. As you say Sony have won this gen in terms of sales, and to be honest they'd have won it without releasing the Pro.
Microsoft could sell the X at half the price and it still wouldn't result in them catching up. There's nothing they can do at this stage to significantly close the gap. But I don't think it matters really. For MS to deem their console as a success they don't necessarily need to outsell their competition, I think they're more concerned with getting people in the ecoystem regardless of what hardware they use,
I would love it if Sony did release a revision, but that's not likely at all. I think what they might do is announce the PS5 at E3, even if it's not released until late 2019 it'll take some of the sails out of any wind Microsoft gain. It worked during that infamous E3 when they announced Shenmue etc...
I think if they did that then Microsoft would definitely catch them lol
a PS4 Pro with a 4K Blu-ray drive would be a nice way for Sony to respond without having to make any major hardware changes
But so many people say there's no games. Would those same people still spend a couple of hundred buying hardware with nothing to play on it.They'd be better off buying games on their existing console lol.
But seriously this gen is done now. Sony have "won" and even if MS announce a few new games Sony for me have a real strong lineup in 2018.
I think they're gonna reduce the price of the Pro too to tie in with the revised CUH-7100 model that they say is cheaper to manufacture.
Yeah there's definitely things they could do like you say, but I think the sad reality for Microsoft is that Sony don't need to do a single thing. The only concern for Sony is they don't want to do another PS3 launch with their next console where their arrogance get's the better of them. Man that launch was a shambles....