@redd214 Yeah, I might get a used Xbox One controller (latest model) and sell it with the Xbox One X next year right before the new console comes out.
I recommend the article that I linked above, it says that the power of those 12TF would be even bigger than twice as much as Xbox One X (6TF) because of the newer technology. It also talks about Lockhart (unconfirmed Xbox Series S).
The conclusion:
"With that in mind, Series X - and almost certainly PS5 - are built on a foundation of optimism and confidence this time around. There is no compromise in CPU performance in the next-gen design: we're getting a customised rendition of a high-spec PC part. Meanwhile, the PS5 GPU may be shrouded in mystery but, if the indications are true for Series X, Microsoft has developed a console GPU that is more performant and more feature-rich than any Navi part AMD has shipped in 2019. Your next console will be a lot bigger than your current one and it may cost more than you expected, but putting this level of power in a mainstream piece of gaming hardware is hugely exciting. Technological miracles were achieved from the current-gen machines despite their limitations - and the possibilities represented by their successors are mouthwatering".
@BlueOcean It's not the companies who abandon consoles it's the people. What's the point to keep releasing games on a console when no one buy them? It's just a waste of money and it puts jobs in danger. People have too much an affective mindset when it comes to that. Companies aren't good or evil they just don't want to loose developers team and shift them on the next hardware when sales of games on old hardware get too low.
@BlueOcean yeah that's what I plan on doing just selling all my ps4 stuff and get two 5s at launch, no real point in waiting imo.
That is an interesting article. Going to be a tough pill to swallow for some folks but is certainly exciting. 2020 is gonna be a banner year for gaming!
How long it takes me to get a next-gen system is highly dependent on how many games have a performance mode for people who are unwilling to upgrade to 4K sets. Even if upgrading my PC is more expensive, I'd prefer that option if it means I can focus system resources on maintaining a smooth framerate.
I'll probably just get the cheap redesign during some Black Friday sale.
I'm guessing I'll do that, too. I bought my last couple of consoles too early. If I wait a few years, they'll be selling these things for $300 or less in a sale.
Hot deal, S bundle at Gamestop for only $150. Probably just clearing out stock but this is a steal! If you're not interested in the game with their current trade in promo you'd get $11 for it so net cost would be a bit cheaper. Free shipping will arrive before Christmas!
Edit: just keeps getting better lol. You can buy a $100 gamestop gift card for $92.50 on PayPal. So excluding taxes you can essentially get an S for about 130 bucks!
@redd214 That's not a bad idea - I didn't think of trade-ins, but I have a spare X1X refurb I bought on the cheap so I wouldn't be totally screwed out of a fortune in games if my 1X breaks down. I could easily trade that one to get a launch day discount on X-SEX STD, no doubt with probably GS running trade-in promotions like they did for Switch. MS Store almost certainly will run promotions but I don't really have one around me. That's actually not a bad plan!
@BlueOcean Yeah, that's why I prefer Microsoft's underdog status. The effort spent on BC was largely because it's really all they had going for them they could do with now bad a shape their product was in vs PS4 at the time. They probably lost a lot of money defecit spending to buy back customer loyalty. Worked out great for us!
@glaemay When it comes to consoles, that's usually a bed of their own making. PS4 game sales certainly aren't low. And they could have been much higher if both Sony and MS weren't so fast to announce the replacements and pretend they were done with current gen 2 years before it was actually done. Even GameStop was hurt by that as they mentioned in their annual shareholders meeting. Wii was the result of Nintendo neglecting a portion of the audience and chasing the fad market. WiiU was...well...that was a day 1 disaster.
@Ralizah I imagine, based on Pro & X, that most games will just inherently add that performance. I definitely think that will be very common/standard. That being said, personally, gaming @1080p, I feel that a 4k console is much more important than a 4k set. I don't feel any need to get a 4k screen, though I yearn for HDR (and the fleet of cables and HDMI switches to support it...ugh..) . But I notice, on my 1080 screen, the benefits of free AA with 4k RENDERING and scaling down very readily to the point that as Blue and Thanos are well aware with all my talk of it, when Forza Horizon 4 came out, I STRONGLY preferred 30fps/4k mode over 60fps/1080p mode on my 1080p display, and Switch bugs me with 1080 on 1080. I say get the 4k console, skip the 4k screen.
Actually, after reading that article Blue posted, it makes me more hesitant to jump into the next gen early on. The discussion on struggling to up the ante, bleeding edge parts, ridiculous power consumption, and therefore ridiculous cost to manufacture very, very clearly tell the story that a cheaper to produce, cooler running, less power hungry variant will be a few years around the corner, which also almost always means more stability. Maybe 2020 is the year for bleeding edge early adopters and 2022/2023 is the year for the rest of us.
@NEStalgia happy to help! If the transition is as smooth as I expect like I said upgrading on launch day is basically a 2 to 3 hundred dollar proposition if you sell/trade. Very little if any downside, lots of upside.
@NEStalgia Didn't think about that. Might be worthwhile owning a 4K console if it downsamples that nicely. I'm really curious to see how Microsoft/Sony handle performance boosts to Xbone/PS4 games on the new hardware.
Can't imagine opting for a lower framerate mode, though. I'm not a performance snob, but EVERYTHING looks and feels better at 60fps.
@redd214 Yeah! I was, originally, not planning on jumping in early on at all, but after you mentioned that, I think if I jump in or not will depend a lot on what trade-in deals are being offered....for $500-600 I wouldn't want to jump into the hot burning power guzzling inevitably improved new gen...but for $2-300 total, I'd do it!
@Ralizah That'll depend a lot on how many games have locked frame rates and how the publishers want to address that for X1/PS4 games. I would think not too many games outside the most popular ones will get patches to unlock frame rates. And more cinematic games may break if you unlock the frame rate depending on their design. I think it's more meaningful going forward, honestly in most cases.
Originally I agreed with you about opting for 60fps. And you'd think in a racing game of all things 60fps would matter. To most it does. But to me the 30fps is perfectly good, cinematic presentation (if it's a firm, locked 30 like in FH4) and the improvement in visuals, particularly in regard to foliage and shimmer, window reflections, even the road surface really improved the feel of the experience for me, especially sitting close to the screen (monitor), much more than the 60FPS though. The only caveat is that in "first person"/driver view" the visual difference seems less important than 60FPS. For a more cinematic game or RPG it would be a no brainer, 30FPS 4k @ 1080 all the way.
@Octane Well, by flopped, I meant how they completely botched their launch, and it was Sony's immediate and smart reaction to it, that basically sealed the deal.
I don't know the intricacies of it, but the story I recounted earlier, is rather well known, although (now that I've looked them up) I don't know how these dates measure up. Almost like they've went back and doctored them, because the PS4 price drop really WAS a reaction to Xbox One's catastrophic launch.
@NEStalgia Well, yeah, disaster was a total over-exaggeration, but you know what I mean: if they are once again stuck in an Xbox One scenario, then I'll grant you your point(s), but if there is any kind of improvement, whether that be in market share, games catalog or other, then my point is made and proven.
@Ralizah I hope you don't mind if I'm not going to address all of your points, because most of them we've already discussed, and just don't seem to see eye to eye on. I will say that you missed several crucial points, and you either keep missing them, or simply ignoring them.
One is that if the Xbox One had launched without a camera, then it would have either been the exact same price as the PS4, or even cheaper, since the Kinect camera itself was more expensive than the PlayStation Eye camera, as I already mentioned several times, so no: the PS4 was NOT cheaper, the value of the console in actual dollars/pounds/euros was the same as the Xbox One, but the latter simply made the mistake to add to their total RRP by trying to force the Kinect camera on people. Both consoles by themselves without any peripherals were similarly priced, so neither one was cheaper than the other.
@NEStalgia also made a really good point about the sales numbers: it's pretty much the same point
I made when I said that a win after the fact is not a win. If a console overtakes the total life time sales numbers of another console LONG after that specific generation has run its course, then it's a rather hollow victory. There's the factual numbers, yes, but all in all, marketing-technically speaking, it's a useless victory, because most, if not all, are already firmly stuck in the next generation, so that a previous gen console FINALLY managed to overtake its own generation's competitors is rather underwhelming, actually.
The power difference is minuscule as well, so that's not really a selling point in favor of the PS4 either:
For both premium versions of the console, the opposite actually IS true: the X absolutely trounces the Pro.
But, having said that, as we know it's not so much about the power in and of itself, if you have nothing to use that power with, so obviously games catalog, user environment and marketing play a large role. And that is something that Microsoft's Xbox department, under Phil Spencer, has been working on pretty hard, so that's another rather solid indicator that the tide is turning. Ever so slowly, maybe, but turning nonetheless.
On a side note: we may not be industry insiders, so yes, we're all guesstimating here, but even though I'm not in the video gaming industry, I can still use my professional knowledge to speak out concerning sales & marketing in general, and it's simply a fact that no single company on this entire Earth always stays on course, much less always stays number one, and the phrase I used earlier (results of the past are no guarantee for the future) is literally set in stone in the sales & marketing bible, so it's an undeniable truth, that no company can escape from.
But maybe it's easier to use another example. Let's take musicians/recording artists as an example, instead of video game console manufacturers: no single artist EVER has always released consecutive number one albums, or even released albums on which ALL songs are always guaranteed hits.
Everything in life has ups and downs, which is another fact, and if you're in the lead, in ANY industry, sport, entertainment section or whatever, then it is also a fact that the only direction you can go, is down. There's no "further up" when you're already at the top, so you need to put in the effort, time and energy to firmly stay there, because others, who aren't at the top yet, WILL be clawing their way up there, and contrary to companies sitting on their laurels, becoming rather complacent because they ARE number one, these other companies are willing to do, and WILL do more to get there.
That's inevitably what's going to happen, you'll see. To be crystal clear, though: I'm not saying it's going to happen immediately in this coming generation, but it might happen DURING the coming generation, or the coming generation could become the onset of the change in ranking. Either way, it's still simply a question of when, rather than if.
Oh, and those games will also come: Microsoft hasn't bought out 15+ studios in the last couple of years for nothing...
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@Ralizah@NEStalgia Until recently I have been playing Xbox One X on a 1080p TV. NEStalgia is right, the supersampling works nicely but now with a 4K HDR TV (LG C9) I have to admit that the visuals quality is incredibly better. Everything looks much more real and immersive, colours are amazingly nicer and more natural and of course contrast is perfect (OLED) but probably it's more the quality of the panel and chips than the number of pixels. It even upscales well, especially lower-resolution consoles input like Wii U (1080p console but 720p games) or SNES Classic Mini (720p with upscaled games) that look soft but not blurry. Another benefits I got was an extremely low input lag and variable refresh rate. For me those are bigger benefits than the resolution upgrade and the difference is bigger than I anticipated.
One is that if the Xbox One had launched without a camera, then it would have either been the exact same price as the PS4, or even cheaper, since the Kinect camera itself was more expensive than the PlayStation Eye camera, as I already mentioned several times, so no: the PS4 was NOT cheaper, the value of the console in actual dollars/pounds/euros was the same as the Xbox One, but the latter simply made the mistake to add to their total RRP by trying to force the Kinect camera on people. Both consoles by themselves without any peripherals were similarly priced, so neither one was cheaper than the other.
And as I said before, the price of the components doesn't matter when A) the component in question isn't valued by the consumer and B) there's no SKU without the component in question (this changed later, obviously; too late to stop the runaway train that became the PS4).
The facts:
PS4 retailed for $399.99. Xbox One retailed for $499.99. Saying the PS4 wasn't cheaper at launch is objectively false.
PS4 has a GPU that's roughly 50% more powerful than what was in the Xbox One, and had faster RAM.
So you could pay $400 for a more powerful system or $500 for a less powerful system. PS4 was a better value for the 99% of people who neither wanted nor used the camera Microsoft bundled with the Xbone.
NEStalgia also made a really good point about the sales numbers: it's pretty much the same point I made when I said that a win after the fact is not a win. If a console overtakes the total life time sales numbers of another console LONG after that specific generation has run its course, then it's a rather hollow victory. There's the factual numbers, yes, but all in all, marketing-technically speaking, it's a useless victory, because most, if not all, are already firmly stuck in the next generation, so that a previous gen console FINALLY managed to overtake its own generation's competitors is rather underwhelming, actually.
Not when you come from as far behind the competition as Sony originally did. PS3 is factually the best-selling console from that generation.
Really, if anything, it reflects more poorly on Nintendo and Microsoft, who did such a poor job of maintaining the momentum they started with in that generation that they allowed struggling Sony to lap them in the end.
The power difference is minuscule as well, so that's not really a selling point in favor of the PS4 either
Sure it is. You could buy a console that produces fuzzier 720p - 900p images for $100 more than you could buy a console that produces crisper 900p - 1080p images. Certain games have drastic differences in framerate between PS4 vs Xbox One versions as well. This only doesn't matter if you're already biased against the company with the superior hardware.
For both premium versions of the console, the opposite actually IS true: the X absolutely trounces the Pro.
Allow me a ploy of my own. Even if the Xbox One X is technically the most powerful console of the generation, the fact that it launched years after the base models, the fact that the vast majority of players will never own a Pro model, and the fact that the PS4 is likely still the target development console for most games makes Microsoft's claim of victory about having "the most powerful console of the generation" ring somewhat hollow. It was too little, too late to try to lead on that front when most people had already bought what they were going to buy and were just waiting for the next generation of consoles to release.
But, having said that, as we know it's not so much about the power in and of itself, if you have nothing to use that power with, so obviously games catalog, user environment and marketing play a large role. And that is something that Microsoft's Xbox department, under Phil Spencer, has been working on pretty hard, so that's another rather solid indicator that the tide is turning. Ever so slowly, maybe, but turning nonetheless.
You're right: the game catalog does matter. One system has a lot of the best exclusive games released this generation. The other has virtually nothing in the way of exclusives, is missing a ton of games that went to the other system, and is focusing on making decades-old games playable on the system instead. Which, again, is not a bad thing, but it's no replacement for better first-and-third-party support. Just ask Nintendo, who made the Wii U THE place to go for most of their older games.
Obviously that's improving somewhat now. But, for most of us who already own what we're going to own this gen, it's too little, too late.
On a side note: we may not be industry insiders, so yes, we're all guesstimating here, but even though I'm not in the video gaming industry, I can still use my professional knowledge to speak out concerning sales & marketing in general, and it's simply a fact that no single company on this entire Earth always stays on course, much less always stays number one, and the phrase I used earlier (results of the past are no guarantee for the future) is literally set in stone in the sales & marketing bible, so it's an undeniable truth, that no company can escape from.
But maybe it's easier to use another example. Let's take musicians/recording artists as an example, instead of video game console manufacturers: no single artist EVER has always released consecutive number one albums, or even released albums on which ALL songs are always guaranteed hits.
As I said before, I'll take established historical precedent over, sorry, empty platitudes that go against the historical record in this particular instance.
Sony has released the best-selling console, every gen, for the last three gens (I'd say four gens, considering the dominance of the PS4, but we have no idea how well Switch will keep doing). It has literally gotten that mythical equivalent of consecutive number one albums since the late 90s.
It seems foolish to not acknowledge the facts that are staring me straight in the face. As I said, I don't know about and am not questioning whatever expertise you might have, but I'll trust the established facts of reality over rhetoric that doesn't align with those facts.
That's inevitably what's going to happen, you'll see. To be crystal clear, though: I'm not saying it's going to happen immediately in this coming generation, but it might happen DURING the coming generation, or the coming generation could become the onset of the change in ranking. Either way, it's still simply a question of when, rather than if.
I mean, sure, but that's about as open=ended a prediction as you can get.
Microsoft MIGHT be top dog next gen. And there almost certainly will come a time when Sony's console isn't on the top of the pile.
But, at this particular moment in history, that seems extremely unlikely.
Oh, and those games will also come: Microsoft hasn't bought out 15+ studios in the last couple of years for nothing...
Just buying developers means nothing if there's not a healthy culture of creativity that nurtures along the development of excellent, groundbreaking games.
To be clear, I'm not saying they're going to mismanage the ones they've bought recently. But just buying studios, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee the development of excellent games.
Success largely comes down to others' mistakes at this point. PS4 was on top because of Don Mattrick's XB1 vision, 360 was on top because of PS3 launching a year later and PS3 reveal being a complete disaster, etc.
Right now, I'd say PS5 has the edge because of its name.
Success largely comes down to others' mistakes at this point. PS4 was on top because of Don Mattrick's XB1 vision, 360 was on top because of PS3 launching a year later and PS3 reveal being a complete disaster, etc.
Eh. Xbox One started poorly because of Don Mattrick's vision for the console and the higher price tag, but that doesn't explain the console continuing to consistently undersell the PS4 afterwards. Consoles that start off poorly have a harder time of succeeding, but it's hardly impossible (see: PS3 and 3DS), just as consoles that start off well can rather drastically lose steam.
Also, I'd argue the PS3's hefty price tag at launch was one of the biggest factors behind its initial struggle to sell. 360 sold for $300 - $400, depending on which SKU you bought. PS3 was $500 - $600. That's a HUGE price difference.
PS1 absolutely took off because of Nintendo's stubborn refusal to abandon the cartridge format and Sony's more lax standards for what could be published on the console.
PS2, as we all know, had a DVD player, which absolutely helped it early on.
@Ralizah I was including the PS3's launch price in the reveal being a complete disaster. As for XB1, I think it still felt the effects of Don Mattrick's vision at least until the XB1X came out though by then Microsoft's "Xbox" focus turned to PC.
@Ralizah Well, no offense, but if you're so hung up on proving that the PS4 was cheaper, then you simply should have worded it better/more exact. What I told you is the ACTUAL fact: the two base consoles were more or less similarly priced, that's a fact. That one party stupidly tried to force a pack-in camera, making the TOTAL price more expensive, doesn't matter in this factual comparison.
What you've basically said is that a pound of potatoes from one store is cheaper than 750 grams of potatoes from another store, but that other store simply didn't offer one pound bags, so the comparison is not only moot, it's downright stupid.
As for the power difference: I gave you two overviews with the exact numbers, but as previously established, the numbers don't tell the complete story. Most important is the raw horse power (TFLOPS) in combination with speed and memory bandwidth, and in that respect the PS4 is indeed more powerful than the Xbox One, but only marginally so, because we're talking 0.61 TFLOPS here, so the fact that the GPU has more threads, and the memory is a bit faster due to it having almost double the bandwidth doesn't really translate to a significant gain, because if the graphical chipset processing it all is only ever so slightly more powerful than the one the competition is using, then it really doesn't make it more than a marginal difference, but I suppose not everyone will get that rather important technical detail...
I did notice that my comparison table for the base models was incomplete, so here's the correct one, for completion's sake:
As you can see here, the extra embedded memory, and its own bandwidth, makes the difference even more marginal, than it already is.
Now, conversely, the X vs the Pro does represent a BIG difference, because although there's only a minor gain in CPU power, there is a considerable difference in GPU/TFLOPS and memory compared to the Pro, so yeah, that previous comment/statement also stands. Like a brick house...
Next point: you say you don't want to question/doubt my experience in the sales & marketing trade (which is IT-related and which I've been in for well over 15 years, by the way) but in the same breath you're calling known and proven trade formulas such as results of the past are no guarantee for the future, "empty platitudes". That they don't mean anything to you personally, or as a business outsider, doesn't mean that these things aren't true, and are proven time and again, in ANY business. Some businesses, such as money trading, stock investments and so on, often even use that exact line or a variation on it, in their contracts, to inform potential clients of the risks, so it's not like the information to verify it, isn't out there.
And you may call Microsoft's victory with the One X hollow, but there's plenty of tests out there, amongst which quite a few from reputable sources such as Digital Foundry, who've proven that the majority of third party titles runs and looks better on X versus the Pro. There's only a handful, literally, that don't, for whatever reason. There's a Digital Foundry video about that as well, by the way.
As for my "open" prediction: it's honestly the only one we can make, seeing as we lack more information, so all I did was being as realistic as possible, and none of what I said was wrong or doubtful. It IS a competition, between those two, so the one in pursuit of the one at the top will more likely be the one to have something to gain, obviously, and as such, will also need to put in more effort, lest they fall behind even further.
And I never said they'll be "top dog" next gen, just that they WILL do better and that they'll eventually take over, which is just a numbers + time + effort game, and that is the reason why it WILL ultimately happen.
I think I've also given plenty of examples to illustrate that, and these are all ironclad, and can be verified by literally every single individual out there. It's just an undeniable truth, really.
As for the developers that they bought: Phil Spencer has already said that all of these are either hard at work or nearly finished with the games that they were making for the new Xbox, and I would think that there's at the very least some kind of quality assurance/check, seeing as Microsoft really can't afford to screw up with the games for a second time, so I'm pretty sure that they'll do better this time around.
That said, we also don't know for a fact what Sony's doing in that regard, so we can't say that they're only going to bring out great games either. They might very well have a couple of future duds in there too, who knows? Only time will tell, for both parties.
P.S.
As per my profession, I can trade, sell and compliment any product or service, if it fits the bill. I simply need to be impartial in most, if not all cases, because not all my clients would like to buy/use the IT brands that I would personally prefer, so I've learned to accommodate towards that fact, and as such, I'm perfectly capable to not let my personal bias get in the way of facts...
On a side note: just out of personal curiosity, what's up with the multi-quotes? I know perfectly well what I've said in my previous comments, so no need to repeat that back to me, and as you can see, it's certainly possible to reply to someone without them...
@Ralizah "Not when you come from as far behind the competition as Sony originally did. PS3 is factually the best-selling console from that generation."
I understand Sony flogging that #1 selling number as a valid data point from a marketing perspective, but, as I said, from a consumer/observer/fan's standpoint it's a nonsensical number. PS3 was way behind both Wii and X360 at the actual generational close. It made up ground when it was already a bargain basement previous gen console, in large part because PS4 wasn't BC and Now was garbage, so it was the only way to play older games from the PS3 gen. Not to mention the volume of PS3's that sold during the real gen's run because it was the cheapest BluRay player on the market, to non-gamers. An issue Wii also had in sales due to being the best Netflix black box at the time for the money. (Both 360 and PS3 gained some sales from RROD/YLOD replacements as well.)
For a marketing capability of "We were always #1!" that statistic has value. But from an actual generational player base standpoint, as well as a financial standpoint, the PS3's "#1" status is a technically-by-the-numbers valid gray lie. It would be like 3DS overtaking PS4 a few years from now (or didn't it already do that?). It's not really #1 if it took 2 generations, and years after the competition stopped selling the competing devices to actually surpass them.
I mean, I agree with you wholly on the PS4 being the obvious superior value back in 2013, and I bought in for that reason on day one. But there's no need to go all Sony Superfan to purposely ignore the changes since that time.
"the fact that the vast majority of players will never own a Pro model, and the fact that the PS4 is likely still the target development console for most games makes "
Windows PC is the target platform for most multiplat development, and XBox is by definition a DirectX box (thus the namesake) - that's why XBox always has that advantage for multiplats except for that Mattrick disaster that was so far back in power level that the built in advantage couldn't save it. It's natively an optimized Windows PC in a plastic box.
In 2012, X360 was nearly always the better platform over PS3 for multiplats. In 2013, Mattrick messed up XBox's edge and PS4 became the better platform for multiplats. Today, X1X is significantly a better choice than PS4 Pro for multiplats, and X1S has closed the gap betweeen XB1 and base PS4. OG X1 is a discontinued product and can not be compared for current sales choices, it would be dishonest to compare OG X1 to PS4 Slim, it's not a product offered anymore and hasn't been for years. That doesn't invalidate what happened to early adopters, of course, but is a bad argument for 2019.
As for 2021, it's too soon to say, we know little of both upcoming platforms for comparison, and we don't know the target price points. Even if X-SEX STD is vastly more powerful than PS5, it could be $200 more and therefore a poor value. Or MS could just sink Android royalties into it and subsidize the thing down to $399 and walk away the king while Sony goes back to their "Only $699!" thinking. Too soon to tell.
"One system has a lot of the best exclusive games released this generation. The other has virtually nothing in the way of exclusives, is missing a ton of games that went to the other system, and is focusing on making decades-old games playable on the system instead."
That's that "Sony Superfan" thinking again. It's console evaluation from the perspective of someone that's already modeled their mindset around one brand's perspective. Sony fans "buy for the exclusive games" - that's why they're Sony fans. That doesn't mean that's the only reason to buy a console. Not everyone likes Sony games, and Sony games tend to be samey. I happen to like about 60-70% of them, but not everyone will, and the real count of exclusives isn't that extraordinary these days. A fact I've realized more and more every time I turn my PS4 on - my exclusives menu has shrunk considerably and is also made up, in good part, of "decades old games" (Dark Cloud, etc.) Though a big one is DQ which is not exclusive only because it's also on Nintendo, not XBox.
In the event where XBox is the superior place for multiplat games, the current decision for someone deciding between PS4 Pro/X1X, since it's too soon to know how X-SEX STD vs. PS5 plays out hardware-wise, you really get the choice of "buy a Playstation for those dozen exclusives" or "buy an XBox so that EVERYTHING ELSE runs better." If you threw out your gaming PC and bought a pure business laptop with integrated graphics instead, would you be content running all those PC games on Playstation only? Might you not wish for a console that plays Ubisoft games smoother? XBox = PC. That's not a coincidence, it's the design. Has been since 2000. That's why it's named (Direct)X-BOX.
Forums
Topic: The everything Xbox thread
Posts 8,521 to 8,540 of 11,954
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic