The Mighty Xbox One X already has to resort to low settings

In Far Cry 5, according to Digital Foundry Terrain and Volumetrics are the equivalent of low settings? Who woulda thunk? The console isn’t even a year old and already has to drop some settings to low to lock 30fps at 4K.

Honestly I would rather get lower resolution but higher quality assets. Oh well there’s the PC version for that.

dude if a GTX 1070 ti can't do 4k @ max settings then what makes you think a console that costs only $50 more can? Be honest with yourself...stop making these threads pretending to be dimwitted

@lifelessablaze: "pretending"?

@lifelessablaze: Who spoke about max settings? I sure as hell was expecting more than some Low settings from the most powerful console in history.

Consoles are sold at a loss so making a direct comparison is dumb

Also a PC has far more value than a locked shitbox

native 4k just ain't that easy even on higher end gpus. get over it

@Juub1990: You're getting as bad as the cows as in talks more about something you don't own rather than playing games you do have, just sad.

@i_p_daily: Not my fault the Mighty X1X from a few months ago is already dropping down to Low settings. This is about the console. Not about me.

nah. this thread is now about you and your inability to think within reason.

@lifelessablaze: Don’t know what you’re on. You mentioned a 1070 Ti and max settings when I spoke nothing of the sort. Simply disappointed in what it can do. Especially when some were initially claiming it was max settings.

@Juub1990: Come on....you're not that dumb. Even for a pc master*****.

Lol, yeah it's the console... not the devs.

I've never seen people so salty over a console/brand like some people on here are with XB1 X/Xbox as a whole. Kinda funny.

All I will say about this is the Xbox One X is running the game better at 4K then a 1060/580 and all for $500. Seems like a pretty damn good deal to me. Even DF said they could not make either card run the game at a locked 30FPS at ultra, Xbox One X settings, or even low settings. So what exactly is the problem? Seems to do pretty good for the price of the box. OP is just using dumb ass fanboy logic once again. Funny he picks on the Xbox One X but all of the other consoles run it even worse and not even a peep about those systems.

Yes it can....DF specifically showed it can.

1080 does 4k 60 fps. Also, 3440x1440 at over 80fps on ultra is better anyways, which 1070 does.

Lmao forced to play on low and 30.

@sealionact: See the FC5. Early victories of Ultra settings/30fps. Boasts about it beating a 1070. Now the truth comes out.

I guess the fact that Xbox One X is running at native 4k is still causing some folks to loose sleep at night. LMAO.

You're assuming the PC gamer isn't upgrading and that the 1X gamer isn't coming from XB1 (aka well over $1000 on XB this gen). That's a lot of assumptions. If you're buying a XB system every 3 years, and keeping up XBL, you're better off going just upgrading your PC.

Low/30fps and most games running far worse than this FC5 fiasco is not worth all that money on this fake console "upgrades".

You can play the best version on your PC, why do you care if people want to spend much less and enjoy 4K gaming?

The 4k console is running games at 4k. The burn is real. The salt is real.

Just like I upgrade my PC every 3 years? Just like I buy new consoles every 3 years. WTF does that matter. I don't think I have ever had a PC I didn't spend a shit ton of money every one or two years keeping it up to date. A 3 year old computer is still a 3 year computer and requires updates to get the most of them. It isn't like I build a computer now and it will last me 5-10 years.

These fools are sure salty much lately. Maybe they know RD2 is coming and only the Best version will be on X1X since No beggar version until over a year after console launch.

This thread right here is the main reason why devs believe that shiny graphics and fps are better than fun factor in games. Smh.

Erm... They literally sacrifice fps in almost every instance.

@calvincfb: If devs cared about gameplay they would have aimed 60fps especially for a shooter. But then a piece of crap CPU made sure it’s impossible.

They cared enough about gameplay to gave gamers a stable performance across all console platforms. But I guess stable framerate doesn't matter now. LOL

The irony of this thread is the OP calls out the dev for sacrificing graphics for stable framerates then makes the above statement. You people are special.

@Juub1990: no it isn't, devs can aim to 60fps of they wanted, but then you graphics whores would all go "MUH LOW GRAPHICS SETTINGS"

you graphic whores are the main reason beauty is more emphasized nowadays

? This video is so hilarious to watch now.

? @ “Its a beast”.

So many lies in one video.

@Pedro: Don’t give a shit about 30fps. Give me 1080p/60fps.

That 4k is burning some folks so bad. It must suck spending $400 on a marginal sub 4k upgrade. LOL.

One triple A game running native 4k and the fannies are loosing their minds. LOL.

Do you think Red Dead 2 is going to be in 4k or 1800p Native on X1X?

It's "losing," and 4k doesn't mean much if the actual IQ isn't up to snuff... Let alone the fps.

This isn't an issue considering PC obliterates XB in GS and MC each year, and plays the better version of 99% of games on XB1X each year.

This would probably mean something to me if I was at all interested in gaming on PC but I’m not so it doesn’t.

LOL. When your only counter argument is a typo you know you got nothing.

I'm positive he had an entire sentence after that typo correction...

Did you read the rest of the sentence? Also the sentence after the ellipsis?

Be easy on him. Lems are not only illiterate they also have poor eyesight.

Stable 30 FPS. Did you miss that?

No. It wasn't in the post I quoted. Holy shit... Dude. It also isn't relevant to my post.

Yeah sure. I am not waiting to play a slightly better version.

You mentioned FPS, I pointed out that it has stable FPS. Now FPS is not relevant to your post. Ok. :)

It seems I have to explain more than spelling. If you referenced 30fps, and I missed it, your point would be relevant. You didn't, thus your point about 30fps was not relevant. If anything, it indicated a post I didn't quote. Jesus Christ, your grasp of the English language should be nobody elses undoing.

Trying to make a strawman argument is both sad and pathetic.

PCs should always out perform consoles today. That is just common sense. You can throw money at a PC with hardware to get the performance metrics you want. PCs against any console it will always be no contest. Should never compare a $500 box to $750+ boxes. Hell most PC users on this forum run $1K+ boxes such as myself. But for $500 the X has pretty good value for performance and I enjoy mine.

For price/performance, the X is damn good. I'm primarily PC, but there's no denying that the X is up to snuff in terms of modern gaming.

I don't get you people. You complain about games in 4k only running at 30fps but you are happy enough to have games run in 720p on the Switch?

What is with strawman arguments in this thread?

You do realise that you called the game out on the IQ and fps right? Now why is the specifics on the fps confusing to you when you specifically referenced it?

Why anyone would want to play games at the lowest settings and framerates just for resolution is beyond me. I don't like that trade-off at all. I really think the console designers and the game developers together are making a mistake building 4k 30fps machines and games over 1080-1440p 60fps.

Based on the OP, the lowest setting were applied to terrain and volumetrics.