@Barighm: "Um...cool, sure, but all of the major multiplayer Xbox titles from that era have PC equivalents, a good chunk of which are on GoG. You really don't need this."
- um...cool, sure, that's all good and all, for people who play on PC, which a good chunk of consoles gamers do not.
For real though, why would you make a comment that is both so blatantly obvious and asinine at the same time? It's almost as if you are completely unaware of the concept that different people like different things, regardless if alternative or even superior methods exist for doing those same things.
"PC is ruining the XBOX experience, because on PC, you can use tools to unlock achievements and beating some boss and getting an achievement on XBOX doesn't feel as amazing if you know that anyone can just use some trainer to do the same on PC."
- I'm not understanding how other people using trainers to achieve something, takes away from you earning it legit, especially since there is no official competitive aspect to GS and there is no way of knowing who cheated and who is legit, so even if you compared your GS to 100 different PC players, there is no way to know how many of their scores are legit or not.
It just sounds like you are assuming that if they are on PC, they probably cheated, but your apparent bias against PC players still doesn't address my main point - how does others achieving something through cheating take away from you achieving it legit?
"Adding PC into the mix will always introduce cheaters."
- there are already cheaters on xbox. PC just makes it more accessible.
@Bloodwolf_19: A lot of time achievements are "secret" because they reveal plot/story elements within the game. Essentially, they are just a way to not spoil anything for players. You might not have a problem with it, but others might.
I can't give a sincere answer since 1) I don't have a 4k display that would give an accurate depiction of what was being shown and 2) it was a live stream, which can also lead to visual degradation.
As for poly counts, that has to do with game not the console. If the developer chooses to have a blocky looking game, that's on them. It has nothing to do with the console. And finally, much of what was showcased were third party and AA games. The bread and butter games are not being shown off yet.
If you are going into a new gen, and despite all the new tech and features it brings, you dismiss all of it, as your top (or perhaps only) concern is "poly counts." then you really are apart of the lowest common denominator demographic.
@carmgv: "next gen it supposed to be revolutionary, don't call it next gen if it can't deliver."
the faster loading times you mentioned is revolutionary...if that isn't enough, then what about all games running at 4k/60 and some even at 4k/120? What about ray tracing, not only for visuals, but also for sounds? What about Variable Rate Shading or Smart Delivery or XCloud? Like what exactly were you wanting to see? What would be "revolutionary" to you?
"All Xbox games will be available on PC, and typically you are just paying ~$500 for a streamlined 1 year old PC."
- No, you're not... you cannot do 1:1 comparisons of PC and console hardware,as they are built and optimized differently. To match the power/performance the Series X has, you're going to need to spend over $1000 on a PC.
Console optimization can be fundamentally better than PC optimization, because they have access to lower level, closer "to-the-metal" graphics APIs than PC. This a good and bad thing for PC.
It's good because PC games use Direct3D or OpenGL APIs, so games will continue to work in the future, when hardware is upgraded/changed.
It is bad because this means games do not run as well as they could on current hardware, whereas console games are often pushed to the limit.
You're not doing 4K/60 on a $500 PC, let alone 4K/120, which HDMI 2.1 will allow and the Series X will support and take advantage of. There is also currently no GPU's or monitors that support HDMI 2.1, so that $1400 you plan on spending, is still going to leave your rig with less capabilities than the Series X.
There is also the issues that come with PC's that consoles do not have, like driver updates and software/hardware conflicts. And depending on what games you play, if you are not familiar with m/kb controls, you'll need to learn to effectively use them as well.
"I see no reason to keep shelling out for home consoles, with stuff like cross play, save and k+m support being added. Home consoles have essentially become dumbed down PCs."
- It depends on your perspective. They may be "dumbed down" in the sense that they are a closed-system that aren't really designed for anything but entertainment, but then again, that's why they are a console and not a PC. A PC is a tool, a console is not.
However, they also give more "bang for buck" over PC's, in terms price/performance and they are ready to go out of the box - you put a game in and it works, which makes them incredibly user-friendly and arguably the single biggest reason people will choose console over PC.
To own/game on a PC, you need to have to have some degree of knowledge/know-how of the medium. For console, you do not. Virtually all of the problem solving/troubleshooting you'll encounter on PC, is done automatically in the background, or removed completely on console. As for cross-play, it is not a universal feature across all games. In fact, I would say the feature is still in it's infancy, so the mileage one gets from it will vary.
I have owned about 5-6 PC's in my life, and I've built every one of them, so I'm not just some "console fanboy" trying to shit on PC. I own both a PC and an xbox, since both offer me things the other cannot.
@Shantmaster_K: I was never a huge fan of the Fable games, but the rumor-mill is saying that the new Fable is moving away from the more whimsical look/feel of the previous games, in favor of something more mature. If so, it would address one of my gripes about the series, so I curious to see if this is true.
H0RSE's comments