@ArchoNils2: You get a lot of value with Gold. If $60 is a lot of money to you your 12 years old or made bad life decisions, neither of which is Microsoft's problem.

Don't want to hear that expensive games on console bullshit. You mean like Doom 2016 on sale for $15 recently? Or Just Cause 3 given with PS+ membership? Or the 7.50 I paid for both Metro Redux titles? Or maybe the $5 I paid for the newest Dragon Age? Or perhaps you mean $19 I paid for Fall out 4? Or $10 I got Wolfenstein 2014 for? Most of these prices were Gold prices by the way, paying that 60/year which gives me online play actually saves me hundreds of dollars per year.

And I haven't even mentioned physical trade ins, which are perfect for annualized games like sports games. You buy a Madden on PC, you can never do anything with it, never get any part of your investment back. I can use last year's game towards the new game.

No, not pretty much. Your actually still in denial about the massive performance delta between X1X and Pro? Pro isn't getting any actual 4k textures and assets, as the 1X is, it simply can't support them. Nobody lied about anything. If a frame output resolves to 2160p the specific rendering method is irrelevant and you can't tell the difference, as if you own a 4k display to really see anyway.

What exactly was the Pro's launch lineup? I don't think it had any.

SLT looks like a solid platformer and I don't worship ratings as many Sony fanboys do but to speak in a language you might understand, I wouldn't be surprised if it scores a 7 or 8 here on GS, and Crackdown 3 people can hate on all they like, it looks like a fun game, but actually has nothing to do with me buying a 1X. I'm more likely to buy SLT. And I'm definitely buying Cuphead. And I stopped playing games like The Witcher 3 until I can play it on the 1X, and will wait for Doom's upgrade as well. Just a few examples of the kind of varied value the console is bringing to different players.

Games not hitting native 4k doesn't equal exact graphics and performance of PS4 Pro. Though there seems to be a vocal contingent of brain damaged people who think this. It doesn't sit in the same realm as the PS4 Pro, well above it actually. Feature wise it's years ahead of the Pro. Solid exclusives is a matter of subjectivity. X1X is the best multiplat experience on a console. Multiplats are the top console sellers.

MS's market is people who want the best graphics, performance, and features on console, and for those who like their exclusives that don't PC game. And all existing Xbox players who'd like their games upgraded.

My understanding on how this has played out on Sony's side is most Pro sales were actually of people who are still gaming on 1080p TVs. And recent stat I saw was that basically 1 in 5 PS4s sold is now a Pro. So I don't think it will even be mostly 4k TV owners buying the X1X, I think the majority will be those who own 1080p TVs. X1X supersamples for them.

Also the OP supplies no source. For all we know this is more VGChartz stuff. There are no officially released Xbox figures.

Another joke thread by one of the card carrying members of the Sony loving/PC bias squad (to join this club you can only own PS4 console and must have minimum of 1080Ti's in SLI, of course the standard PC set up for most....not).

Gamecube had exclusives, it didn't do that well. Same for N64, crushed by PS1. Saturn had exclusives, crushed. Sega CD had exclusives, failure. Original Xbox had exclusives, but it was MS's first console, PS2 dominated that gen in sales. 360 and PS3 had exclusives, eclipsed in sales by the motion control gimmicked Wii with it's massive library of predominantly shovelware, hardly a triumph of the exclusives argument.

No amount of exclusives could move Wii U's. And your trumpeting Switch having higher sales than a 4 year old console in the X1. It's a new console from 1 of the major 3...of course it's going to have higher sales near its launch. It's had some higher sales than PS4, so does that mean Switch is actually beating PS4 this gen...of course not...not unless you measure a gen in terms of a month or so, or in the case of this garbage thread, that only sales for this year count.

Switch has a long way to go to catch lifetime X1 sales.

Did you ever once think a lot of people are not buying the X1S because they're waiting for the X1X? Even if X1X jumps to the #1 selling console spot at the end of this year, I'm not going to make a thread saying they've surpassed PS4 and it's proof Xbox's exclusives are good enough....as they will still be behind in overall sales. Exclusives are a factor, but judging by PS4 exclusives low sales figures, they are definitely not the factor.

You lack logic, as do all your posts.

@Xplode_games: What's this PS4 is 50% more powerful than XB1 crap. XB1 has the better CPU, and PS4's GPU advantage is like ZERO.5, I repeat, 0.5 teraflops difference.

They charged 499 cause 60-80 of that price was for the new Kinect. They weren't charging the full 499 just for the console. And they price dropped and unbundled from Kinect, and you still complain they did that too, which makes no sense.

From what I've read, X1's specs would've been a bit beefier, but because they really wanted devs and gamers to use the Kinect tech in most/all games, and they didn't want to go over 499, they had to limit the X1's specs to just a notch about 399 in terms of value, to account for the rest of the retail price being made up of the Kinect's cost.

Anyone who doesn't see what they were trying to do is a fool. The industry was coming off the Wii dominated gen of the gimmick of motion control games. MS made something way cooler than Wiimotes but it just didn't catch on as all that was really just a fad. But I can see how they were trying to capitalize on the trend, I get it.

The point you are right on is that pricing made a difference. Generally, the mass consumer will go with the cheaper option if it doesn't seem glaringly inferior, and PS4 didn't have many launch holes or things to take shots at, so people went for the cheaper option. I believe the same result, though to a lesser degree, would've happened even without MS announcing things people didn't like at E3 2013.

If Sony is insistent on sticking with a 399 launch point, that's fine by me, I'll just keep buying MS's superior 499 hardware. Phil Spencer has been clear that Xbox is supposed to be about power and he's never going to let an underpowered piece of hardware lead the brand again.

I want to know what this actually is.

It looks cool. They say it's modern hardware.

I don't agree with those that say it's a retro and indie games box.

And I don't believe they went through this trouble just to do another Atari branded Android box.

I think it's interesting if the specs are a decent notch above base X1/PS4, but the price is lower than the Pro, they might have a niche in the marketplace.

But the problem is, why play on this console instead of the more established two? Have they actually gotten AAA devs to port to this machine?

I just don't see how they actually pulled off having 3rd party AAA ports and are offering anything unique to lure buyers.

X1X has the best console features and performance and console exclusives, PS4 has its library of complete exclusives, what can Atari offer, even if the specs are decent?

The X still supersamples and provides better visuals for 1080p screens.

Also it's not just about the general resolution, games on the X will receive the equivalent of high/ultra PC graphics settings for things you can notice such as draw distance, water, lighting, shadows, reflections, etc.

The X is the only console capable of supporting 4k assets/textures, those are noticeable.

You need a 4k TV for HDR. If your not familiar with what HDR can do for an image you should research it. 4k TVs are about more than just resolution.

And the X improves other things that effect gameplay no matter what your TV is, such as improving load times. For me this is huge in a game I haven't finished such as Witcher 3, which has terrible load times when you die.

I also happen to play on a very large TV, and 1080p visuals simply don't cut it for me, I need higher fidelity.

The point of this thread went over the heads of most Sony fanboys' heads.

Yes, it's a multiplat.

The point is, this is another major, new, 3rd party, AAA release that IS taking advantage of the X1X. The X1X version will NOT have parity with the PS4 Pro version.

Sony fanboys and some PC elitists as well that like to hate on Xbox have at times attempted to promote the narrative that 3rd party devs will not develop/patch for the X1X, and that only MS 1st party will really leverage the hardware.

News like this shuts them down on that point and most all who were saying that a few weeks or months ago now switch to different Xbox hating propaganda/narratives.

What these same fools don't realize is the game's specific resolution techniques, fps, and level of graphical effects/fidelity is all unconfirmed either way...you Xbox haters are so quick to say, but, it won't be native!, doesn't say native! won't be high settings! still only 30fps, when the only solid information available at this time is that it is getting specifically X1X enhanced in some version of 4k by the 3rd party dev of the game.

It could turn out to be 4k native/60fps and you'd all look like fools. Until the final console and game come out and something like DF benchmarks are done we don't know how the game is actually running. But it's running on ID engine like Doom, and that is a very well optimized engine that runs quite well on some older PC cards, and the last Wolfenstein games on X1 ran quite well, so I think 60fps is still a possibility for this title.

These posts by Xbox supporters would likely not be happening if the narrative I mentioned hadn't been attempted, that devs would ignore the X1X and just port the PS4 Pro version, or do nothing for the X1X at all. You brought this on yourselves.