@fedor: My mistake, I figured the person had fully read the post that I made and was comparing the architecture against the PS4 Pro and thought they could further explain the assertion. Since I was not trying to compare anything against a PC and I am not arguing against the fact that a PC is stronger further input to this conversation is moot. Even your assertion regarding the PS3 has no basis or support other than you saying that.
@fedor: Pretty sure in my post I stated that I was not going to get into PC's. I know they are better, but I stopped being a PC Gamer a long time ago and have no plans to get back into it. Now and days I am only a casual gamer and prefer the couch and a controller to a desk chair and mouse and keyboard.
@PETERAKO: If a game or movie can truly take advantage of the number of pixels, well it looks pretty damned amazing, but don't go above a 70" screen, beyond that I think you would need 8K. I have a 55" 4K and when I watch a 4K movie, well it looks leaps and bounds beyond how a 1080p blu-ray looks. Even my wife commented on how good a 4k movie we watched looked and she could care less about that stuff.
@Daian: Compared to? Basis for comment? I am not a CPU Architecture expert and I don't make games, so to make such a generalized comment with out evidence to support kind of means nothing to me.
@bat725: Well also keep in mind that the 360 had a full year on the PS3 as well. On top of that I actually waited until the studios finished their HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray war before dropping the money on a PS3. 360 was cheaper because of the standard DVD player, but the original idea was to release the 360 with an HD-DVD player, but the tech was not ready and MS wanted to get the jump on Sony. If that would of happen well I am willing to bet that both players would have launched at the same time, probably with the same price point and the landscape would have been a bit different, plus the HD-DVD/Blu-ray battle would have stretched out longer with the consoles actually being the deciding factor at the end.
I had been thinking of this price point since it was announced, while it is $100 more than I would have liked the value is definitely there. Right now the PS4 Pro is 400, has weaker processor, less RAM overall and just a standard Blu-ray player. The new XB1X has 12GB of RAM, faster processor and a 4K Blu-ray player. Hell the 4K Blu-ray player alone is worth the $100 over the PS4 Pro.
Not going to bother with making a comparison to PC, I left that kind of gaming almost 20 years ago.
I don't know what they are looking into, Amazon always ships early so that buyers can get it on the Street Date. My copy shipped from Amazon yesterday (technically today) so it will be at my house tomorrow.
@SavageEvil @Camp0potamus @Xvault77 @dogbert784 Actually Camp0potamus is right. There is actually a movement on Change.org to get Microsoft to change the policies back to the way they were originally. What Microsoft did wrong is try to force the consumer market into a fully digital world. Those are the policies that were scrapped. When you have competition still doing it the old way you can't force the market to adopt a new way of doing things, even if it is moving in that direction. For me I prefer to own a disc and I typically don't resell games, but I do loan them to friends and family. In the end I am getting both systems as they both have proprietary games that I like to play. Most true gamers will most likely end up with both systems for that same reason. Both systems are good and both have different sticking points. If you are trying to count the XB1 out though, I wouldn't. I can almost guarantee that the way MS has set the system up, within the next 5 years the majority of households will have an XB1 as households will be able to get one with a cable contract.
Taldaran1's comments