It is working in America ... just not anywhere else.

X1 is considerably weaker than it could and should have been but the world has gone absolutely bonkers with the resolution thing. Not just with video games, with everything. Ya got people buying 4K TVs they don't need cuz there is no difference in 99% of situations, the screen has to be around 100" or the viewer needs to press their face to the glass, or both, for it to matter. Then there's the most ridiculous example of out-of-control resolution of all; cell phones. 1 million pixels on a 5" screen isn't enough?! Ya really feel ya need 2 million ... or even 8 million?! 720p is absolutely fine for a damned phone. Any higher than that and you're just wasting processing power. These phones would run so much faster and smoother if companies would cease with the mindless resolution hang-pork contest they're currently engaged in.

Kinda funny, but the difference between X1 and PS4 ain't resolution. The difference is 500 gflops of GPU power (Roughly 2 X360 GPUs). Increased resolution just happens to be what most devs have been doing with that extra graphics processing power so far.

I've said it a dozen times before and I'll say it again: Those instances of the less powerful system selling the best were the result of earlier releases, often by a year, sometimes even 2. But when you're both launching in the same month it's gonna be a big plus to be the more powerful machine.

Considering Sony's financial problems I thought MS would release the most powerful console of the three this gen. Imagine my surprise when it turned out around half the power I thought it would be. But looking back I guess I shouldn't be too surprised cuz it was designed under Don Mattrick, the worst head the Xbox division has ever had by a long shot. Xbox One's hardware is the swan song to a guy's career that was so disastrous it seemed like intentional sabotage.

But I hope this isn't the last console generation like so many are speculating. Despite phones and streaming consoles are still selling great, outside of Japan anyway.

Considering that people are paying several hundred dollars for phones nowadays I believe a $500 console could have worked. $600 is too high but $500 would have been fine (Without Kinect I mean). That extra $100 could have went into the APU, perhaps beefing up the GPU side to 2.5 tflops and using different CPUs or if using the same going with 12 cores instead. And in X1's case the silly memory architecture would have to be changed as well. Increasing the horsepower like that might also necessitate upping the bus to 384 bit. I don't think people would be complaining about the power if they were made this way. Certainly would be worth an extra $100 to me.

Browsing this thread I get the impression that some of you hope games turn out bad just so you can have this moment.

I've watched a few video reviews of this and one thing that jumps out to me about it is that everything happens at night. Clearly the game was meant to be a graphical showpiece and it never makes sense to me that so many developers choose to do that sort of thing with night scenes. Maybe I'm alone here but I think games look their best in daylight scenes. Gears of War was a looker back in its day and the parts that most dropped my jaw were the scenes in daytime.

Another case of the media totally screwing something up. They aren't really saying there was no big bang but that there was no singularity.

"The physicists have now incorporated principles from quantum mechanics that suggest the universe could have always existed in a "quantum potential". This, in turn, could have eventually collapsed in the hot explosion that was the Big Bang."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/big-bang-not-start-quantum-theory-suggests-universe-has-existed-forever-1487517

So replace singularity with quantum potential and that's where the real meat of the idea is.

Thing about 1080p is I don't think a lot of people realize how sharp that is if the source content is good. About the only thing we've got that is high-quality 1080p is blu ray movies and the problem with those is that older films are grainy because of film stock of the time and newer movies, even those shot digitally, pretty much always have artificial grain added to them because for whatever crazy reason directors/cinematographers have convinced themselves that a movie doesn't look like a movie unless there's some graininess (I personally agree that 24fps is more cinematic cuz I don't know, maybe I'm use to it. But I don't agree that adding artificial grain to a source that is grainless makes it more cinematic at all). I have a few hundred blu ray discs and sadly I've gotten to see what true 1080p without filters to intentionally make it muddy-looking and at a good bitrate looks like only a scant few times. And in those rare instances it really is amazing. Unless you've got cyborg eyes or have your face pressed up to the glass of the screen 4K really doesn't look any better in those instances. And if ya think movies are gonna be sharper on 4k blu ray when it launches at the end of the year I'm thinking that ya should think again. Already 99% of films on 1080p blu ray aren't as sharp as it's capable of because of age or intentional muddying so outside of improved bitrate how can 4K discs look any better when directors/cinematographers have already decided that even 1080p is too sharp of a presentation to be cinematic?