Didn't Microsoft say that the Halo series would not come to PC regardless that it would remain on the X1X? If that is so someone could buy an X1X for that. I don't condone buying an X1X for only a handful of titles because I don't think it is good value but it may be a reason.
If we can finally get the new Halo games on PC maybe buying an X1X maybe isn't such a good idea but again it all depends. If you already own a gaming PC I think it is of better value to upgrade it instead, if you don't I think the X1X is of good value if you want to play games. If I really want to equal an X1X in graphics it is a simple solution of just going and buying a new GPU. In Canada I can buy an X1X for $500, I can buy a GTX 1070 for $600 so I would think buying the 1070 to be of much better value for upgrading my PC. Even if the X1X matches a 1070 in terms of power (I'm not sure if this is true but it was claimed by Microsoft), the CPU on an X1X though having more cores has a lower clock speed, and since most games can't utilize 8 cores yet having 4 cores with a higher clock speed is preferable in my opinion. In terms of backwards compatibility it is nice to see Microsoft finally implementing it for older games though PC is still the king in terms of backwards compatibility, if your only care is playing older games go with building a budget PC instead. Lots of people will say don't build a budget PC which I completely disagree with, you get all the benefits of PC gaming even on a budget PC, you can still play the newest titles on low settings and get the access to the older games at a good price.
There is no right or wrong way to play video games and it comes down to preference, lots of peoples mind will not be changed on the issue and that is fine, than you talk about their current situation and what they own and help them way the pros and cons of whether to stick with a console or switch over to PC or to upgrade their current PC.
I built my PC when prices were not out of control yet but eventually PC parts will come back down to earth. Even without the latest parts though I can still play my games at minimum 60 FPS mind you with a lot of the games the graphics turned down.
DOOM runs super smooth at highest settings, while I struggle with Wolfenstein and the Witcher 3 while Hitman is very playable on highest settings, so in my opinion running a budget rig is of no problems.
My cost of my budget rig came in at $900 bucks and gives 100% backwards compatibility to a massive library of PC games and some older cross platform games, I can upgrade my PC for another $600 to be able to smoothly hit minimum 60 FPS if not higher on all the games I've tested. Now if you don't have $900 or backwards compatibility doesn't matter to you so much get an X1X and have access to older Xbox and 360 titles and you can be absolutely happy with your purchase, if you want more games, the potential for a higher FPS than 60 on still decent graphics that are certainly not an eye sore by any means get a PC.
There is no right or wrong way to play video games and it comes down to circumstances, I have posted what I hit in my games using different graphical settings.
With Wolfenstein with the graphics turned to low I can achieve 60 FPS no problems but when I crank it all the way up I hit stable 30 but I find it personally unplayable coming from 60 FPS.
DOOM under OpenGL with Ultra Graphics I was hitting between 60 to 90 FPS and on low I hit 70 to 110+ FPS, unfortunately even though I have a AMD card setting it to Vulcan causes DOOM to repeatedly crash
HITMAN I hit 55 to 60 FPS on Highest settings with Vsync disabled on Lowest settings I get around 90 FPS with Vsync disabled
The Witcher 3 Low 80 FPS Medium 75 FPS High 55 FPS Ultra 45 FPS. I find 45 FPS playable in an open world game but in combat hitting 80 fps I find makes a difference in reaction time
All the tests were done using Fraps
Log in to comment