Quantcast
Xbox Scorpio's Hype Justified by it's Hardware specs

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Scorpio's Hype Justified by it's Hardware specs

I think good hype could be achieved through a combination of interesting hardware (could be specs, it could be a novel feature, it could be a feature of convenience), combined with good features/exclusives that cannot be experiences anywhere else, and good marketing that keeps the word and mystique surrounding the system alive (pricing is also part of marketing, so that will also matter when it is announced).

I think Scorpio has got the interesting hardware part covered (at least with regards to specs). However, I find it difficult to get hyped for a system with a library that is lacking exclusives because most of the few system (at least compared to Sony and Nintendo) exclusives are also available on PC. I think Scoprio will get the definitive version of most multiplats and that is a selling point to enthusiasts and I believe that along with some of its media features (namely 4K blu-ray support) will make it a competitive option for 4K TV buyers; however, for most people at this point, I do not believe that the performance difference (higher frame rates, down-sampling) will be enough to justify paying for an upgrade or switching console eco-systems (particularly since I predict the system, at minimum, will cost $500 USD).

Personally, as an owner of an Xbox One (and one that does not use the system a lot, since many of the games are also available on PC, where I tend to play them), I am not at all hyped for Scorpio. I was hyped for the Switch and I got one because the ability to take home console level games on the go, which is how I mostly game, has always been appealing for me and Nintendo has got a good deal of exclusives lineup for the first year (albeit it is sorely lacking with regards to third-party AAA support, and I do not suspect that will change even with great sales). Moreover, I am pretty hyped about picking up a PS4 Slim or PS4 Pro soon largely because of the software library and because, frankly, out of the two stationary systems it seems to be the most balanced one; it has great exclusives of a great variety and runs multi-platform games decently, even though I will probably never purchase a multi-platform game on it, even though it might no longer be the platform with the definitive versions of the multi-platform games (though I would argue it probably never was in the first place when we take into consideration most lower tier mid-range gaming PCs run most multi-platform games better than PS4). I think one way MS can change my mind about the Xbox One ecosystem (and maybe even Scorpio) is if they come to E3 with a bunch of varied and unique exclusives for the Xbox One platform.



Around the Network

Price is important. The GPU seems to be very impressive, but wasn't the CPU a bit less than expected? I haven't completely stayed current with console power epeen fights.



torok said:
potato_hamster said:

As long as the base PS4 and X1 have to be supported, then your argument falls flat on its face. Those games you listed that "could be way better" would be exacrtly the same, since developers would still have to support the base Xbox 360 and base PS3. Sony and MS are going to mandate that these consoles be supported as part of the platform, since the vast majority of the platform users will be using that base specification, and it would be horrifically bad PR to let those users get the feeling that they're being abandoned.. Remember the vast majority of a hardware's sales tend to come after it's first three years on the market, because that's when consoles tend to meet a price threshold that tends to bring a higher volume of sales. New, higher spec'd more expensive consoles isn't going to change that in the slightest. If given the choice, most people are going to want the cheapest console, not the most powerful one, especially if they both play the same games.

Let's just take a look at what the PS4 Pro has done since it's announcement. Nothing has really changed for the vast majority of PS4 owners (over 90%) except now,  development costs for the people making the games has risen since engines have to be revised to accomodate these new specifications, and specification specific optimizations and modes need to be made. What we don't see is tens of millions of PS4 users upgrading their consoles to PS4 Pros, and we also don't see the vast majority of new console buyers opting for the PS4 Pro over the PS4. The PS4 Pro is a very niche product for a very small minority of the userbase, and there's no reason to think Scorpio will be any different.

5-6-7 year long development times for games isn't exactly a new phenomena (Hello Duke Nukem Forever, and Aliens: Colonial Marines), so i don't see why the industry needs to change to accomodate that. If anything, the industry has tried to stream line the submission and certification process, switched to familiar hardware architectures, and dramatically improved developer tools to ensure that great games can be made and released quicker, cheaper and easier than ever before. The push is for shorter development times, not longer ones. I don't think this "generation" is going to last any longer because of the existance of the PS4 Pro and Scoprio. The PS5 will come when PS4 sales start to trail off and developers start complaining about how the base PS4 and X1 are impeding their development. I think the PS4 Pro was an experient by Sony to see how the market reacts to such a console, but based on the results, I don't see any reason why its existance would change the schedule for the PS5.

P.S. I say this as a PS4 Pro owner, who doesn't have a 4K TV and has no interest in getting one in the next 4-5 years. The only reason I had one is because my launch PS4 was starting to act a bit flaky, and gamestop had a hell of a trade in deal for the PS4 Pro at the time.

I know they would have to support the base model. But mind that, when the PS3 arrived, most consoles in the wild were Slim or Super Slim units. Most OG PS3 were already gone. So we can assume that, maybe, most PS4s will be Pros. The question is not the devs, it's the experience people get. Shadow of Mordor on PS3 was a sub-HD game running at 20 fps. So people wouldn't play it because it was plain terrible. Let's imagine that a PS3 Pro did existed. Maybe that game would be 720p and a stable 30 fps, so people would still want to play it. The Slim PS4 will be the top seller for a lot of time, but towards the end of the gen, the Pro will overtake it. Same with Scorpio. In 2012-13, PS360 sales suffered. Game sales in 2013 were terrible, with a lot of good franchies flopping badly. The Pro and Scorpio are here just to avoid that these 2 extra years result in a dying market.

You are looking at it thinking about the present. Take a PS4 game on a OG model and it isn't that much worse than the same game on PC running on ultra. You can see, the difference, but it's not ridiculous. I'm talking about 2019. Just remember how bad PS3 was hanging on in 2012 and that's the point of having a beefier unit.

You're trying to justify that long cycles aren't new using 2 games that had severe issues with their development. PS2 games could be made by teams of 20 devs in 2 years. Indie games nowadays use more than that. I'm not saying PS4 Pro and Scorpio will make the gen longer, but it was clear with PS360 that 7 years made the studios suffer because people were buying less games. Sony and MS seems to believe that a better hardware may offset this software crysis. So the point isn't really to make the gen longer, but to make the new duration viable.

Of course, when sales go down, they will launch a new gen. But this is related to what the market wants, not what devs wants. The guys who decide who gets the games are wearing suits and don't even know how to use a printer. Devs will code to the platform their bosses tells the to do so. They supported the Wii when it was selling well even if it was last-gen hardware.

If the Pro and Scorpio really don't have any impact even when looking at the last 2 years, then I will agree with you that it was a failed experiment. It's indeed a possibility, specially if the regular models manage to sell for sub-150 prices or maybe even 100 bucks. 

Off-topic: You said your PS4 was having issues. Could it be an error CE-34878-0 with some games? Mine has those frequently with UC4 and Horizon, so I was starting to think about getting a Pro and trade my current unit.

Your argument still makes no sense. You're right that most PS3s sold were slims or super slims, but they were the same specs as the original PS3s (not more powerful in any way). But, that's because they were cheaper. Keep in mind, these consoles actually had less features than the release PS3, and the vast majority of PS3 owners did not care. So why did you make the logical jump that most PS4 sales now should be PS4 Pro sales and Not PS4 Slim sales? You need to look at the numbers . So far, PS4 Pro has an estimated sales of 1-1.5 million units world wide since release. In that same time, the PS4 Slim has sold well over 6 million units. That's about 80% of PS4 sales since the PS4 pro was released, and it's reasonable to think that number might decrease over time as a large chunk of the current userbase that already had a PS4 might have already upgraded to the Pro. It wouldn't surprise me at all if going forward the PS4 Pro represents less than 10% of PS4s sold. The dust is already settling on the PS4 Pro, and the results aren't industry changing in any meaningful way. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised at all if MS saw the response to the PS4 Pro and actually scaled back the hardware to make the price point more affordable. It appears the demand just isn't there.

Again, you seem to be harping on the idea that the vast majority of gamers care enough about performance to be willing to pay extra for it. I wholeheartedly disagree with that concept. The numbers just do not indicate that this is true, or has ever been true. People buy consoles for the games you can plan on them, not necessarily how well they play. Need I remind you that the PS2 was by far the weakest console compared to the Xbox and Gamecube and had the weakest, poorest performing ports, and that system is the highest selling console of all time, and dominated in third party sales. By your logic Xbox should have crushed the PS2, yet we see the opposite of that.

Yes, the PS3/Xbox360 era was 7 years long, and people were buying less games from 2008 onwards. Are you forgetting that 2008/2009 was the depths of an economic recession, with people losing their jobs and their homes left and right? Entertainment always takes a hit during a recession. You'll also notice a decrease in box office movie sales, sports tickets sales. etc. during that time, as people had less disposable income. It's not that people were neceessarily bored with the hardware, it was that they couldn't really afford to buy as many games as they used to. Because of that Sony and MS decided to extend the lives of those consoles because they new they would be releasing new hardware into a global economy that couldn't really afford that. A PS3 Pro wouldn't have made any impact in that. If anything it would have made Sony more tepid to make the PS4 Pro as the PS3 pro would have been a clear and obvious disaster. Speaking from experience, the PS3 was hard enough to develop for, adding a new specification to hardware that was already difficult to optimize would wouldn't have yielded games that would have been able to take advantage of it without a significant investment from the development teams in both manpower and development time. The hardware and development tools really were not there yet.

As for what devs want, you'd be shocked how much of an influence they actually have over Sony and MS in terms of what hardware is released and how soon it's released. Many of the respected studios around the world (Both first and third party)have a pretty big influence in shaping the final specifications of consoles.

P.S. My PS4 would randomly freeze every week or so. I suspected it was a hard drive failing so I replaced it with no change to the performance. I never did get an error code out of it.



It is certainly an impressive piece of technology, but without great games it means nothing. There are still almost no games on the system that I can't play elsewhere which would make me interested in getting the Scorpio. More powerful hardware by itself is just a gimmick without anything to back it up. As long as any game that comes out for the Scorpio is still playable on the basic Xbox One, then I see no reason to get the Scorpio.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. VGChartz's Top 50 Video Game Composers (5 - 1)

2. VGChartz's Top 50 Video Game Composers (10 - 6)

3. VGChartz's Top 50 Video Game Composers (15 - 11)

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

potato_hamster said:
torok said:

 

Your argument still makes no sense. You're right that most PS3s sold were slims or super slims, but they were the same specs as the original PS3s (not more powerful in any way). But, that's because they were cheaper. Keep in mind, these consoles actually had less features than the release PS3, and the vast majority of PS3 owners did not care. So why did you make the logical jump that most PS4 sales now should be PS4 Pro sales and Not PS4 Slim sales? You need to look at the numbers . So far, PS4 Pro has an estimated sales of 1-1.5 million units world wide since release. In that same time, the PS4 Slim has sold well over 6 million units. That's about 80% of PS4 sales since the PS4 pro was released, and it's reasonable to think that number might decrease over time as a large chunk of the current userbase that already had a PS4 might have already upgraded to the Pro. It wouldn't surprise me at all if going forward the PS4 Pro represents less than 10% of PS4s sold. The dust is already settling on the PS4 Pro, and the results aren't industry changing in any meaningful way. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised at all if MS saw the response to the PS4 Pro and actually scaled back the hardware to make the price point more affordable. It appears the demand just isn't there.

I'm not saying the Pro is the best selling SKU now and it has zero chance of doing so in less than 2 years. I agree that pricing is the top factor, but you have to consider that old tech ends up beign overpriced. I bought a GTX650 in 2013. It costed 1/3 of what a PS3 costed at the time. The PS3 ran Crysis 3 at 720p, less than 30fps and settings lower than "low" on PC. My budget GPU ran the same game in "high" to "ultra" settings, 1080p and 30 to 40 fps. There's a point where you can't reduce the cost of old tech and newer tech simply starts to win in both performance and cost. I'm cosidering that, in some years, the regular PS4 may not be capable of reaching lower prices and the difference to the Pro may be less than 50 bucks, if any at all. In this scenario, it could become the top SKU. Sony itself said that their intentions were to avoid gamers jumping ship to PC late gen, when consoles don't have the C/B benefit any longer.

Again, you seem to be harping on the idea that the vast majority of gamers care enough about performance to be willing to pay extra for it. I wholeheartedly disagree with that concept. The numbers just do not indicate that this is true, or has ever been true. People buy consoles for the games you can plan on them, not necessarily how well they play. Need I remind you that the PS2 was by far the weakest console compared to the Xbox and Gamecube and had the weakest, poorest performing ports, and that system is the highest selling console of all time, and dominated in third party sales. By your logic Xbox should have crushed the PS2, yet we see the opposite of that.

If you look at X1, gamers are just getting a slightly lower pixel count, but perfectly playable games. When the gen is over, the previous console becomes an aftertought and it gets sub-HD/20fps horrible next-gen ports. You are also thinking about PS4 as the option that costs 150 dollars more. If the difference was just 50, how many people would simply buy it? 

Yes, the PS3/Xbox360 era was 7 years long, and people were buying less games from 2008 onwards. Are you forgetting that 2008/2009 was the depths of an economic recession, with people losing their jobs and their homes left and right? Entertainment always takes a hit during a recession. You'll also notice a decrease in box office movie sales, sports tickets sales. etc. during that time, as people had less disposable income. It's not that people were neceessarily bored with the hardware, it was that they couldn't really afford to buy as many games as they used to. Because of that Sony and MS decided to extend the lives of those consoles because they new they would be releasing new hardware into a global economy that couldn't really afford that. A PS3 Pro wouldn't have made any impact in that. If anything it would have made Sony more tepid to make the PS4 Pro as the PS3 pro would have been a clear and obvious disaster. Speaking from experience, the PS3 was hard enough to develop for, adding a new specification to hardware that was already difficult to optimize would wouldn't have yielded games that would have been able to take advantage of it without a significant investment from the development teams in both manpower and development time. The hardware and development tools really were not there yet.

You have a point here with the crysis. I'm using a "PS3 Pro" as an example, I know Sony wouldn't keep throwing money in hardware that was a total disaster.

As for what devs want, you'd be shocked how much of an influence they actually have over Sony and MS in terms of what hardware is released and how soon it's released. Many of the respected studios around the world (Both first and third party)have a pretty big influence in shaping the final specifications of consoles.

They are consulted because an easier platform to develop means lower dev costs and that makes the higher-ups happier. However, they don't have voice to decide which one will get games or not. If the PS4 was hell to develop for but still had the  sales advantage it has today, devs would still support it more than other platforms. They can't say "hey, I don't want to develop for this thing" for their bosses. The Wii didn't had the specs anybody wanted, but devs still had to do miracles to put modern games on it. They even tried to put Arkham Asylum on it.

P.S. My PS4 would randomly freeze every week or so. I suspected it was a hard drive failing so I replaced it with no change to the performance. I never did get an error code out of it.

Ok, so it seems to be a different issue than mine. I managed to solve it before using some combination of full restore + game reinstall, but I forgot the exact steps I did to solve the problem. Anyway, I will try a full restore without backing up the games (just the saves) and see if it solves it. 

 


Around the Network

A pc CAN be more powerful, but you'd likely spend more money on a more powerful PC than the console by far. so that's the point, it's always been the point o consoles in general, achieving the most power without breaking the bank to do so.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Bandorr said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

The price is what has me most intrested as well!

So what do you think it will come in under? I think the poll in the  other thread is interesting.

highest number of people (at 161) think $500. The next highest thing it is $600.

I personally went $450.

My hopes......$399 my gut feeling $450-$500. Even though I think that would be too much  an dwould hurt the sales. But they HAVE to be competitive. And I must have missed the price prediction thread.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

TheBlackNaruto said:
Bandorr said:

So what do you think it will come in under? I think the poll in the  other thread is interesting.

highest number of people (at 161) think $500. The next highest thing it is $600.

I personally went $450.

My hopes......$399 my gut feeling $450-$500. Even though I think that would be too much  an dwould hurt the sales. But they HAVE to be competitive. And I must have missed the price prediction thread.

 

I like how you say hopes and my gut....you my friend have taken the first step into a larger world!

Being able to take your heart and hopes out of the equation and focusing on the logic will make you wise my friend!

Even ask a vulcan.



Nem said:
I'm certainly not hyped. I only got the ps pro due to a trade in promotion. I don't regret it, but theres hardly any worth in doing it unless you have a 4k TV, wich costs thousands of euros/dollars.

What's the point of scorpio beeing powerful when its games are available on the pc which can be even more powerful and can have stuff that is on ps4 and pc only. I don't even know what the point of the xbox is anymore.

Because there are way more reasons to not buy a pc but a console, although it's the same games?



Nem said:
I'm certainly not hyped. I only got the ps pro due to a trade in promotion. I don't regret it, but theres hardly any worth in doing it unless you have a 4k TV, wich costs thousands of euros/dollars.

What's the point of scorpio beeing powerful when its games are available on the pc which can be even more powerful and can have stuff that is on ps4 and pc only. I don't even know what the point of the xbox is anymore.

So everyone has a gaming PC? No point in the Xbox being around huh? What kind of shit is this? If someone doesn't have a PC and only a Xbox. Every game is exclusive no matter what anyone says or tries to imply. This rhetoric and now the no games bullshit. It's just reasons for ppl not wanting Xbox to be around.