I'm guessing most people who can't justify spending $500 on a xbox-x only upgrade their phones every 4 to 6 yrs?
If a person has a PC that can do most of what a xbox-x can do, then no it's not geared towards you. Most people do not have a PC that can do what a xbox-x can do. $499 is cheap for what it does. There's always gonna be a cheaper option for everything from food to cars to entertainment. The market is there. This generation is a anomaly in consoles. PS4 is selling a insane amount compared to any other generation. xbox one is doing fine as well. just not astronomical numbers like the ps4. That does not mean it's a failure. It's stupid to even think that. I like the majority of consumers buy a new phone every 2 years with a average cost of around $700. $500 for a console every 4 to 6 yrs is a very easy decision for me. I honestly don't see the issue unless it's just another reason to try and hate on MS.

Good video,

Nov 7 here we come.

Over $600 at the register with a game and tax.... ouch

For some reason, the tech sites are EXTREMELY biased towards Microsoft. The value of a console is not just about its physical prowess, and it has never been. Just a few years ago, those tech sites CONSTANTLY downplayed the graphical superiority of PS4 vs XB1 although it was exactly 45% more powerful then just like XBX vs PS4P. But despite the lack of 4K TVs in most houses and the tremendous diminishing returns, they OVERESTIMATE and OVEREMPHASIZE the parity gap between two consoles when the Microsoft front is the more powerful one.

In reality, $500 for a console is WAY TOO MUCH. The market knows this, and people know it as well. Regardless of the graphical fidelity, no mainstream audience will pay $500 for a console, that's just ridiculous and ALL CONSOLES at or above that price level FAILED.

Eurogamer CONTRADICT themselves. On one hand, they say, the 4 year change from PS4 to XBX is A LOT SMALLER than a traditional generational leap (i.e PS3 to PS4), implying that the gap between PS4pro and XBX is A LOT SMALLER THAN that. On the other hand, for that MUCH SMALLER difference, which can only be discernible in 4K TVs which most people do not have, you have to shell an additional $100 or $150, although most current third party games are not guaranteed to run as well (since PS4 is better than XB1, those games will run better on PS4pro than XBX unless patched), AND PS4pro has a greater first and third party support.

On top of them all, the user base of PS4 is twice that of XB1, and the user base of PS4pro will be AT LEAST TRIPLE that of XBX, which means the developer support and the optimizations for XBX will NOT be there. So first party and only a few third party games will run somewhat noticeably better on XBX, or else will run either equally well, or indistinguishable on either platform. So for this, $100 is NOT worth it.

If you have a limited budget, buy your console of choice, PS4 or XB1.
If you have another $100 or $200 to spare, choose one of the options below:

Good
a) PS4 + XB1 : All games and exclusives
b) XB1 + PS4pro : All games and exclusives + virtually best versions of most games

Bad
c) PS4 + XBX : Too expensive, missing best versions of current games
d) PS4pro + XBX : Get a life, this is pretentious rich nerd area.

There is NO REASON to get an XBX for a mainstream gamer.

Jason's viewpoint is pretty much the same as mine except I don't think they would launch at $600 but if you are going to make a case against it just putting 'NO' looks incredibly childish.Such a solid definitive statement needs some pretty amazing points on your side. I think the ps5 is going to be in the region of 10-14 tflops of  performance and the earliest possibility is Christmas 2019 or more likely 2020.

Are you kidding me? Everyone was screaming to the roof about how the PS4 was doing 1080p while the XB1 only did 900p. It wasn't that much of a differance, but that did not matter to the countless people who said otherwise.

Maybe, but also remember the ps4 was $100 cheaper, and then the same price shortly after. Even if I caoud not tell the diference, for the same price Ill take the more powerfull one. Thats not the case here. 

i can't wait for the xbox x!!!! my r9 390 gets so dam hot it heats up my whole room. and sometimes i get sick of glitchs where the pc doesn't pick up my x1 controller. Im starting to not care about graphics and just want a console experience FROM NOW ON. that and more multiplayer fun on consoles it seems like less play on pc?

am i done wiht pc gaming? probably. so im glad consoles are getting strong enough to be decent.

so is the xbox x expensive? HELL NO. its cheaper then an IPAD which does much less and i'd spend 10000x less time on an ipad over its entire life time vs the xbox and its entire lifetime.

I go for 2020. Price is important so they will wait to get a lower price after the tech comes out in 2019. And I dont think anybody would mind waiting sice we have such diminishing returns from getting more and more power. Honesty I dont even think the ps5 needs to be more than 10tf. They just needs to have a new gen and games be made for it without the previous one holding it back. Nobody wants more then 4k60 so not much more is needed.

10-12 TF is indeed very feasible for the power envelope of a console on 7 nm. However, I'm slightly concerned with profitability at $399 since the cost per mm2 on a chip is increasing with every die shrink. A 300 mm2 chip on 7 nm might cost as much as a 400 mm2 chip on 14 nm, and Zen-like cores are huge, about 11 mm2 on 14 nm versus ~3 mm2 for the Jaguars on the same node.

Of course, I'm sure the folks at Sony and AMD are very aware of that and might be coming up with smart solutions that doesn't involve scaling down their next generation console way too close to the XOX and even the PS4 Pro for comfort. Maybe even two smaller separate dies on the same lid - say, a 100 mm2 CPU and a 200 mm2 GPU - is going to be cheaper than a single 300 mm2 design. AMD already has a similar technology on Infinity Fabric to make it work like a single die.