It wasn't just cheaper. It was also the only HD console on the market for awhile.
Games also typically looked and performed better on the Xbox 360 as well.

It also had superior online and online features.

It was simply the right hardware, for the right price at the right time, with the right games, just like the Playstation 4.

It's a common monitor resolution. Millions of gamers around the world hook their consoles up to their monitors.

Monitors have lower input lag, which is also a great advantage for competitive gaming, the fact you are defending Microsoft's choice for omitting 1440P support for the time being is very telling.
Omitting a popular display standard/feature is not a good thing for consumers, making your argument nonsensical and baseless.

Did I say I buy all consoles for attention? That is an ignorant assertion that is blatantly false.
Stop living in a world of conspiracy theories.
I still don't understand why you are whinging that I bought an Xbox One X, do you feel threatened that someone has purchased it, has realized where it falls short and thus is happy to criticize it where criticism is due?

Here is another reason: I do own hundreds of Original Xbox games. And hundreds of Xbox 360 games. And I do enjoy the games that are made backwards compatible.
Can't wait for a Fable 2 enhanced if it ever happens.

Modest CPU is a bit of an overstatement. It's a piece of crap.

And I agree that the GPU will continue to be the main focus, consoles typically use conservative hardware that is very price conscious, which is why the Xbox One X is not a true 4k console.

60fps should be a mandated minimum. 60fps is one of the best things about Halo 5 which resonates with eSports and competitive gamers, but having 60fps shows where it comes up short in terms of animation and fidelity... And that is mostly attributed to the Xbox One having low-end rubbish hardware.

And now that Microsoft has partially resolved the hardware problem, there shouldn't be any excuses for Halo 6. It better look amazing. It better be 60fps.

I wasn't really doing exclusives, just 1st party content on 360 vs XB1. Viva Pinata, The Maw, Halo Wars, Shadowrun etc. were all on PC.

I also made a mistake Wilson's Heart is for VR, so MS has 0 new ips for XB1...

Very true. I agree that Halo Wars (as a franchise) could've been better. I have friend who were into Warcraft and Starcraft and could not stand the game because they felt it was gimped so that console gamers could enjoy it with a normal controller. When they told me this they were primarily PC elitists, so I could understand and take in their expertise where that is concerned as I haven't been a PC gamer in years. I think they might have a point.  If the game didn't sell, then its onto newer things for Microsoft and perhaps that's a good thing.

Honestly, I believe in Phil Spencers long term plan. I Hope it works out next gen with Mr. Booty.

I have been playing StarCraft casually for 20 years. RTS and TBS are my preferred genre's of games.

I am a big fan of Age of Empires, Dark Reign, Battlezone 2, Sacrifice, Total Annihilation, Company of Heroes, Heroes of Might and Magic, Alpha Centauri, The Settlers, Anno, Command and Conquer, Civilization, Homeworld, Dune, WarCraft, Supreme Commander, Rise of Nations, Age of Mythology, Sins of a Solar Empire, Total War, Warhammer... List goes on.

Halo Wars certainly is "Gimped". - But that was also one of it's strengths, because of that it is probably the best console RTS of all time.
On the PC however... It's a double edged sword, not being able to freely build bases removes a massive strategic component which means it would never be taken seriously.

Still, the story and visuals make up for it... Especially the CGI Cutscenes and the Multiplayer is fun on console. (Well. What I could play of it until population levels dropped into nothing.)

And I agree. If it doesn't sell, Microsoft should move onto other things and that is indeed a good thing, they did try with Halo Wars though, so I will give them credit for that.

Oh wow. Didn't know Viva Pinata was multiplat. Must have been exclusive to Games for Windows Live! for me to miss it. (I do own it on 360 though.)

Lionhead was losing their creative grip with Fable. They created a decent start up RPG for basic RPG fans (literally...bare basics). The problem is the creator claimed the game was going to be revolutionary, when in fact is was purely fundamental in holding your hand from start to finish as iterations progressed. Hopefully Fable gets rebooted. Word has it that the reason why Fable is being rebooted is with great thanks to the success of Horizon Zero Dawn. If they can get rid of Molyneux's "revolutionary" vision and make it into an RPG that still encompasses the same world with a meaningful lore and system, it could work. I doubt the overall concept is as exciting as Horizon Zero Dawn, but its something. Horizon, Zelda and Witcher have inspired people in the Action/ Adventure and RPG genre.  Playground games took Forza and actually made it fun (imho), so perhaps they could do the same for Fable.

While I agree with your points to some degree, an evenly priced PS3 would have crushed 360.

I'm not arguing 1440p displays should be ignored, its just not a standard TV resolution.

Again, you knew X1X would be a bad purchase for yourself based on your own arguments. You could have waited for X1X to get the updates youre waiting for or hoping for. But you knew it was gonna disappoint you at launch.

The X1 CPU does too much for me to consider it crap. I mean it does have 60 fps content and often times the bottleneck is on GPU. The hardware was designed to push its best visuals at 30 fps, this is GPU and CPU limitations.

I see X1X/PS4 as 4K consoles like X1/PS4 are 1080p consoles. They do those resolutions often, but not always.

You seem surprised a console has limitations. Halo 5 pushing high quality effects in a virtually locked 60 fps experience exacerbates those limitations in graphics, still an impressive 60 fps 8th gen game.

The only other option without making significant changes would have been make the campaign 30 fps and perhaps Warzone. That would free up a lot of overhead in GPU for visual polish. That's where you most notice the animation frame drops as well.

Well. Hindsight is an amazing thing.
As for crushed... Well. The Playstation 3 didn't really have much in the way of games in the first chunk of the generation... And the games it did get were inferior versions from the Xbox 360.
The 360 on the other hand was hitting it's stride. The PS3 would have won either way, but that doesn't automagically conflate to the Xbox 360 being a failure.

Then what are you arguing? Because either you are arguing that 1440P should be ignored because it's not a standard TV resolution... Or 1440P should be supported from the outset because it's a popular display resolution.

Who cares?

Or. Hows about no.
Stop whinging about other peoples purchasing decisions.

It's crap.
Regardless of how much work you consider it does. It's still crap.
Jaguar was the shittiest CPU in AMD's entire lineup... At a time when AMD's entire lineup (Bulldozer/FX) was shit.

AMD has thankfully turned that around with Ryzen, but facts are facts. Jaguar is shit. It's crap. It's rubbish. It's garbage.
But it's also cheap, small and energy efficient, perfect for a console.

Having 60fps content is irrelevant. The SNES had games operate at 60fps.

Visuals could still be better. It's not using high-end hardware.

They aren't true 4k consoles. Majority of games are around the 1440P-1800P resolutions rather than 4k.
Many games use image reconstruction techniques/checkerboarding to "fake" 4k.

Ergo. Not a true 4k console.

The Xbox One and Playstation 4 aren't true 1080P consoles either. - Especially in the Xbox One's case as so many games don't achieve 1080P.
They are using low-end hardware, you get what you pay for I guess.

How did you come to such a conclusion? Do tell. I'm intrigued.

It is an impressive 60fps game. But is it the best looking 60fps game on Xbox One? Frostbite has shown how well it can flex it's muscles, as has iD Tech.
But that doesn't mean we cannot take an intimate look at the visuals, how they were achieved, where they fall short and criticize those aspects.

Halo 5 is a pretty average game for a Halo game anyway... It hasn't been as highly acclaimed as prior titles for various reasons... And yet still does a ton right like 60fps and the movement system.
It's called giving criticism where criticism is due, you should really try it sometime.

No. That isn't the only option.

Halo 5 relies on a ton of dynamic details, that costs processing time.
Halo 4 looked as good as it did because it didn't rely on allot of dynamic details, it used baked/pre-calculated details.
There are Pro's and Con's to each approach of course.

The jump between Halo 3 and Halo: Reach actually saw a reduction in some areas.
For instance... Halo 3 had tessellated water effects, HDR lighting, triple buffering and so on. - Halo: Reach threw all of that out the window, put the Tessellator to work improving general geometry of the landscape and models, used impostering to increase draw distances, used texture and mesh streaming for higher resolution textures and meshes, adopted bloom (Yuck) and so on.

And despite the fact it had a reduction in fidelity in a few areas, general overall visual quality improved. Games are made of dozens of different effects... All designed to give an overall presentation.

Ergo... Just because the Xbox's hardware is static, doesn't mean that Halo 5 couldn't have been better than what it was visually.

Fable never really reached the heights of it's claims.

But that doesn't mean it's a bad game per-say. What Fable did get right is the Atmosphere, the British humor and art really made it stand out, despite some mechanics being relatively basic.

But... Going "back to basics" isn't a bad thing either.
Donkey Kong Country released at a time where platformers were getting more complex and intricate, it brought gameplay and mechanics back to the a barebones, threw great art and sound to create atmosphere with charming characters to go with it... And it was a ton of fun and critically acclaimed.

Fable started going stupid with Fable 3, the removal of a UI was a terrible idea, the story was rubbish... I think if it had another year of development to flesh out it's story and mechanics more... It might have been more solid.
But we will never know now.

With that... Fable 1 and 2 are some of my favorite games of all time, certainly one of my favorite RPG's behind Dragon Age: Origins, Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind.

The CPU is crap, very capable, and perfect for a console all at the same time.

Well... Doom on SNES wasn't 60 fps. It was a console with limitations as well.

You keep complaining about the X1's specs, but that's what Halo 5 is working with and developers always try to push the limits with sacrifices.

The Frostbite and id Tech games are not hitting locked 60 fps like Halo 5, not even close.

I said, "The only other option without making significant changes." Hence, I'm suggesting Halo 5 keeping the dynamic effects but dropping down to 30 fps for the campaign. It would look significantly better and that would put it at the same frame rate as all the other Halo games you're mentioning.

I actually agree baked effects could have been a better route Halo 5. People often complain Forza uses baked lighting but the end product is a very polished game.