I wouldn't buy the 1080p version either. But thats just a me thing. A 1080p Lockhart will be no different than those that can only afford to run their games at ultra settings but in 1080p Its just a resolution difference. The game itself will not be affected in any way. Yes the PS5 and annaconda will be the base consoles, and thse will run in 4k. All lockhart will do is run those 4k games at a lower rez.

But think of it, most parents buying a console fr their kid, uncle buying present, will all buy the cheaper version as long as it plays the same games. Hell those kids wont even care for the difference between 1080p and 4k. Its not like all of a sudden in 2020 EVERYONE has  4kTV.

And how do we know sony isn't going to do something similar?

This is just a smart way to sell a cheaper (like $300) console for $400 to allow them sell a $600 console for $500.

Just dropping by to remind everyone that the PS5 isn't going to have an SSD or anything more than 16GB RAM.

I know it makes sense... However I "personally" don't see the point of a 1080P SKU.
Because even if you have 1080P screens (I don't), there is still substantial increases in visuals by downsampling from 4k.

People are far to hung up on the amount of flops anyway.
A 4 Teraflop Navi is going to be faster than a 4 Teraflop Polaris GPU.

Efficiency goes up irrespective of the single precision computational capabilities of a processor.

You know it makes sense but you also dont see the point?

The point is that people who choose Lockhart over Anaconda are likely going to be people who value price over visuals.

This.  There is a HUGE difference between a mid-gen upgrade and a launch console.  Most don't feel the upgrades were worth the price when they could just wait it out and buy an incredibly more powerful system next gen for around the same price.  The OG PS4 and XBOs still play all the same games as the upgrades.  Now, when we get to a new gen, people are going to be looking for an actual upgrade.  And advertising 1080p on a box in 2020 just isn't going to appeal to many. 

The 4 Tflops is also going to turn people off.  Sure, we've heard it a million times that Tflops aren't everything, which is true, but like it or not, that's just the number that is given.  Yes, a 4 Tflops Navi will be better than a 4.2 Tflops Polaris that's in the Pro, especially with the new CPU, but people won't be looking at it like that.  And it gets worse when its compared to the 6 Tflops X.  It just makes that console look pointless and weak.

As for the last line, definitely agree.  If Sony has the most powerful console, again, coupled with B/C with the PS4 (hopefully more) out of the gate, and it's for the same price as the Anaconda, I imagine next gen to be pretty easy for them.

Neither do I.  We're going to have over 1/3 of households with 4K TVs sometime this year in the US, if it hasn't happened already.  In one more year, with all of the great deals, it will probably be approaching 1/2.  I just don't see the point in advertising 1080p on the box in a world where everything is going to be pushing 4K.  Not to mention that those games are going to be more gimped than just by having a lower resolution.  Seems pointless when you can probably spend another $100 and get a premium console.

I think MS's mistake is thinking that the PS4 won greatly because of the launch price difference.  So, if they can get a $100 cheaper box out there at launch, even though it's underpowered, it will greatly increase their chances.  Of course, the price difference means nothing when compared to the perceived value of the product.  Even if the XBO launched at $399, it wouldn't have changed much.  They still had the DRM fiasco.  And the PS4 was just blatantly more powerful than the XBO, and had the PS name and history, so it had a better perceived value. 

Correct. Maybe it's because I am financially better off than some people and don't really give a crap about $100-$200 extra? I dunno.

Resolution Gate and price were the biggest factors.
At the end of the day... The Xbox One was not only more expensive, it offered inferior visuals compared to the Playstation 4... Consumers took note and voted with their wallets and good on them.

I think next time around Microsoft is going to try and appeal to both segments with multiple SKU's... It makes sense, but could also confuse consumers who have absolutely no idea what a Flop is... Or that a Ram is some kind of animal that they can eat.

Personally I would just prefer something with the absolute best bang-for-buck possible... I am going to buy it either way... And the Premium device that comes out a few years later as well.

So you being well off means you dont see the point in a more affordable version for people who arent as well off as you? That seems like a really selfish and arrogant way of thinking.

The cheaper XBox model will be for those who really don't care about 4K/don't have a 4KTV and are fine with 900p-1080p resolution.

Why make them pay $499.99 for hardware scope that they're really not going to use.

So far everything is looking good for me, Xbox two (Lockhart) will be a 1080p machine, PS5 will be a 1440p+ machine and Xbox two+ (Anaconda) will be a sub 4K machine.

Exactly how things are now between PS4, PS4 pro and Xbox one X.

I think you're making the mistake of assuming the average gamer is as clued up about tech specs as the average member of this forum.

Even on this forum I'd say there is a general feeling that the 1080 to 4K jump is diminishing returns. If the same game is running side by side on those rumoured Xbox skus on anything less than a 65" TV I don't think the average gamer is going to notice much of a difference & the lower sku may in fact be the console that makes most sense to many gamers.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally plump for the superior sku but that's because I have a bad case of tech fomo - can't help myself. Though I do intend on upgrading from my 55" oled to 77-85" in the next year or 2 - at which point that extra grunt will really show in a meaningful way. But most gamers won't have a 77-85" tv any time soon!