@ bold, not sure what you mean here, early adopters are a small subset of consumer within any sector, for them to be distinctive as 'early' it means that the majority have to be late(r). If everyone is an 'early' adopter then no-one is... Also, look at pretty much any console's sales curve and tell me where your evidence is for the average gamer = early adopter theory...
Also, just because people can look up tech info at the click of a button doesn't mean that they're interested in doing so. If everybody was obsessed with tech specs they'd own a PC or XB1X & Pro would be outselling the base models...
Finally, the PS4 base model has a GPU not far off of 1/3 the power of the Pro - you think games look that different across the two? I mean, the PS4/Pro example is the perfect comparison - they're essentially the same system except ram & GPU... Same proposition as these 2 XB skus & yet you're somehow concluding that there will be little interest in the cheaper/less powerful sku...?
1) Maybe I should have been more clear. I meant partly make up early adopters. And this gen, those that were early adopters, i.e. who bought it at $399, were a huge crowd. For the PS4 that was ~30M, nearly 1/3 of its current sales.
2) Like I keep saying, there is a HUGE difference between a launch console and a mid-gen upgrade. The upgrade is naturally going to sell to less people, as there will be plenty of people who will just wait another 3 years or so and just spend that money on a next gen system. Others are budget buyers who wait for the PS4 to drop to $199. Gamers do look these things up, especially at launch. Why do you think the PS4 continued to outsell the XBO, even though MS got the price to equal less than 7 months after launch and had many sales to make it $50+ less than the PS4. The perceived value was still too low at that price for many, as the PS4 was just more powerful.
3) The PS4 base model is much closer to 1/2 the power of the Pro than it is 1/3. Also, games on the Pro are not made only targeting that HW. It is made so that it runs well on the base model, then a few bells and whistles (usually just higher res and/or framerate) are added to the game to take advantage of the Pro. If the games were made using only Pro HW, you can bet they would look better. 4) There will be little interest in the lower powered XB2 because the early adopters will be looking for a real jump in performance, not another half step. And given that it will probably still be $299, early adopters would rather spend the extra $100 to buy a system that is 3x the power and a real jump. If it was $199, those budget gamers might come into play. Of course, they may just choose to wait a 2-3 of years and wait for the $199 BF deals for the other consoles, to also get a real jump.
1) The early adopter thing, still not really getting your point, what counts as 'early' - 6 months / 12 months / 18 months?
2) There were many reasons PS4 beat out XB1 - to simplify it to being power only is silly. There are also multiple examples of weaker hardware winning a gen so...
3) PS4 : 1.84 TFLOPS / Pro : 4.2 TFLOPS - so 2.3 x more powerful, just for clarity, but then the Pro isn't doing real 4K, to do that would need to be a bit more powerful, bringing us closer to the rumoured Xbox Skus.
I'm not an expert on this stuff (maybe Pemalite or one of the more technically minded guys can help us here), but my understanding is that GPU power requirements scales with resolution. So to increase the resolution from Full HD to 4K, you're gonna need 4x the power. If I'm correct then the that means there won't be any extra 'bells & whistles' between the 2 skus but just resolution bump. In fact Anaconda might struggle to hit full 4K at only 3x...
4) I guess we just fundamentally disagree on the potential popularity of the lower-priced sku. I believe that there's a healthy market for a cheaper model and that a lot of gamers just don't care about 4K, not to the tune of an extra $100-$200 anyway. If MS does indeed go this route then I guess we'll see!
EDIT : not sure what's up with the formatting here but it won't let me put an extra line between points 2) & 3) and 3) & 4) - very odd!
Oh... I am not just a fire fighter. I am in multiple rescue organizations.
I am one of a dozen people who essentially are the first and last response to thousands of miles/kilometers of remote pristine Australian coastline/sea... Whether it be a boat, car, search and rescue, fire, vertical... You name it.
If you think you are at higher risk than that... Well... Not sure what to tell you. :P
Plus we don't need water mains and fire hydrants with the bulk water carriers backing up the 34P/Alpha 34P's. - The USA's approach to firefighting is far different to our own, you cannot rely on water mains out in the middle of nowhere as they blatantly don't exist, so we learned to become self sufficient.
I am definitely not selfish. But I am arrogant, but there are reasons for that. Haha
Maybe it's different in AUS but in the US my profession has a higher chance of death than law enforcement, firefighters & emergency medical services.
I've been in 30ft+ feet deep trenches where cave ins are a huge risk. Worked inside of methane filled confined spaces where combustion and/or asphyxiation is a risk. Constantly working around housting/rigging carrying thousands of pounds of material (2 years ago a guy on another crew for the company is was working for got killed during a rigging failure).
Worked on many heavy highway projects (guy on my crew got hit by a car on a job last year). Digging alongside water/electric/gas utilities everyday (its common for the locating company to miss a locate and we end up finding/hitting a utility that's not marked, operator once hit an unmarked water and electric line at the same time, if I was in the ditch at that moment I would have been electrocuted).
Been on a job where I directly handled dynamite. Work alongside heavy equipment every day and had many close calls with mechanical malfunctions (hydraulics line blew and almost got crushed by excavator) and human error (operator not following hand signals almost cut my feet off a few months ago).
Sure, you might be at a higher risk but I go through my fair share of risks on a day to basis....well not at the moment because I'm off with a work related injury
I think you guys should compare scars ;)
Last edited by Biggerboat1 - on 24 February 2019