By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 22 December 2017
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU. They had some good idea's and used some smart techniques to allow the CPU as much room to breathe as possible, but it's still a Jaguar in the end. They shouldn't have said 4k/60 no compromises initially. It started massive hype, but was pushing the marketing to an extreme. Just 4k/60 would have been much easier to forgive when they announced it would also checkerboard. Even as successful as the PS4 has been, it still has to compromise between 1080p/30 and 900p/60, PS just didn't market the PS4 as 1080p/60 no compromises.

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG. It's another reason why I wonder how long XB1X is really going to remain relevant because if it holds back 'next gen' then it may really piss off hardcore XB fans who want or buy an XB2. How many of those XB fans will have upgraded to XB1X and already be unhappy they aren't getting 60 fps due to XB1S, then look at XB2 and wonder is this going to end up the same thing again? Why buy a 100% true 4k/60 no compromises XB2 console, if you know all the games will only end up 30 fps because of XB1X?

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

I wasn't calling him a liar, all I said was that he shouldn't have said some of the things he did. I find he says too much and promises too much sometimes. I was pointing more so to Phil and his uncompromised 4k/60. You can't really say that then talk about how balanced the console hardware is, then show off games playing 4k/30 max. The hardware is well balanced if your expecting 4k/30, which you should for a $500 console at the end of 2017, that's just not what he said. He needs to be a little more careful with his words, marketing aside, that's all.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU.

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

True. Doesn't exactly make it ok, but they are businessmen. It's hard to try and talk about what Phil, Cerny, etc, may have meant because there is always someone who is definitely going to use what they actually said to try and prove you wrong. If you use exactly what they said, someone is going to tell you to read between the lines.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG.

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

PUBG isn't the best example, but I felt do to how recent, as well as how massive the player base is for the game, that it was something people could easily relate to. Not to mention how many games are starting to become available in such an early state of development. Doesn't change the fact that the XB no more generations plan may always cause problems in terms of holding back the newest hardware.

Pemalite said: 
EricHiggin said: 
I can't help but wonder, if Scorpio ended up being 4.5TF to 5TF, would it have sold any better? I really think it would have at launch and overall. The gap between 1.4TF and 4.5TF would still be a larger leap than 1.8TF to 4.2TF. With first party games like Forza 7 hitting 4k/60 with plenty left over in the tank apparently, a 4.5TF-5TF console could more than likely handle that same Forza 7 4k/60, just almost maxed out.

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Your average customer doesn't have a clue how a console actually works and what those flops truly mean, they just look at the numbers like they do HP for a vehicle. Which of course makes it easy to throw some big numbers out and get a sale when in reality there is so much more to it than that.

Maybe it wouldn't have sold better, but what seemed apparent to me was that XB was back on top with the most powerful hardware again. I think 4.5TF to 5TF would have ended up giving those fans the same feeling they got with 6TF, which wasn't so much about the actual performance, it was about the fact that Scorpio was going to be the most powerful console on the market. Price matters so much for console hardware that I can't help but imagine that $75-$100 less for XB1X wouldn't have sold even more, but that only matters if your worried about the here and now. If XB1X is really going to become the base model in 4 years time, then 6TF will most likely have been the better decision.