Pemalite said:
You are way to focused on teraflops.
You can't even compare it with the same architecture. |
It's a big marketing hurdle as you can see.
shikamaru317 said:
1. There is a big reason. If PS5 is $450 as rumored, they can undercut them by $150 and have a cheap option available for budget conscious gamers right from the start of the gen. Sure it will be quite a bit less powerful than PS5 and XSX, but some people care more about saving money than they care about having the best graphics. Just look at how the Xbox One S All-Digital edition at $150 was one of the best selling console SKU's on Black Friday week last year. 2. You're placing too much emphasis on flops. Supposedly 4 tflops on RDNA 2 is a good bit more powerful than 6 tflops on GCN, the GPU architecture that XB1 X and PS4 Pro used. Also, this system won't be aiming for 4K like XB1 X did, supposedly the target is 1080p-1440p on next gen games that will be 4K on XSX and PS5. 3. See #2. 4. I don't see how having a cheaper console option than Sony hurts them at all against PS5, lol. 5. That's your prerogative. |
Budget conscious gamers are not early adopters. This SKU makes more sense in the second year and then maybe with 6tf for the same price.
If they don't care about the best graphics, why no simply play all the games on the current gen consoles for another year or 2?
The flops is a marketing problem
A cheaper (much slower) option looks like an anchor weight for its big brother. Now a 1/3rd as fast console has to be supported as well all next gen. For me it was actually the other way around. I was very close to buying a XBox One S, seemed to fix everything wrong with the first one. But then the X was announced as well. The S felt inferior from that point on but the X was CAD 600 here. So I ended up with neither.