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?

I am glad that both of them did mid-gen upgrades. Personally, I hope this trend continues. I see no reason why defined generations need to exist anymore. The hardware companies can release upgraded hardware as often as they wish, and devs can make games that work for as many of those consoles as they want. That's more choice for everyone.

As for the Pro vs. X sales discussion.... I think its too early to draw any real conclusions. But, I think many people have already pointed out the seemingly common sense explanations for what we think has happened. A bigger leap, longer period for excitement to build, more marketing, and objectively a lot more power would all seem to favor the X. The only negatives for X relative to Pro that I can see are the price, and the smaller original user base from which to pull upgraders.

If we go that route we can talk about NES and PS2 selling over 80 and 160M with negible power to today standards =p

And not to forget that the main point people like to put for Switch success is it portability not it lack of power.

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.

Time to the market could be considered another negative. But on the rest I would say you are about right except that if they make mid gens or genless 2-3y refreshes we will have some issues. Tailored games to a HW usually take 2-3 years to show up enjoying the potential of the platform. If we are changing HW every 2-3y we won't ever see the HW maxed out, so we'll be tossing money away on bruteforcing the game.

They aren't lemons.
They are exactly what we expected at the time of their hardware release.

Well, those who knew and understood hardware and basic economics anyway.

Playstation 5 might not drop until 2020.
Microsoft will be getting all the favorable comparisons in Digital Foundry and so on until that time, so that have that advantage at least... And they really do need every advantage they can get to remain relevant.

Either way, Sony has locked this console generation down... And deservedly so, they had the right product for the right price that resonated with consumers.

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.

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

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.

6 Teraflops isn't actually that powerful, it's mid-range levels.
Nor is flops everything.

I think one of the great things about partnering these consoles up with such a terrible CPU is that developers are forced to get a little more creative in how they utilize their extremely limited CPU but plentiful GPU resources (by comparison)...
Doom and Wolfenstein for instance is using GPU accelerated Particles with shadowing and lighting which looks really amazing.

Regardless... The Xbox One and Xbox One X is still limited by the slowest CPU in the consoles which happens to be the base Playstation 4. (Ignoring the Switch of course.)
So multiplats like Assassins Creed do have to be built with that CPU in mind either way... And there is a big difference between the Playstation 4's 1.6Ghz Jaguar the Xbox One X's 2.3Ghz Jaguar, even outside of the 700mhz (43%) higher CPU clocks.

There is more to performance and graphics than flops.

There are massive gains to be had, the Xbox One X's GPU is only mid-range relative to what is on the market today, mid-range parts in several years time will be significantly more capable.

What about them?

...But still falls short of Microsoft's advertised claims of a true 4k experience. - And thus falls extremely short of what the PC can do.
At-least my PC can actually output 1440P, the Xbox One X is essentially a glorified 1080P console for me at the moment.

And in-fact, the majority of the Xbox One X's game library are 1080P and below games anyway, with a chunk still being 720P even if you do have a 4k display.

It is completely up to the developer.

Can you give me some kind of reference to how much overhead checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X? Because I doubt it's even worth mentioning.

But the fact is, the Xbox One X shouldn't need to do checkerboarding, it should be able to hit higher resolutions natively, not full 4k, but still natively.

No.

They are just rumors.

It really depends on what the PC has available, if mid-range GPU's are pushing 15 Teraflops, then that is likely what the next gen will have.
But using flops alone is a little bit disingenuous, it doesn't actually tell us what the consoles CPU capabilities are, how much and how fast the ram is, how much pixel or texture fillrate, geometry performance, bandwidth the GPU has or what the load times will be like.

You can have more flops, but less performance.

Lemons have a decent amount of juice inside them.

It is my opinion, that lemon juice is too sour, but that is just me.

Yep 2020, or 2021 (my take) for PS5. And as you said, X1X can make a good presence until then. And if PS5 is 2021 there is a chance for X2 or whatever is the name of X1 nextbox, for both to release for similar power.

And although I agree on the Tlops not being everything and knowing you have better understanding than me for this, considering we are talking about consoles and they are more or less balanced. Having the Tflop of the GPU may help us have a ballpark for the console power.

The fact that WW the xb1 barely outsold ps4 the week it launched tells you something.

Worldwide the month it launched it will lose heavily. Sony have nothing to be worried about.

And I mean literally nothing. Because xbox yet again next year hasn't got a software line up to match the ps4.

Sony must be relieved because the xbx was their last shot at redemption.

Foe someone that seems as knowledgeable as you do I find myself sometimes totally disagreeing with you...... then again guess we can't always agree with everyone.

but to the points i disagree with....

1. 6TF is plenty powerful. Especially for a console. It may not be powerful enough to do 4k gaming across the board or 4k at 60fps, but the things that can do that cost more just for a GPU than the entirety of the XB1X. The XB1X like the PS4pro/PS4 offers the best price to power ratio as far as gaming goes. You simply can't build a PC that will perform like those consoles at their price points. Thats always been the thing and place of consoles.
   
   To say 6TF isn't powerful is when comparing it to what? Cause thats just something that irks me a bit.... when people that I know to be predominantly PC gamers get dismissive when talking specs simply because there is some PC hardware out there that can do 2 or 3 times the performance...... all the while talking like that thing doesn't cost a significant deal more or that everyone that owns a PC uses that level of hardware. 
   
   
   
2. Whatever it cost the XB1X to do checkerboarding, it will cost the PS4pro less to do it. Thats the whole point of having specialized hardware for specific tasks. 

Well, we'd have something closer to PC gaming.  But, instead of infinite hardware configurations, there may be 2-4 that a developer needs to worry about.  That doesn't seem like too big of a deal.  All XB and PS games are currently dealing with 2 configurations, what's one more?

It isn't. However, the performance after the power level the XBX is outputting does not allow for a significant jump in graphical capabilities. You might be able to use the power for smarter AI or multitasking, but most games don't use the power that a considerably smarter AI would require. In fact, most devs make relatively dumb AI to keep development simple. 

I mean, they already went for native 4K. What's next in the resolution race? The only thing left is 120 FPS, and that's the cutoff point I mentioned earlier. Die shrinks or not, achieving that sort of performance will make costs skyrocket. MS might have actually chosen the TF threshold specifically because they know that going any lower leads to visible deterioration in graphical capabilities, but going any higher, even with newer technology, will make costs rise at a higher rate than graphical power. Unless it's six years before next gen, there simply isn't anything higher you can aim for without creating an OG Xbox situation where your console is more expensive than the rest or the price does not decrease over time. 

Alternatively, you end in a Wii U scenario where you have a weak product that puts you at a disadvantage even with price to your favor. 

It's still on year one. After a year and a half, the inflow is going to wither...