graphics in the game are insanely good

Well for small, low hardware overhead indy games sure, just as there were the same type of games on the PS3 that ran 1920x1080x60fps smoothly.

But obviously, we're all thinking about games using engines that push the bar or are at least within a generation of what's considered current. 

For those types of games, I'm not sure why the delusion that $400 worth of hardware will accomplish what several times that in independently sourced off the shelf PC hardware will cost persists for any other reasons than wishful thinking or a fundamental lack of understanding of the amount of processing power required for that level of performance. I don't even think $400 worth of video card alone can be considered 4k capable for high end game engines. 

Doesn't really matter. I run my Origin games through Steam anyway. Haven't come across one that doesn't work yet.

But we already know these things don't really matter AT ALL!


...they will only become important again when Scorpio turns out to be more powerful than PS4neo

the pixels of the Xbox version are not so good but it still looks good

Looks like it's 1080p or 60fps but not both for consoles at least until the mid gen upgrades come out.

like all fb3 engine games

And still be affordable lol. One dude on here seemed to think the "Xbox One Two" could be 4x more powerful than the Xbox One and be sold for $499US..... LOL.

Yeah, AAA gaming at 4K ain't happening on consoles for a few more years. You can't fit that kind of power in a console-sized box at an affordable price yet.

It's called wishful thinking, likely paired with a general ignorance of contemporary semiconductor industry developments with regards to graphical and general processing performance. 

It would probably be useful if users/consumers considered hardware specs with respect to available technology based on source/manufacturer (it's all coming from AMD currently, so there is no mystery voodoo techno magic going on; we know what they have been working on) and the cost of said hardware.

It becomes even simpler when you have a general MSRP target, at which point it's a simple matter of what does $399 (or $499 or whatever) worth of MSRP end product buy in specs based upon current available hardware. Unless one is assuming the manufacturer is significantly subsidizing hardware costs for the consumer by offering an end product at a much lower MSRP than BoM cost to the manufacturer, it's a pretty straightforward answer with a decent amount of wiggle room performance-wise for custom chipsets tailored by AMD for their client, whether that's MS, SCE or Nintendo.

So yeah. If someone is expecting $1500 worth of performance, either a company is selling an overly expensive (for a general consumer market) console that can only be sold to a limited market, or they are giving it away at a severe loss per unit to their company, which simply isn't a viable business model post 2008. 

I would argue that the success of the PS4 has demonstrated that the MSRP sweet spot is $399, assuming the hardware performance is industry leading, maybe even just highly competitive. It's a tough sell to convince consumers to pay more or the same price for less performance without a perceived brand/platform tax being levvied, which few are willing to pay.