Since when everyone have a dinning table in front of the couch as readily available as that?That dosent get in the way of people being able to traverse the house?I know I dont.I know many of my friends dont.As I said, it doesnt impede you from actually using Keyboard and mouse, but you would have to bring a table over, then return it back where it was(because it would be in the middle of the way) everytime you play the game.As I said, its an extra hindrance.

So, thats all your arguments?Its ok to port over a game that will be vastly inferior to the actual game just because you can?Just because you can fool your customers to buy a game that is just ok or not even that(assuming the actual game is great) in the glorious quest to serve all gaming communities?

The common mistake here is thinking that "anything is better than nothing".No, thats simply wrong.Lets take the Switch as an example.Lets say Super Game A releases on the PS4 and gets a 99 score on metacritic.Its praised as the second comming of Jesus, but its a game that pushes the very limit of the PS4.The developers of this game also wishes to port over to the Switch, but without heavy compromises, its simply not possible.And yet, they do just that and the game turns out to be a dud.Just for the sake of argument, lets say it gets a 60 on metacritic.The sacrifices made to port the game over were beyond just downgrading the graphics, it influenced the gameplay of the game itself.And mind you, they are charging full price for the game.So let me ask you this question?Is that a better idea than just not porting?Is it better to receive shoverlware isntead of no game at all?Something you wont even enjoy it at all?

Now, of course Im exagerating with this example, but its just to illustrate my point.Porting over to XBox would mean that, for the big majority of players that doesnt have a keyboard to attach to the console or simply doesnt want to do that because its clumsy as hell, you will be getting a far inferior product, that not only will be downgraded visually(thats not really a problem in my opinion), but most importantly, will have a compromised gameplay that will be required to make in order to fit the control squeme of the console.Not only that, but it also means that the online portion of the game wont be nearly as enjoyable as it should be, and for a RTS, and especially one that (from what I assume) doesnt have a campaing as strong as SC, it kills even more the appeal of the game.

There is a reason why most Blizzard games arent ported over to other places outside of PCs.Its because the design of the game is made with the PC in mind, and everything else would compromise that vision, even if its slightly so.One thing that people need to get out of their heads:Much like not every game needs to be for everyone(Dark Souls doesnt need to be easier so it becomes more acessable, Turn based games doesnt have to become action based games because there is a market for both genres, and so on), not everygame needs to be made available to every single platform, ESPECIALLY when said games works best in a platform(and has its majority of the audience there) than others.

Again, nobody is suggesting gamepad and KB+M should compete. Its dumb this is even mentioned.

Even 360 was doing a pretty good handling RTS games. Halo Wars, C&C, etc.

Halo Wars 2 is a pretty demanding game, like 6 teams on a single map controlling a fairly large number of units. But its 30 fps/1080p.

I think I agree with you here. I bet Microsoft would like to have more games available, but as far as I know, Microsoft has relatively limited game development capability, so they feel like they have to spend that capability carefully. As far as I know, not a lot of Microsoft's success last gen can be attributed to smaller or riskier titles and in fact, trying to break into the Japanese market didn't really turn out too well. On the other hand, partnerships with third parties (especially Activision in regard to Call of Duty) turned out really well. Thus, they're being calculative and making only safer investments. For Microsoft's development capability, that seems like a good bet to me.

I'd like to see RTS and turn based strategy hit consoles. I'm just done having to keep Windows around.

Though, the core audience of these types of games will more than likely only pick up PC versions as the controls offer far more precision and flexibility. I do wonder what new audience in the console market could be attracted to the genre.

Halo wars 2 has 80 population limit which you can raise to max 120. Age of Empires 2 had a limit of 200 per person back in 1999 on PC. Granted with over 1000 units moving around in 6 player lan play it slowed down to a crawl when an all out war broke out between the 6 of us. However 18 years later, max 120 units is pretty limited.

By dinning table you assumed full table? I was meaning something like

https://www.artezanal.com/produto/mesas/apoio/mesa-de-apoio-sofa-a12/ or

http://produto.mercadolivre.com.br/MLB-773692921-mesa-apoio-suporte-sofa-cama-p-refeicoes-notebook-azul-_JM

Depending on person taste. It fully supports a KB+M and isn't standing in the middle of the room at all the time. The other option would be a real table, but no in the middle of the room (although several people have center tables on the room that you also can use, but probably would have some neck pain), but behind it, like when you have 2 or 3 rooms without walls.

And as I said, the game may be adapted without losing too much, but of course if they have to dumb down too much then it's better not to do it. But considering there are some RTS on consoles, I don't consider making AoE4 on consoles impossible or needing to totally trash it when we haven't even seem the game yet.

I'm a little surprised it's not on Xbox1 as well.

Really, in my experience there's maybe no genre I like less for consoles than RTS games to the point that it ruins the experience for me, but people have been porting RTS games to consoles for ages now. You'd think Microsoft would at least like to have some game they can point to that only their console has given their drought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDR1vNbE53A

The Xbox One X's CPU is still based on Jaguar. It's 8-cores are roughly inline with a Core i3 Haswell @ 3.2ghz.

It is safe to say, that PC CPU's have outclassed consoles for generations, it's been the PC's consistent main strength, along with an abundance of Ram.

The GPU is a little trickier.
The Xbox One X is only mid-range in terms of performance.

Basically it's competing with a Geforce 1060/Radeon RX 580.

Sure it certainly has the edge over the majority of PC's, but the majority of PC's aren't pretending to try and run at 4k.
But that doesn't mean it's performance is impressive by any stretch.

StarCraft 2 is a bad example.

When StarCraft 2 dropped onto the market we started getting a taste for 6-core processors with the Phenom 2 x6 and Core i7 990X/3930K and so on.
Quad-Cores were fully mainstream.

So what did Blizzard do?
They limited StarCraft 2's CPU load to only 2 cores, which means a Haswell Core i3 Dual-Core could be faster than a 6-core/12 thread Core i7 Sandy Bridge processor.

Thus the CPU being a limiting factor in SC2 was due to Blizzards own silly design decision/game engine... Granted, spreading out processing is no easy task as there is allot of issues you need to be mindful of, but this is Blizzard we are talking about, they have the resources.

Physics processing could be done entirely on the GPU with an RTS, considering how CPU bound they typically are.

StarCraft 1 if you controlled all three races you could have a max population of 600... You do the math for an 8 player romp. :P

Total Annihilation had some pretty chunky population limits, I think there was a patch/mod that enabled you to have a population limit of several thousand.

Games like American Conquest or Cossacks can allow you to  have 16,000 units on a map at once...

Of course the 360 also had a pretty good CPU at the time which was still halfway decent when the ONE got released. The Japuar, on the other hand, was never decent in the first place apart from not consuming a lot. The Jaguar and it's predecessor Bobcat had been pitted against Intel's Atom, after all, not the Core Series