Okay, I disagree.

A mid range PC is more like enough to get the job done, nothing fancy. You instead feel mid range is a machine ready for next gen.

I remember early in the 8th gen people said these consoles were mid gen PCs. I guess you would have argued they were actually potatoes.

Genuine question Pemalite,

The Series X has 16 Gigs (13Gigs of GDDR6 and 3 Gigs of DDR6 Ram) I don't know any GPU on the market that's mid range that offers 16gigs of GDDR6, not even high end models have 16gigs of GDDR6.. the Mid range PCs you are referring to are 16gigs of DDR3 or DDR4 with 2gigs to 4gigs of GDDR5 ram, its quite the opposite of what type of ram they are running. Correct me if I am wrong here.

Now I don't know the difference between running a game on a 16gigs DDR4 ram on PC compared to a Console running 16gigs of GDDR6 Ram.. but it doesn't sound like a mid range PC is on par there.  

You are moving the goal posts just to argue for the sake of arguing.

Are you really denying that mid-range PC rigs don't come with 8GB GPU's and 16GB of System memory?

...Because like. I am ready with evidence and stuff to quickly contradict you and stuff.

Well. We don't actually know how much memory the Xbox Series X actually has yet, that information hasn't been revealed, it could be more than 16GB, it could be less. - It could be 16GB of DDR4 and 8GB of GDDR6 or HBM2, we can't actually draw comparisons yet.

PC GPU's don't need to have 16GB of GDDR6 to match the series X either, because... Like you partially alluded to... That entire 16GB isn't going to be reserved for games... And more yet isn't going to be reserved for graphics duties either... We also don't know how much DRAM will be reserved for OS/background duties, but if they are going to "suspend" more than one game at a time... There is the potential that DRAM requirements will increase over the 8th gen consoles.

And like I said... PC GPU's don't need to match the consoles to output superior results either. - I.E. A 4GB AMD Fury is going to have better graphics than the base Playstation 4 with 8GB of GDDR5... Heck a 3GB GDDR5 Radeon 7970 will output better visuals than the Playstation 4 with 8GB GDDR5 more often than not.
Shit a 2GB Radeon 7870 will crap all over the 8GB Xbox One every day of the week.

Ram Capacity is only part of the story, bandwidth, latency and so forth all play a role... So does how it's actually used by developers.

The Mid-Range PC's I am mentioning are those with... Like you said, 16GB of DDR3 or DDR4 memory and 8GB of GDDR5X/GDDR6.

Mid-Range GPU's like the Radeon 5500XT and 5600 come with 8GB of GDDR6, I would even argue they are on the lower-end of the mid-range performance spectrum rather than actually mid-range or high-end, they also lack super important next-gen features like Ray Tracing.

Such a rig would have 24GB of memory in total, that is DDR4 and GDDR6. - Nor am I suggesting that the performance would be equivalent to 16GB of pure GDDR6, just that on a totals-basis, mid-range PC's being equipped and sold today have that amount of DRAM in total.

Also we need to keep in mind to what happens to a PC GPU when it actually does exceed it's GDDR6 DRAM buffer.

1. With how game development works they would have to make 2 versions at worst (1 for X1 and X1X and 1 for Lockhart and XSX), 1 in the best case (for everything).

2. What does that mean to you? It can mean 1 of 2 things (or a combination of them). It either means that we're at a point that targeting higher spec hardware doesn't make a huge difference outside of graphical bells and whistle options being provided on PC or that there isn't a business case to do so, in that the return from targeting a higher spec PC version that can't be done on X1/PS4 consoles isn't viable financially. Leaning too far in one direction in what you read into this says more about your stance than what a company is actually thinking. The truth will always be somewhere in the middle. And when it comes to next gen consoles, there is a business case for companies like MS (who run the entire platform) to target a higher spec. They want to impress, they want to drum up excitement, they want to get people to play in their playground; that's the motive behind all the choice they're providing. And given that there's a business case, it's on them to do it or not. And nothing they've said precludes them from going forward with that business case to make the next-gen versions of their cross-gen games different enough from the current gen versions. We frankly don't have enough info to keep bashing our heads claiming one side or the other. We have to wait and see. Stating why you have your hopes/don't have your hopes up for it to happen only needs to happen 1 time, otherwise it comes off with negative motives that potentially break forum rules like it's coming off in this thread. So I, again, recommend we leave this conversation where it lays. 

3. In order to definitively say that we need to list each and every cross-gen game on those platforms and come to a definitive conclusion for each one whether it was or wasn't a huge leap. Neither of us have done that so this is a factoid at best. I personally thought a number of cross-gen games did an awesome job of standing out from a technical point of view given that they were launch titles with not much of a business case for the company to push a next gen version. Many of them did a good job with texture quality, object density, draw distance, and improved geometry. It's just that pesky law of diminishing returns that makes these things harder to spot but if you want to go see, go check out Cycu1's Youtube channel on the games listed below. Sadly DF didn't do much cross-gen comparison work on these titles. Those are all things you have to consider. MS has a reason to push the next gen version while a lot of these companies didn't. In the case of DICE, their games partially sell on their wow factor (not to mention there was probably some internal motive at EA to really wow so their engine would get widespread adoption through the studios early in the gen). I could go through and write a few paragraphs regarding the business case for EACH game below but this conversation is pretty much done so I'll let you do your own research.

• Titanfall
• Destiny
• Watch Dogs
• Battlefield 4
• Call of Duty: Ghosts
• AC4: Black Flag
• Dragon Age: Inquisition
• Dying Light
• The Evil Within
• Wolfenstein: The New Order
• MGS5: Phantom Pain
• Thief
• LOTR: Shadow of Mordor

No ps4 owner will be upset or disappointed if the exclusives on ps4 start drying out. The masses desperately want to upgrade to a new console with the promise of new games that are a radical departure of what's possible on their old console, as long as it's not more than $499.

You have to admit that a lot of the things MS are doing don't sound viable if they plan on selling as many Series X boxes as possible. Traditionally platform holders use their 1st party exclusives to push console sales and that kinda works. Console generations aren't a new concept and no ps4 owner will be upset or disappointed if the exclusives on ps4 start drying out. The masses desperately want to upgrade to a new console with the promise of new games that are a radical departure of what's possible on their old console, as long as it's not more than $499.

With MS they aren't doing that. Instead they are making all their exclusives cross-gen so there's no real need to upgrade. The console itself looks like a mini pc that no single person on earth will be able to stick under the tv. And, probably the weirdest thing, they aren't just releasing their flagship exclusives on pc, they are practically giving them away for free through their $1 GP promotion. All in all it sounds like a terrible plan to launch a mass market console, but I guess we'll have to wait till MS reveals a price before it all starts to make sense. 

You have to admit that a lot of the things MS are doing don't sound viable if they plan on selling as many Series X boxes as possible. Traditionally platform holders use their 1st party exclusives to push console sales and that kinda works. Console generations aren't a new concept and no ps4 owner will be upset or disappointed if the exclusives on ps4 start drying out. The masses desperately want to upgrade to a new console with the promise of new games that are a radical departure of what's possible on their old console, as long as it's not more than $499.

With MS they aren't doing that. Instead they are making all their exclusives cross-gen so there's no real need to upgrade. The console itself looks like a mini pc that no single person on earth will be able to stick under the tv. And, probably the weirdest thing, they aren't just releasing their flagship exclusives on pc, they are practically giving them away for free through their $1 GP promotion. All in all it sounds like a terrible plan to launch a mass market console, but I guess we'll have to wait till MS reveals a price before it all starts to make sense. 

- citations needed

- projecting much?

- source?

- assumptions as facts again?

- all of the above

Xbox Series X GPU is high-end not mid-range though, am I right?

When I bought my RX 5700 XT on December 30th I thought it would match PS5 and Xbox Series X, and it's already confirmed XSX is more powerful than my new GPU :(

I think it's not so much what you can buy nowadays for pc. It's more about what the average pc gamer has in their rig right now.

Even though we don't know all the details, it's pretty save to say that the average pc gamer right now, doesn't have hardware that comes close to specs of the Series X.

My whole gripe with GP is that it isn't trying to target the pc enthusiast or Series X specs. MS wants as many gamers as possible to be able to play their exclusives and that would defeat the whole point. Especially if the Series X is priced as a super premium product, instead of a mass market console. That's why I think their games will run fine on X1 and the lower spectrum of pc's. Obviously, they will scale and will look and run better on high-end pc and Series X. But I just don't see the developers going all out and make games that push the Series X to its limits at 1440p/30fps and then port them individually, so they run on 4 different Xboxes and low-end pc too.  

The 8th gen felt like gen 7.5 in many ways. Meanwhile BC is highly requested and perhaps more popular than ever. Console generations aren't new, but maybe people don't case as much per se. Especially when 7th gen games have done great on 8th gen.

Backwards Compatibility has been a shining point for the Xbox One platform as a whole, it's not just breathing new life into old games, but Microsoft is also putting those older games up for sale in their Xbox One digital distribution store, so those titles continue to accrue sales.

Also means that the Xbox 360's Xbox Live is likely to stick around just that little bit longer.

It isn't a perfect scheme, some games were unplayable when released on the scheme, like Halo: Reach.
And the scheme has been canned so Microsoft can focus on Next-Gen.
And further still... Doesn't support the full Xbox or Xbox 360 games library, nor will it, there are even exclusives with expired license which will never be playable.