By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Rumor: Xbox "Lockhart" specs leaked, is $300

goopy20 on 16 March 2020
CGI-Quality said:
goopy20 said:

It wasn't a trick question here. I just asked, from a game development point of view, wouldn't native 4k suck up too much resources and limit the ambitions of developers on next gen console games? Maybe for some people half the overall visual fidelity in favor of 4k or a higher fps isn't a waste of resources, for example if you're gaming on a 144hz monitor. But we've already seen with the X1X that saying "this plays the same games but better" just doesn't fire up consumers like the promise of completely new games that take a dramatic leap from current gen titles does. 

Obviously there are games that do run at 4k/60fps on a $1300 2080Ti, but there are already plenty that don't. So lets take RDR as an example, how is Rockstar supposed to push things even further with RDR3, if the game was designed from the ground up to run in native 4k and RT on ps5? Roughly speaking, the boost in resolution and RT (depending on how AMD's RT cores perform) would leave Rockstar with about the same resources left for making the actual game as they had when they were making RDR2 for the ps4. 

So just let me ask you another question, what kind of leap in overall visual fidelity are you expecting from these next gen games?

You didn’t get a trick answer. It’s not a waste of resources no matter how you try to paint it. It was also a ridiculous notion to suggest that a 2080Ti (don’t try to throw in the price, as you took it here in the first place) can’t run any games in 4K/60. Quite clearly it can and you’ve now backtracked. The need to compare PC to console 1:1 will continue to be your undoing in these debates.

As for ‘leap in fidelity’ - a notable one. I have a thread dedicated to this.

I'm using the 2080Ti as an example because it's the most powerful, most expensive gpu you can buy right now and performance wise they are saying Series X is a pretty close match. For me that's something to get excited about and I'm also expecting a big leap. However, even a 2080ti can hit its limit pretty quick when we're talking about native 4k, RT and ultra settings.

I never said a 2080ti can't run any current gen game in native 4k/60fps, I said there already some games that don't. So assuming Rockstar will want to push visual fidelity ever further than a RDR2, for example. Wouldn't that be pretty hard when half the resources are "wasted" on native 4k? It's a design choice where they'll either pick the biggest leap in fidelity possible and figure out the resolution later, or they'll aim for native 4k from the start and use what resources are left to build their game. I'm not saying native 4k is terrible by definition, if a developer can get everything they envisioned in their game and still have the headroom to run it in 4k, then great. However, I think it would suck if native 4k would be a mandatory design choice from the start and it gets in the way of ambitions for next gen titles in general.     



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 16 March 2020
goopy20 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An obvious problem with your argument and graphs is you're looking at 4K resolution with highest graphics settings.

Current gen games on consoles don't necessarily run games at highest graphics settings, its often more like a mix of low, medium and high. They lower the graphics settings primarily to maintain a high resolution.

Look at this video of RDR2 for example. The low and medium settings is probably more reflective of the console settings. The ultra settings are well beyond what we get on consoles and gets about half the frame rate of low and medium. Meanwhile high settings looks good and sits comfortably at 60 fps.

Like you I agree aiming for 4K can be a waste of resources, but aiming for ultra settings can also be a waste when high already looks comparable and runs much better. However, another compromise is ultra settings with a dynamic resolution. But if developers do aim for 4K/60 fps, its evident 4K with high settings is fine in this scenario.

That's true but I already said ultra settings are also an enormous waste of resources. You can take almost any current gen game and buckle a 2080ti to it's knees by using ultra or insane settings. That's why developers usually stay clear of settings like that on consoles. They want to be as efficient as possible and won't use settings that take up too much resources with a relatively small gain in visuals. It's why things like FXAA and checkerboard rendering exists.

If you feel max settings can be a waste of resources, why do you keep posting graphs using those settings?

RDR2 on current gen machines is essentially low/med settings at 30 fps. But it looks like next gen specs can do 4K/60 fps with higher settings.

Hence, 4K and/or 60 fps becomes more accessible as long as developers don't waste too much resources on visual effects with little impact on overall visual fidelity.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly on 16 March 2020
shikamaru317 said:
victor83fernandes said:

Get a job, 500dollars is 1 weeks work.

Facepalm. Now you sound like early 7th gen Sony, when they said that gamers should want to get a 2nd job to buy the $600 PS3, it was a big part of Sony's early 7th gen arrogance that nearly caused them to come in 3rd place, had they not reversed course and dropped the arrogance. 

You do realize that not every gamer has a great job, right? Some gamers live on an extremely tight budget, they basically live paycheck to paycheck and have very little budget for entertainment and gaming each month. Nobody wants to work overtime hours for a few weeks or something to buy $600 console. 

To be fair, the more I see about Series X makes me think $500-600 is totally reasonable. However, a Series S at $299 shows they would be considering a market that wants the same content even at lower visual fidelity.

I think the biggest issue with PS3 is Sony kept telling us it was a beast in specs, but we didn't see that in practice. Therefore Sony had to do massive price cuts because they invested in the wrong specs in my opinion.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Nu-13 on 16 March 2020
shikamaru317 said:
victor83fernandes said:

Get a job, 500dollars is 1 weeks work.

Facepalm. Now you sound like early 7th gen Sony, when they said that gamers should want to get a 2nd job to buy the $600 PS3, it was a big part of Sony's early 7th gen arrogance that nearly caused them to come in 3rd place, had they not reversed course and dropped the arrogance. 

You do realize that not every gamer has a great job, right? Some gamers live on an extremely tight budget, they basically live paycheck to paycheck and have very little budget for entertainment and gaming each month. Nobody wants to work overtime hours for a few weeks or something to buy $600 console. 

Its mostly about prices accepted by the market. 400 and above is expensive for videogame systems. We can also use a simple example: $3 is not much money but you wouldnt want to pay that for an apple, right?



Nu-13 on 16 March 2020
Mr Puggsly said:
shikamaru317 said:

Facepalm. Now you sound like early 7th gen Sony, when they said that gamers should want to get a 2nd job to buy the $600 PS3, it was a big part of Sony's early 7th gen arrogance that nearly caused them to come in 3rd place, had they not reversed course and dropped the arrogance. 

You do realize that not every gamer has a great job, right? Some gamers live on an extremely tight budget, they basically live paycheck to paycheck and have very little budget for entertainment and gaming each month. Nobody wants to work overtime hours for a few weeks or something to buy $600 console. 

To be fair, the more I see about Series X makes me think $500-600 is totally reasonable. However, a Series S at $299 shows they would be considering a market that wants the same content even at lower visual fidelity.

I think the biggest issue with PS3 is Sony kept telling us it was a beast in specs, but we didn't see that in practice. Therefore Sony had to do massive price cuts because they invested in the wrong specs in my opinion.

You're missing the point so bad its not even scratching the target. It could have 1000+ dollars worth of tech inside and it still wouldnt be worth it because the mass market doest want to spend that much on a videogame system.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly on 16 March 2020
Nu-13 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

To be fair, the more I see about Series X makes me think $500-600 is totally reasonable. However, a Series S at $299 shows they would be considering a market that wants the same content even at lower visual fidelity.

I think the biggest issue with PS3 is Sony kept telling us it was a beast in specs, but we didn't see that in practice. Therefore Sony had to do massive price cuts because they invested in the wrong specs in my opinion.

You're missing the point so bad its not even scratching the target. It could have 1000+ dollars worth of tech inside and it still wouldnt be worth it because the mass market doest want to spend that much on a videogame system.

But we aren't talking about a $1000+ of tech. Could a $299 Series S sell better than the PS5 at $499? I think the general feeling is no. Hence, it's clearly a little more complex than price alone.

For a couple years much of the market is going to stay with their 8th gen consoles and cross gen titles will exist for that. But many will buy 9th gen units at $399-599. I am hoping the Series S will exist at $299 to get some of the budget gamers.

You brought up PS3. The flaw in your analogy was PS3 was very expensive yet in practice it felt much like 360 in capabilities.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly on 16 March 2020
Radek said:
Ok Series X is crazy powerful, might actually be $599.

This better be $299 then, and $50 for optional Blu-Ray drive connected via USB.

An external disc drive won't happen.

Also, accessories are generally sold at a higher price. So it would probably be more like $99. However, if it also worked as a PC accessory that would be cool.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Nu-13 on 16 March 2020
Mr Puggsly said:
Nu-13 said:

You're missing the point so bad its not even scratching the target. It could have 1000+ dollars worth of tech inside and it still wouldnt be worth it because the mass market doest want to spend that much on a videogame system.

But we aren't talking about a $1000+ of tech. Could a $299 Series S sell better than the PS5 at $499? I think the general feeling is no. Hence, it's clearly a little more complex than price alone.

For a couple years much of the market is going to stay with their 8th gen consoles and cross gen titles will exist for that. But many will buy 9th gen units at $399-599. I am hoping the Series S will exist at $299 to get some of the budget gamers.

You brought up PS3. The flaw in your analogy was PS3 was very expensive yet in practice it felt much like 360 in capabilities.

The general feeling is yes if the only difference is resolution.



victor83fernandes on 16 March 2020
goopy20 said:
CGI-Quality said:

I said nothing about 'aiming for' (you have a habit of making things up as you post — quit doing it)! I said it's where we should be. We're obviously not there, but even though we aren't, it still isn't a waste of resources (especially when you only mentioned 4K and didn't say anything about 60fps — a convenient omission).

Besides, there are games that a 2080Ti can run at 60fps in 4K, so that's not a working example even if that was my argument.

It wasn't a trick question here. I just asked, from a game development point of view, wouldn't native 4k suck up too much resources and limit the ambitions of developers on next gen console games? Maybe for some people half the overall visual fidelity in favor of 4k or a higher fps isn't a waste of resources, for example if you're gaming on a 144hz monitor. But we've already seen with the X1X that saying "this plays the same games but better" just doesn't fire up consumers like the promise of completely new games that take a dramatic leap from current gen titles does. 

Obviously there are games that do run at 4k/60fps on a $1300 2080Ti, but there are already plenty that don't. So lets take RDR as an example, how is Rockstar supposed to push things even further with RDR3, if the game was designed from the ground up to run in native 4k and RT on ps5? Roughly speaking, the boost in resolution and RT (depending on how AMD's RT cores perform) would leave Rockstar with about the same resources left for making the actual game as they had when they were making RDR2 for the ps4. 

So just let me ask you another question, what kind of leap in overall visual fidelity are you expecting from these next gen games?

I completely agree with you, 1080p is more than enough for anything up to 32inches, and 1440p is more than enough for anything up to 120inches.

We will not get much benefit from 4K, they should use resources to improve graphics and performance in games. Example, would people prefer red dead 2 graphics at 1440p or red dead 1 at 4K? I'd prefer graphics, because my red dead 1 at 4K on my xbox X doesn't look better than my red dead 2 on my ps4

Resolution is the new megapixels, all about numbers to upsell.

For me, having experience with PCs, I know for a fact that I prefer 16xAA over higher resolution, the 16xAA will have a cleaner picture than 4K with no AA



victor83fernandes on 16 March 2020
Radek said:
Mr Puggsly said:

An external disc drive won't happen.

Also, accessories are generally sold at a higher price. So it would probably be more like $99. However, if it also worked as a PC accessory that would be cool.

What makes you think it won't? So many people have physical Xbox One games... and not everyone will afford $599 X.

Of course external disc drive will not happen, that's 100% logic, due to piracy. Xbox would be ruined if people could pirate games, check what happened to deamcast, easy piracy destroyed Sega.

External usb would make it too easy, people could just come up with a device that you connect in between the usb, like an adapter, and anyone could just do it.

And then whats the point of external drive? The people buying this are people who are moving to downloads only, so what could they use the disc drive for? Same with movies, people having digital download games are most likely doing the same for movies, I'm the opposite, I will always prefer the disc, unless the digital download is significantly cheaper. I like to be able to lend it to my friends, sell it second hand and just owning the game. Look at driveclub, digital download games can become a mess.

Last edited by victor83fernandes - on 16 March 2020