whats your point?

Point is that you can bring a RTX2080 to its knees by running current gen games in 4k/60fps. 

thats an incomplete statement

Just to throw something else in the native 4K debate.
I made a quick graph to plot the relation between fov and sitting distance for popular tv sizes.

FOV on the vertical axis which is the same as pixels per degree. (horizontal resolution divided by FOV)
The lines with resolution are where you can see all the pixels with 20/20 vision, 60 pixels per degree.
Above the lines is sharper, below you will start seeing individual pixels. (1080p is good for max 32 degree fov)
Horizontal axis is feet from the screen.

The grey area is the recommended viewing angle, 30 degree fov SMPTE 30 standard, up to 40.04 degrees FOV THX recommendation.

I checked my sitting arrangement and while playing GT Sport I tend to move my seat to about 6.5 ft from my 65" tv which is about 40 degree fov and 'feels right' for racing. At that distance 1440p would still be sufficient (GT Sport is 1800p)

While watching movies or playing a 3rd person game I like to hang on the couch which is 12 ft away from the tv. That's only a 22 degree fov and 1080p is more than sufficient. No wonder blu-ray looks perfectly fine to me and I see no benefit in 4K streaming. I would need a 120" screen to get 40 degree fov from that distance.

I used to watch movies on a 1080p projector at 12 ft away on a 92" screen. That was 31 degree fov and 62 pixels per degree. (Not by accident, I calibrated it that way) Perfect for blu-ray watching but too big of a screen for the living room and moving the couch closer just looks weird.


Anyway native 4K is pretty much overkill for most of the population. 1440p is plenty to get to that 40 degree viewing angle, 1800p for those with better than 20/20 vision. Of course it also depends on the quality of anti-aliasing and upscaling. Native 4K is only good for zooming in on screenshots. Leave it for PC monitors where you sit right on top of the screen.



There is also a correlation between fov, resolution, brightness and comfortable fps. The higher the fov, resolution and brightness the more fps you want. So it does make more sense to go to 60fps for HDR and bigger viewing angles.

This is a strange turn of events, XBox One X has been discontinued
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-07-16-microsoft-officially-discontinues-xbox-one-x-and-xbox-one-s-all-digital-edition
And another all digital edition bites the dust. Will the discless PS5 survive a whole generation?

So next gen will start with XBox One S, Series S and Series X. (Or Series S comes later)

And 480p - 600p should be good enough for people like Goopy sitting 20 feet away from their TV.

But 720p on Lockhart (for games which are 1440p on Series X) are unplayable in his opinion.

Microsoft's platforms have never been as strong as it's competitors on the exclusives front, the Xbox 360 had periods of drought and that was a good platform comparatively.
But Multiplatforms are where the bulk of video game sales is accrued on console and do tend to fair far better.

This is just the status quo, anyone who is going into Series X and is complaining about exclusives, probably hasn't been paying attention to Microsoft for almost 20 years.
The Xbox Series X will still be the place to play if you care about graphics and framerates with the sprinkling of console exclusives here and there.

It does not make the Xbox a bad platform, it's obviously just not a platform that appeals to you and it never was... And that is perfectly fine, spend your dollarydoo's elsewhere instead, vote with your wallet.

I agree. And those launch exclusives can look impressive, don't get me wrong. - But a launch game and a game that releases towards the end of the generation are typically chalk and cheese visually.

The Playstation 4's most amazing games not just from a gameplay perspective, but from a visual makeup (I.E. Last of Us Part 2) are a technical showcase that just didn't happen during the consoles first years.

The Xbox 360 was in the same position... It launched alongside Oblivion here which definitely beats out all 6th gen games visually... But fast forward a few more years and it's successor, Skyrim beat it on all fronts.

But yes, Killzone, Infamous, DriveClub and The Order are good looking games, but there is definitely a step between those games and exclusives releasing today, which is my point in a nutshell.

It's still going to be a very good looking game, lets not beat around the bush.
Insomniac knows their stuff, I praise that developer very highly.

Game Engines don't typically get scratched and rebuilt every console generation... They get overhauled on a regular basis though, but I am thinking in a few years we will see rebuilt engines more often as Ray Tracing is such a new feature the R&D needs to be spent in order to best use that tech and same goes for the SSD.

It actually means a great deal.
It means the game engine has been optimized for the Playstation 4 extensively.

Just because a game engine scales across multiple hardware configurations does not equate to a developer not being able to extract high levels of visual fidelity.
The lighting I have seen in Halo Infinite's engine tech trailers is damn impressive, clearly not being held back by the base Xbox One.

All game engines are scalable these days, Microsoft is leveraging that, it's their strategy.

If Halo Infinite ends up being the most technically impressive video game for it's release year, how could you possible assert it's being held back? Doesn't that mean the developers on the Xbox are also trying?

Halo 5 lost allot of fervor of the franchise in many circles and I would argue it didn't assist in turning around the Xbox One's bad image reputation like what Halo 3 did with the Xbox 360, Microsoft needs to take this game home.

The art style is going back to basics and being aligned to Combat Evolved more heavily, big emphasis on technology that drives the game as well, remaining hopeful for a solid experience.

We have been over this. PC system requirements are just a guideline in order to wash a developer/publishers hands from technical/logistical support in dealing with potential systems that sit outside the scope of their requirements. It saves them money and technical support resources.

Plenty of instances where a PC game will run perfectly fine on hardware that sits below the minimum requirements, it's not definitive and set in stone.

Halo listing a low-end GPU doesn't mean that it's going to be a game that is lighter on the GPU.

You don't buy an RTX2080 to bring it to it's knees at 1080P/30fps.

720p is fine for me as well from the couch. At 12ft, 65", WiiU still looks good.
Plus my cable provider is still at 720p / 1080i, still looks good.

So sure, make it 720p on Lockhart. The trick is, 720p scales up very nicely to a 4K tv. 1080p tv not so nicely.
1440p is also 1.5:1 scaling to 4K (same as 720p to 1080p), but since the dpi is much higher it's less of a problem with scaling.
Time for 8K tvs to make 1440p upscaling 3:1 :)

1080P scales perfectly to a 4k TV.

4k is 3840x2160.
1080P is 1920x1080.

You are just quadrupling your pixel counts or doubling on each axis instead of triple with 720P.

Scaling is a tricky and complex issue, mostly due to scalers doing a few passes on an image to clean it up and thus have different effectiveness.

1440P is 2560x1440.
720P is 1280x720.

That is also a quadrupling in pixel counts.

Did you see that with All Access the strategy of MS on GP is that if you sub to GP Ultimate you get Xcloud for free and can play with it on phone and PC? So don't worry MS may even find a way to make XCloud work on X1 and Series S to get similar experience that you would get on Series X, because in the end they don't make money on the HW so if you buy Series S or keep X1 with GP sub is already a win for MS even if they need to give a very good performance on XCloud on X1.