JPDunks4

If it is the same shape as the the dev kits, PS-V

Holy shit, going Sony this time around, fuck Xbox. Beautiful logo.

"The Xbox Series X imagery used during the AMD CES press conference was not sourced from Microsoft and does not accurately represent the design or features of the upcoming console. They were taken from TurboSquid.com."

But yeah, with next gen right around the corner, anyone that is gonna spend this money on one of these, would rather wait for a next gen variant. Really odd timing. I guess a proof of concept to see if there is any actual market for it.

There was a video of someone that got it early to test. The first unit he received was damaged during shipping so the PS4 Pro didnt' work. The 2nd unit he received, after 30 minutes of playing the PS4 Pro, it shut down for overheating. Not exactly the preview video you'd want being shared as a first impression.

To a certain extent. Still too many games are not cross-play, so you'd still need an Xbox to play multiplayer with friends that are on Xbox.

Maybe like 60% if I remember correctly.

Will this get VR support? Looks made for it.

I agree, but when Xbox One and PS4 were initially developed, I don't know if they were made with the same mentality of being able to handle these scalable engines. A big messaging point around the One X was that they went to developers and took all the biggest game engines being used at the time, and looked at bottlenecks and other issues that come up, and built the hardware in order to best accommodate those engines to better be able to scale and make life as easy as possible for the developers. I think this is why my thinking is, when developing these new consoles, they will be accounting for their limitations more-so than they were back in 2012/2013, and try to make them better able to handle the inevitable mid gen refresh and constant improvements to PC tech. I just don't believe MS would be handicapping their powerful console. Their entire messaging the past few years is to have creators create what they want to create. If news came out that developers are being hamstrung by being forced to support the weaker console and its affecting their ability to build the games they want, that'd just shoot themselves in the foot. But who knows. We don't even know of Lockheart even exists at this point.

Engines these days do most of that work for you already. Fortnite is playable from high end PC's down to Mobile Phones or Switch on the Unreal Engine. With the number of updates they push out almost daily to all these platforms, I think its pretty clear the work is largely being handeled by the engine itself to properly scale. Making versions of games to play on both versions of the next gen console won't be the same as porting games to different consoles. * I also don't know shit about developing games, but based off a lot of what I've read the past few years, it sems to be the direction everything is going. Scalable engines with hardware that is ready to utilize them.

I purchased W2 and W3 on PC and plan to play through both again after the show. I never did the W3 dlcs as well so can't wait for that.

Oh I completely agree. I'm just not sure a 4TF machine will be able to handle 4k with whatever added bells and whistles next gen games will have. But for sure, I hope they always offer the options of, Best Resolution, Best FPS, Best Graphical Effects. I think it was @Reputator that gave a bit more of a technical breakdown of it in the other thread. I personally have very little clue on all this technical stuff.

I mentioned this before, but doesn't the CPU have more impact on FPS. While the TF kind of represents resolution a bit more. Regardless of the TF in the One X, it still couldn't pump out improved FPS due to the CPU limiting it. A 4TF Lockheart would be a 1080p 60fps+ box more so than a 4k30fps machine I'd think. Which I actually think is a winning proposition. Focus more on FPS and performance over resolution. Hell try to target 1080p 120fps with TV's now supporting it. I think it'd go much farther as a selling point over 4k.

Since this is an Xbox thread, a little shade being thrown...

I'd say that's pretty debatable. The One X did little to nothing for overall Xbox sales in comparison to Sony's. They earned the narrative of most powerful box, but by that time the narrative had pivoted to exclusives and first party support. Power no longer really mattered much, especially when once again, the differences in performance between the One X and PS4 Pro in many cases were literally debating, one checkerboards 4k slightly more or less than the other. I honestly think game performance is what people are looking for these days far more than "resolution" arguments. Essentially none of the PC gamers I know care much about 4k gaming. They focus entirely on frame rates. So many are completely content with a 1080p monitor just maximizing their FPS. When the One X did so little for framerates, I think a lot were left disappointed. I remember when PUBG released around the same time as the One X, and couldn't play the game at even a stable 30fps. So many were arguing eventually they'd patch it to be 60fps, not realizing the limitation was in the CPU. But yeah I'm off on a tangent. I don't really know if Microsoft would consider the One X a huge success.

If they are indeed releasing the lower cost machine, I'd definitely assume $499 will be the minimum on price. If its just one machine, then $399 would make sense as a target.

Size comparison based on whats been shown and shared.... If laying on it side, its a bit wider than the One S, but less wide than the original One. Much taller than both the One S and original One. Not nearly as deep as either the One S or One. So packaging may be differently shaped, but not sure exactly how much larger it physically is in totality from the original One due to its much shorter depth.

I'd personally think Sony is going to try to mimic every decision they made this gen, and really try to get that $400 price point. As far as I know, 360 launched at $400 right? and was market leader for a long while. PS4 launched at $400, PS4 Pro launched at $400, and we all know how this gen has gone for Sony. MS launched XB1 and XB1X at $500, and while both sold decently, neither set the world on fire at that price. I'd say if rumors are true and X1X is more powerful, they will be okay launching at $500 again, but with the Lockheart launching at like $350/$400? Microsoft has also put into place that Xbox All Access or whatever it is, so that you can now finance your purchase long term. They currently have a deal to finance the Xbox One X with option to upgrade after 12 months, when it was typically 18 months.

If all of those are your standards for what it means to beat a game, that's fine. Post that on Twitter, I'm not gonna call you a cunt asshole gate keeper. I'll say its a pretty extreme viewpoint but if that' what you deem it required to beat a game, more power to ya. I'll keep my standard of simply not using cheats.

That's my point though. If its so unbelievably trivial, why get so worked up over how someone else defines what it is to beat a game? Literally to the point people are getting emotional and upset about it. Just play the games you enjoy playing and enjoy them however you want. To get upset that someone believes using cheats or rewind features doesn't mean you beat the game to me is what seems like the irrational thing to do. The man is as entitled to his opinion as you are to yours. And its not some absurd opinion either. In any other activity or hobby we all partake in, if someone states they cheated in something, and people discount their achievement, people don't get all butt hurt and claim they are assholes or gate keepers or cunts. Why is gaming so different? Apparently a lot believe using cheats to beat games is fine. I don't care, do your thing. I've used cheats or game genies or other things in the past too. It can be a blast. I'm not gonna get upset or emotional about it. But if you came into my stream and told me you beat a game by using cheats, I'd have every right to tell you I don't consider that beating a game. And by his retweets and likes, its a pretty common opinion to have.

It's Twitter, no one asks for anyone's opinion. But again, the same people claiming no one should give a shit about their definition of beating a game, are crying over his definition of what it is to beat a game. And he clearly has people coming in his streams probably engaging this subject with him in his chat, which is what made him make the Tweet. Its a completely valid opinion for someone to have. Why are people so offended over his opinion.

But if these people are going into his stream claiming to have beaten the games he's currently playing, and he's simply saying, if you used the rewind feature, you didn't beat the game, that's not being as asshole or insulting to anyone. It's simply expressing his opinion of what constitutes beating a game. And my analogy fits just fine. You can't beat a golf course. All there is are you best personal scores, course records, ect. So if someone claims to have beaten any kind of record while using infinite mulligans, which is what a rewind feature is, that score is immediately discounted and that round is invalid. You didn't beat anything. You played the round for fun messing around, but you didn't beat anything. It's not about lying about your score. It's just simply a matter of your score is not a real score for the course. If you use rewind feature in Forza, your time is invalid in that race for a record book. All that there truly is in racing games are best personal lap times. So as soon as you use rewind, you are immediately disqualified from beating any records. That's simply the argument he's making. If you use a rewind feature, you are disqualified from beating the game. Why would anyone take that as in insult? That's the only thing I find absurd. It's more absurd to be butt hurt by someone saying they don't believe you beat a game if you use cheats than for someone to simply believe cheats disqualify you from beating a game. If you're simply playing for fun and finishing the games for your own personal enjoyment, why the hell do you care about peoples opinions on you beating or not beating the game?

I have no idea who he is. Just saw this shared or whatever on my Timeline and thought it was interesting because reading replies it seemed like he was getting destroyed, which surprised me. I figured most would feel if you use cheats to finish a game, then you aren't truly beating it. If he is someone that streams old games a lot, I can see the tweet making a lot more sense. If you are playing a notoriously difficult old game on stream, and a bunch of people come in chat and tell you that they beat the game, and you ask if they used the rewind feature and they say yes, then its perfectly reasonable for him to believe you didn't truly beat it. I think I'd have that same response if I were streaming and having people come in to comment on my gameplay of and older game.

Going back to the original tweet, You brought up the fact people don't discuss golf scores or wouldn't. I don't personally golf, but I had a group of friends that do, and they constantly try to get better personal records on courses. They have Apps on their phones and keep historical records of their performances on courses and compare they regularly. I mean if its a serious hobby of someone, of course discussing ones own accomplishments and merits are part of a normal conversation for those groups. So again, I simply bring up, if you play a course on your own time, and achieve a new personal record while also using unlimited mulligans, can you claim you beat all your friends records? It might be a matter of semantics, but it's the discussion at hand. When Halo Reach recently came out, I had discussions with quite a few friends about who beat the campaigns on Legendary Difficulty solo/co-op, ect. Not because we are insulting those that didn't, but its a hobby we are all passionate about and its a "lofty" accomplishment to claim you beat those campaigns on the highest difficulty. Same goes for CoD4, where when Modern Warfare released, me and my buddies talked about the Mile High Achievement, and which of us accomplished that. It wasn't some bragging and insulting conversation, but simply discussing previous gaming accomplishments. I really didn't think it that serious, just an interesting topic. I don't see anyone going around bragging about beating 30 year old Nintendo games anywhere. I have no clue if the guy Tweeting was talking literally or figuratively. I took it more on the principle of it all. If you use cheats to finish a game, did you beat the game? I personally believe beating a game is beating it within the confines of the coding and game mechanics originally intended by the developer. I personally love that they added save states and rewind and other features into the NES and SNES throwback games. It will probably get me to try to go through them when I probably wouldn't have the patience to do so without them.

I pivoted the discussion around the idea of having system level cheats built in. I understand having them in Retro Consoles just to add something to the experience of playing those old games is seen basically as a bonus feature and fun. I just got me thinking, what if they built those same features into current or next gen consoles, for current and upcoming games. I personally don't think I'd ever use it, but would the existence of it be an issue for anyone. I personally just felt like it did compare to the From Software debates. The arguments were typically should they include easier game modes that would make the game more accessible for all players, and many argued no, they wanted the game to be that hard and beating it and learning to progress through them was part of the experience. Well a system level feature essentially takes the control out of From Softwares hands and forces an easy mode into the game. So no, I'm not really talking about the original post. My personal feeling is that gaming shouldn't be treated differently than any other activity. If I had infinite mulligans at a local golf course, could I still claim I hit a -18 and that's my record. Could I claim to have hit 100 3 pointers in a row while ignoring the fact I actually missed a lot along the way, but "rewinded" back to correct the mistake. Why would gaming be different where I can claim to have accomplished something with a "cheat" on without specifying? I don't care if people choose to use a rewind feature to enjoy and experience the games as they see fit. But I also think if you claim to accomplish something, there should be a merit to that accomplishment.