Xbox One X review: An exclamation point for hardware, a question mark for software

Is Microsoft’s “true 4K” console worth $100 more than the PS4 Pro?

Read the whole story

 

[Null_Space]

"Plenty of further One X enhancements have been promised for the launch period and beyond, and we’ll update our thoughts when we get our hands on some of those. But the fact that so many publishers and developers, including Microsoft’s first-party brass, are scrambling in the days leading to this new system’s launch does not necessarily bode well for the future of these kinds of enhancements."

Do you actually have any evidence that they're "scrambling"?

It's not actually launched yet, maybe everyone's waiting for launch day to push a title update (and MS pushed a few early for testing/review purposes)?

 

[DepressedRobot]

I'd prefer all this new power be used to render better looking assets rather than shoving more pixels into the same assets. More pixels isn't everything.

 

[Ars Moriendi]

The absence of VR is the biggest disappointment. How did MS make a major push for VR in their latest Windows update and then completely drop the ball on adding it to their flagship gaming platform?

Because they made the Kinect. Pushing a 300+ addon only partly worked for sony because apparently they can sell yellow snow to eskimos. (if you dont catch the implication there, I think its a few years off of really being worthwhile)

I disagree. We're a long way from Call of Duty or Doom in VR, but anything seated (Project CARS, Elite, Battlezone) is good to go.

I should have explained more - at least until it is wireless and not so goofy to use (like kinect needing space or holding glowing dildos) it's just not there, to me. I have used them and played those games. It's neat. Neat. But man, its not great.

Soon though!

 

[graylshaped]

While I'm totally getting one, the article is very right to put questions mark on it.

The Xbox One's problems were never its lack of power (it didn't hurt the PS2 or Wii, remember?), but its price, stupid launch policies which diluted all the goodwill MS got from the 360 and less impressive exclusives. The fact that it was less powerful added insult to the injury, but I doubt it was the deciding factor.

The One X, while a magnificent piece of hardware I find myself salivating for, solves none of the aforementioned issues.

No longer less powerful, no Kinect, none of the “aforementioned” launch policies to which you alllude apply to this model, or any Xbox ever sold, since the policies were scrapped prior to launch.

To the extent the original mishandled launch reduced the player base, sure—give you that one. The rest are relics of history and of concern only to partisans.

 

[Resolute]

It looks like Microsoft introduced a very nice piece of hardware, but I have doubts about Microsoft's commitment on the Xbox Platform in the long run. After what happened to Windows Phone, and other hardware, will Microsoft exit the gaming hardware business soon? Could One X be the last Xbox hardware?

I actually bought the Xbox One before a PS4 this generation. I was expecting Microsoft would put the same commitment they did on games like they did with Xbox 360. It ends up being a disappointment. I really can't think of any 2018 exclusives that I would be excited about. The last games I looked forward to was RECore by Keiji Inafune and Dead Rising 4. Both didn't meet my expectations.

I didn't trade in my One S for the One X. I would be sad if Satya Nadella make Xbox a virtual gaming platform. Sony will fail gamers without a strong competition.

Sorry if I am a little off topic...

What never fails to amaze me is the amount of support for MS in the Ars community.
Your comment is sensible and mesured, but already largely downvoted.
Apparently, those people (from Redmond?) can't face hard facts - I mean, one year ago, you would get massively downvoted here by saying that Windows Mobile/Phone was a gigantic failure.
As of for the X-Box X, it is doomed to fail too, as the games library is king in the console business, and there is absolutely nothing of significance offered by Microsoft, compared to Nintendo and Sony.

It's downvoted because it's ridiculous on its face. Unlike the other things mentioned, Xbox actually makes money. As far as games, the vast majority of top selling games are cross-platform anyway. Exclusives don't really matter that much to actual gamers it turns out. And as far as quantity and commitment, Microsoft now offers backwards compatibility for the 360 and the original Xbox with the promise to continue compatibility going forward. Sony doesn't have anything close. Microsoft added that for free, while Sony requires you to pay to stream games you may already own.

Exclusives don't matter but backwards compatibility - which nobody actually uses - does, eh?

You couldn't even make it through the full _title_?


"[Updated]"

Fair enough. I did link that story relying on the original version from memory. Definitely my mistake.

None the less, you can't deny that their argument was patently absurd on its face. If exclusives were as unimportant as they claim and backwards compatibility was as important as they claim, Microsoft would not have spent the entire generation having its lunch stolen by Sony. The XBO is by no means performing poorly, but it's not even in the same area code as PS4. And those exclusives are a major reason why.

 

[fishyuk]

Rommel102[/url]":1g4erhmj]

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that it isn't that the XBox has lost its lustre or that Microsoft is losing their way. It's more of a generalized problem in the console game realm.

Exclusives haven't had the impact anyone wants on the console ecosystems. They may even be part of the problem, as exclusive titles have fallen into the trap of cranking out endless series of same-y titles. Indie developers have been capturing more and more of the limelight. Established developers and titles aren't going away any time soon, but they're fully sharing the gaming consumer's attention with indies now.

Meanwhile, PC gaming is getting easier and easier for nontechnical users to get into. Gone are the days of endlessly tweaking to get a game to play without glitches. There's no need to hunt for patches; between distribution channels like Steam and the always-connected nature of modern software, games get patched whether we want them to or not. Video and sound driver configuration isn't a black art. Games work with drivers well enough that most of the time, all the essential settings plus presets and auto-detect are built into the game -- much like a console experience. And PC hardware arguably offers the capability of delivering 4K and good frame rates with fewer compromises when compared to consoles.

This is anything but a PC Master Race rant; there is still much to like in the console world. It's just that the divide is narrowing. Consumers move to where their preferred choices are; and the console ecosystem is struggling against what appears to be a resurgence pf PC gaming. Sony may have a dominant share of the console market right now, but they're just as likely to feel the same sort of pressure that Microsoft is reacting to in the XBox ecosystem.

It's just a tougher uphill climb for all consoles to gain an edge right now.

This argument has been going on for 3 decades now.

The ultimate difference between console gaming and PC gaming has been reduced from all of the complexities that used to exist to a single salient paradigm.

Console gaming is for sitting on the couch, big screens, surround sound, etc. PC gaming is for sitting at your desk, headphones, smaller screens, etc.

Yes, this is a gross generalization. And therefore it is mostly true.

After a long day at work at a computer the last thing I want to do is sit down at another computer to play a game. Recline couch, turn down lights, pump up home theater, and enjoy my 65" 4K. I still have a growing Steam library that I play irregularly, but the majority of my gaming is done on my XB1 or PS4.

I'm hardly alone.

Spot on, PC gaming is what got me into the tech job I have now and kept me tweaking/overclocking/building through my twenties including living room PCs but now in my early 40s....I really can’t be arsed after a week at a laptop and commuting to then sit at a desk and play on my PC. Ironically though, Xbox Play anywhere did kind of bring me back to PC gaming by giving me reason to buy a halfway decent gaming laptop for business travel or when I stay with my parents (off to my room to play games when it gets too much...nothing changes ).

 

[Ars Moriendi]

It looks like Microsoft introduced a very nice piece of hardware, but I have doubts about Microsoft's commitment on the Xbox Platform in the long run. After what happened to Windows Phone, and other hardware, will Microsoft exit the gaming hardware business soon? Could One X be the last Xbox hardware?

I actually bought the Xbox One before a PS4 this generation. I was expecting Microsoft would put the same commitment they did on games like they did with Xbox 360. It ends up being a disappointment. I really can't think of any 2018 exclusives that I would be excited about. The last games I looked forward to was RECore by Keiji Inafune and Dead Rising 4. Both didn't meet my expectations.

I didn't trade in my One S for the One X. I would be sad if Satya Nadella make Xbox a virtual gaming platform. Sony will fail gamers without a strong competition.

Sorry if I am a little off topic...

What never fails to amaze me is the amount of support for MS in the Ars community.
Your comment is sensible and mesured, but already largely downvoted.
Apparently, those people (from Redmond?) can't face hard facts - I mean, one year ago, you would get massively downvoted here by saying that Windows Mobile/Phone was a gigantic failure.
As of for the X-Box X, it is doomed to fail too, as the games library is king in the console business, and there is absolutely nothing of significance offered by Microsoft, compared to Nintendo and Sony.

It's downvoted because it's ridiculous on its face. Unlike the other things mentioned, Xbox actually makes money. As far as games, the vast majority of top selling games are cross-platform anyway. Exclusives don't really matter that much to actual gamers it turns out. And as far as quantity and commitment, Microsoft now offers backwards compatibility for the 360 and the original Xbox with the promise to continue compatibility going forward. Sony doesn't have anything close. Microsoft added that for free, while Sony requires you to pay to stream games you may already own.

Exclusives don't matter but backwards compatibility - which nobody actually uses - does, eh?

You couldn't even make it through the full _title_?


"[Updated]"

Fair enough. I did link that story relying on the original version from memory. Definitely my mistake.

None the less, you can't deny that their argument was patently absurd on its face. If exclusives were as unimportant as they claim and backwards compatibility was as important as they claim, Microsoft would not have spent the entire generation having its lunch stolen by Sony. The XBO is by no means performing poorly, but it's not even in the same area code as PS4. And those exclusives are a major reason why.

Here's the thing I don't get. MS being behind in this case is having like 30-40million units out there. In the US they are still around 50% of the market.

Why is this painted as a failure? This is a staggering number.

No one puts it in perspective, because it would kind of blow up the narrative for page hits.

All this bad press(?) is causing game makers to bypass a market of 30-40million players... why? So they can only sell to the 67 million?

I want to know the real reason why companies releasing on ps4 and pc are not putting on xbox platform at the same time, essentially wasting advertising dollars if they release it later. Especially japan. Who at MS, years ago under the old management, poisoned the well with game makers so bad that they are missing out on what should be easy gets.

 

[shelbystripes]

There’s a lot to be said about HDR (and we’ve sure said it), but the biggest takeaway to currently emphasize is this: 4K resolution and HDR boosts need each other to look their best. HDR’s jump in wow factor and color impact truly depends on the number of pixels it’s working with.

Microsoft boasts that the One X can render complex titles natively at a full 3840x2160. As we’ve discussed on Ars previously, though, whether that difference really makes an impact depends heavily on the game, the size of the TV, the living room that TV is being used in, and even the eyes of the person viewing that TV.

These two quotes seem pretty contradictory to me. It simply doesn't make sense that HDR's color impact requires more pixels, especially since, as the second quote says, many people, including me, probably sit at a distance where we can't much perceive the difference.

I would really need some kind of real explanation as to why 4K and HDR aren't pretty much orthogonal in terms of impact. edit: Especially because, as a gamer, the sweet spot would seem to be 1080p to optimize framerates, with HDR for pop.

HDR means high dynamic range, as in, breadth of possible color values. Its greatest value is in permitting more natural looking color transitions, from, say, a darker blue to a lighter blue in a sky background. If your color bit depth is low, you'll see artifacts caused by sudden transitions from one integer color value to the next. But abrupt and visible changes from one color to the next can also be caused by low pixel density.

In the extreme example, on a 640-pixel-wide screen, you'll get very visible artifacts whether you're using an 8-bit (256-color, scaled from 0-255) or 10-bit (1024-color, scaled 0-1023) screen. If you're scaling from minimum brightness on the left (0) to absolute brightness on the right (255 for 8-bit) an exact color progression would progress evenly left to right across a 640-pixel-wide screen like this:

256 / 640 = 0.4 average pixel-pixel change

First 10 pixels: 0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.2, 3.6

Of course, 8-bit color can only display integer values from 0-255. So to calculate the colors to be shown, we round:

First 10 pixels (8-bit integer): 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4

The color shift isn't even; it's mostly 2-pixel-wide color bands, but the value "2" has a 3-pixel band. You'll alternate between 2-pixel and 3-pixel bands as you go across the screen. Of course, you're thinking 10-bit color is better and avoids this problem, but the low pixel count still forces rounding errors:

1024 / 640 = 1.6 average pixel-pixel change

First 10 pixels: 0, 1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, 8, 9.6, 11.2, 12.8, 14.4

First 10 color values (10-bit integer): 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14

There are no multi-pixel-wide bands anymore, but you still have visible artifacts. The brightness value change from pixel to pixel is 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1. So it's not at all going to look like a smooth transition; it has a higher color resolution, you're getting transitions with each pixel instead of multi-pixel-wide bands with the same color value anymore, but you still won't see a smooth color transition, you'll notice artifacts.

Of course, having 1920 pixels of width (on a 1920x1080 "HD" screen) helps a lot, and you may think that's good enough to get smooth color transitions. But here's the thing: Real-world color transitions aren't smooth or gradual. I used 640 pixels for a reason; on a 1080p HD screen, 640 pixels is 1/3 the width of the screen. If you have, say, a full moon lighting a night sky in the top left sector of the screen (640x540), you could have transitions from full brightness to total darkness within that part of the scene. As I pointed out above, rapid color transitions can have rounding errors causing visible artifacts, even at 10-bit color depth.

If you're on a 4K UHD screen, the top left third of the screen by itself is 1280 pixels wide and 1080 pixels tall. The higher pixel density allows more accurate color transitions within this small area of the screen. This allows you to actually make out the features on the surface of the moon, and see smoother and more natural fading of the night haze surrounding the moon. With the lower pixel density of a 1080p screen, you can still get the higher contrast from brightest to darkest parts of the screen, but you'll still have visible artifacting in small areas with rapid color transitions (which is where HDR adds the most value).

 

[Statistical]

I'd prefer all this new power be used to render better looking assets rather than shoving more pixels into the same assets. More pixels isn't everything.

The only silver lining is eventually you will have both. 4K will become the standard. In a couple years it will be tough to find a non-4K TV. So whatever comes after the X in 4 years won't be facing a resolution increase and can focus on even higher quality (or framerates but consoles seem to not realize that is something you can do).

 

[shelbystripes]

I'd prefer all this new power be used to render better looking assets rather than shoving more pixels into the same assets. More pixels isn't everything.

The only silver lining is eventually you will have both. 4K will become the standard. In a couple years it will be tough to find a non-4K TV. So whatever comes after the X in 4 years won't be facing a resolution increase and can focus on even higher quality (or framerates but consoles seem to not realize that is something you can do).

That is, unless you're buying the brand new Xbox One 8K to go with your 88-inch 8K display. Thankfully games will still have to be backward compatible to the Xbox One X for us mortal folk.

 

[Kevin Lowe]

I'd prefer all this new power be used to render better looking assets rather than shoving more pixels into the same assets. More pixels isn't everything.

The only silver lining is eventually you will have both. 4K will become the standard. In a couple years it will be tough to find a non-4K TV. So whatever comes after the X in 4 years won't be facing a resolution increase and can focus on even higher quality (or framerates but consoles seem to not realize that is something you can do).

That is, unless you're buying the brand new Xbox One 8K to go with your 88-inch 8K display. Thankfully games will still have to be backward compatible to the Xbox One X for us mortal folk.

Does that come with a 1.21 gigawatt power supply?

 

[araczynski]

I have all the consoles from current/previous gens, and no matter how hard I try, I can't get myself to enjoy the fracking controllers for anything other than the simple games. I'm old school and still prefer my pc for gaming, partially because I can do whatever the F I want on it, partially because I have my beloved mouse/keyboard for input, and partially because I don't have to wade through fracking endless stupid menu layouts of advertisements and crap to get into a game.

I might try the Nintendo Switch (I consider it 'next' gen) if it happens to go on sale over the upcoming holidays (although I see jack S to play on it currently), other than that, I think I'm going to just skip out on the next gen from Sony/MS. The trend I'm seeing over the last many years on the consoles is that its the same old S rehashed adnaseum(sp). Any real exclusives/unique experiences worth a S are on the PC, anything 'good' on a console gets ported to the PC eventually (in hopes of further profits).

Maybe I'm just getting old, but the consoles have been the stink for a few years now, and I'm not seeing any of the camps really trying to change that, other than the prepubescent "my D is bigger than yours is" with their stupid specs.

 

[LeopardSeal]

Verdict: Buy it if you're itching for select Xbox One games in 4K. Otherwise, look to cheaper console competition or a more versatile gaming PC.

Realistically, if you're already invested in a gaming ecosystem then moving to another gaming platform is not too likely. I've been Xboxing since the original. Moving to a PS4 or PC platform would mean investing in new hardware and repurchasing all new games (and loss of some games), money that would certainly cover the cost of an Xbox One X.

 

[Resolute]

Fair enough. I did link that story relying on the original version from memory. Definitely my mistake.

None the less, you can't deny that their argument was patently absurd on its face. If exclusives were as unimportant as they claim and backwards compatibility was as important as they claim, Microsoft would not have spent the entire generation having its lunch stolen by Sony. The XBO is by no means performing poorly, but it's not even in the same area code as PS4. And those exclusives are a major reason why.

Here's the thing I don't get. MS being behind in this case is having like 30-40million units out there. In the US they are still around 50% of the market.

Why is this painted as a failure? This is a staggering number.

No one puts it in perspective, because it would kind of blow up the narrative for page hits.

All this bad press(?) is causing game makers to bypass a market of 30-40million players... why? So they can only sell to the 67 million?

I want to know the real reason why companies releasing on ps4 and pc are not putting on xbox platform at the same time, essentially wasting advertising dollars if they release it later. Especially japan. Who at MS, years ago under the old management, poisoned the well with game makers so bad that they are missing out on what should be easy gets.

No, XBO's estimated sales are absolutely still great overall. However, with the Switch's successful release, they are down to about 25% of the American market for 2017 and about 17% globally (I'm using vgchartz estimates for simplicity, so engage in a level of skepticism). In Microsoft's defence, however, their hardware sales have been depressed for months as we wait the release of XBX. They will certainly recapture a good percentage of that share.

Focusing on Japan, however, Microsoft is so dead in that market that only the top AAA-calibre developers will even consider it. Which, in turn means that for anyone globally who likes Japanese games (especially JRPGs), it is a no-brainer that you get a PS4. And that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where PS4 sales will inevitably dominate XBO sales in these genres. Final Fantasy XV, for instance, has about a 5:1 ratio of PS4 to XBO sales. On a smaller dev like Atlus, there's just no sense at all releasing for Microsoft - though they are also oddly rigid in their series loyalties. Shin Megami Tensei is always Nintendo and Persona is always Sony. Nihon Falcom wouldn't get anywhere on an XBox release, but Steam has worked out pretty well for them thus far.

Ultimately though, XBox is perceived as the home of western/American games. Playstation is global. Global sales reflect this.

 

[HumanEmulator]

All this bad press(?) is causing game makers to bypass a market of 30-40million players... why? So they can only sell to the 67 million?

I want to know the real reason why companies releasing on ps4 and pc are not putting on xbox platform at the same time, essentially wasting advertising dollars if they release it later. Especially japan. Who at MS, years ago under the old management, poisoned the well with game makers so bad that they are missing out on what should be easy gets.

Game development is a business with many millions of dollars on the line. If a game isn’t released on a platform it could easily release on, you can guarantee a business deal with a financial benefit is involved. Maybe Sony’s offering marketing, a better percentage of digital sales, development support or (least likely) cash, but they’re offering *something*.

Microsoft’s attitude seems to have been they weren’t going to catch up to Sony with the original Xbox One, so they saved their money and resources for the next round. The one that has only just begun with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X in fact...

 

[Sarcasm Cop]

Just buy a PC. At this point they are hardly any exclusive titles released anyways and not many coming down the pipeline.

Very hard to justify the +$100 price over a PS4 Pro.

 

[Enochrewt]

It's worth a mention that game updates are huge. I jumped on my regular ol' fatty Xbox to play some Marvel vs Capcom infinite and had a 38GB compatibility patch to download Xbox One X support. Why did I have to re-download the game if I'm not playing it on a One X? I couldn't play online because it was "Installing" all night for no added benefit.

I would also like a little more information on each game's enhancements. Just marking Xbox one X Optimized next to the game tells me nothing. Especially when the boxes for HDR and 4k gaming are unchecked. The list I'm referring to is on the Xbox site. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-o ... anced-list

 

[TheLastOfUnchartedS]

Words and numbers mean very little if you don't deliver the most important aspect of any console: exciting/exclusive games. PS4 and Switch may not be as powerful as One X, but with Nintendo and Sony there's a guarantee that they can deliver stunning exclusives, and it's not the same case with MS (and some MS exclusives can also be played on PC) . I'm not on 4K bandwagon yet and I own both original PS4 and XBone, where the latter gets very little use. I'm seriously considering Switch as there's a good amount of third party games launching soon.

 

[Statistical]

Just buy a PC. At this point they are hardly any exclusive titles released anyways and not many coming down the pipeline.

Very hard to justify the +$100 price over a PS4 Pro.

You can't justify $100 over PS4 for higher performance but your solution is to buy a PC at even higher cost?

Look I love PC but PC isn't the answer for everyone and it certainly isn't the solution for someone who can't be assed to pay extra for higher performance. For many people the choice is a console or a console and that isn't going to change no mater how many times you say "just buy a PC".

 

[Drex2234]

I somehow feel that if Microsoft had released One X with PS4 Pro performance, and vice versa Sony's PS4 Pro had 40% better perf than One X, this review would sing praises to Sony how they outdid Microsoft again...

 

[ZippyPeanut]

A superb review. Many thanks to the authors.

 

[Null_Space]

It's worth a mention that game updates are huge. I jumped on my regular ol' fatty Xbox to play some Marvel vs Capcom infinite and had a 38GB compatibility patch to download Xbox One X support. Why did I have to re-download the game if I'm not playing it on a One X?

I'm pretty sure you don't.

Are you sure this wasn't just the latest title update?



for instance, Quantum Break is xbox one enhanced, but no title update was pushed to my non-X One.

 

[flunk]

Verdict: Buy it if you're itching for select Xbox One games in 4K. Otherwise, look to cheaper console competition or a more versatile gaming PC.

Realistically, if you're already invested in a gaming ecosystem then moving to another gaming platform is not too likely. I've been Xboxing since the original. Moving to a PS4 or PC platform would mean investing in new hardware and repurchasing all new games (and loss of some games), money that would certainly cover the cost of an Xbox One X.

I had an Xbox 360 and now I have a PS4. It does happen. You don't need to repurchase anything, you still have that old system. I don't care that i have to have an older system kicking around for a while.

 

[WonderSteve]

It looks like Microsoft introduced a very nice piece of hardware, but I have doubts about Microsoft's commitment on the Xbox Platform in the long run. After what happened to Windows Phone, and other hardware, will Microsoft exit the gaming hardware business soon? Could One X be the last Xbox hardware?

I actually bought the Xbox One before a PS4 this generation. I was expecting Microsoft would put the same commitment they did on games like they did with Xbox 360. It ends up being a disappointment. I really can't think of any 2018 exclusives that I would be excited about. The last games I looked forward to was RECore by Keiji Inafune and Dead Rising 4. Both didn't meet my expectations.

I didn't trade in my One S for the One X. I would be sad if Satya Nadella make Xbox a virtual gaming platform. Sony will fail gamers without a strong competition.

Sorry if I am a little off topic...

What never fails to amaze me is the amount of support for MS in the Ars community.
Your comment is sensible and mesured, but already largely downvoted.
Apparently, those people (from Redmond?) can't face hard facts - I mean, one year ago, you would get massively downvoted here by saying that Windows Mobile/Phone was a gigantic failure.
As of for the X-Box X, it is doomed to fail too, as the games library is king in the console business, and there is absolutely nothing of significance offered by Microsoft, compared to Nintendo and Sony.

I am kind of surprised it is downvoted by so many, but oh well. I still think it will happen. It makes a profit, but it is small in the grand scale of things in Microsoft.

I mainly express my concerns as a gamer to their commitment.

 

[got2bereal]

The hardware is definitely VR capable but Microsoft have not been committed to VR or AR gaming yet. With all the indie VR games that are already available I just don't understand why MS can't just adapt existing hardware. The Sony PS VR already sell for $299 and probably could go for $249 soon and it's an excellent entry accessory to more immersive gaming.

It's these kind of indecision and lack of quality exclusives that's hamstring Xbox adoption vs PS4.

Perhaps PUBG will change things around.

 

[Ozmodan]

The absence of VR is the biggest disappointment. How did MS make a major push for VR in their latest Windows update and then completely drop the ball on adding it to their flagship gaming platform?

Actually a smart move on Microsoft's part. VR is still in it's infancy. The VR units available today are more toys than anything else. I have tried most of the VR units out there and intend to wait for something much better to come along. The technology is just not there yet.

 

[Ozmodan]

"The Ugly

The thought of maybe buying an 8K Xbox One in four years or so."


So nothing then?


There's no 8k coming in 4 years.

Unless you are using an 80" or above screen, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4k and 8k.

 

[Voldenuit]

Can I just say how impressed I am that the PS4 Pro and XboneX are pulling ~150W total system power while gaming?

When a Radeon RX 580 (admittedly not the most power-efficient GPU out there) with 36 CUs has a TDP of 185W.

Looks like sony, microsoft, and AMD did a good job of power-tuning these systems.

 

[endorphene]

I'm probably going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that it isn't that the XBox has lost its lustre or that Microsoft is losing their way. It's more of a generalized problem in the console game realm.

Exclusives haven't had the impact anyone wants on the console ecosystems. They may even be part of the problem, as exclusive titles have fallen into the trap of cranking out endless series of same-y titles. Indie developers have been capturing more and more of the limelight. Established developers and titles aren't going away any time soon, but they're fully sharing the gaming consumer's attention with indies now.

Meanwhile, PC gaming is getting easier and easier for nontechnical users to get into. Gone are the days of endlessly tweaking to get a game to play without glitches. There's no need to hunt for patches; between distribution channels like Steam and the always-connected nature of modern software, games get patched whether we want them to or not. Video and sound driver configuration isn't a black art. Games work with drivers well enough that most of the time, all the essential settings plus presets and auto-detect are built into the game -- much like a console experience. And PC hardware arguably offers the capability of delivering 4K and good frame rates with fewer compromises when compared to consoles.

This is anything but a PC Master Race rant; there is still much to like in the console world. It's just that the divide is narrowing. Consumers move to where their preferred choices are; and the console ecosystem is struggling against what appears to be a resurgence pf PC gaming. Sony may have a dominant share of the console market right now, but they're just as likely to feel the same sort of pressure that Microsoft is reacting to in the XBox ecosystem.

It's just a tougher uphill climb for all consoles to gain an edge right now.

Please see the switch!

 

[shelbystripes]

I'd prefer all this new power be used to render better looking assets rather than shoving more pixels into the same assets. More pixels isn't everything.

The only silver lining is eventually you will have both. 4K will become the standard. In a couple years it will be tough to find a non-4K TV. So whatever comes after the X in 4 years won't be facing a resolution increase and can focus on even higher quality (or framerates but consoles seem to not realize that is something you can do).

That is, unless you're buying the brand new Xbox One 8K to go with your 88-inch 8K display. Thankfully games will still have to be backward compatible to the Xbox One X for us mortal folk.

Does that come with a 1.21 gigawatt power supply?

I was going to joke that it will have Mr. Fusion built-in, but then I remembered we're in the alternate timeline and President Tannen will likely ban everything but coal soon.

 

[rob_3]

ShakesMcQueen said it well in his post. This is a pessimistic review at best, and pro-sony at worst. It’s far better then the PS4 Pro who did nothing to enhance older games at launch. Microsoft should be commended for offering support, and improvement for older xbox titles, even if it isn’t total. It’s good for players and a value-add to be certain. There’s criticism here about Master Chief Collection, even when it is said as being before patch launch. While it’s true Microsoft said that games would look better “out of the box.” I think we all knew that would vary as games can’t magically just look better. There will always have to be some sort of “patch.” I personally think these sites should wait until launch to review the console and see how things have shaped up by then. The fact that developers are scrambling to get their patches out, doesn’t bode badly for Microsoft in my opinion. It means they want to patch games so they will look their best.

Now that the Xbox One X is nearly out, and in existence, it is THE 4K console. It is forward looking with the best support for 4K games. Gears of War is a perfect example. On the Xbox One S, the HDR looked absolutely beautiful on my Samsung KS8000. I’m looking forward to playing through it again at 4K. It’s a great example of what developers can do with HDR and 4K if they put the work in.

As far as Forza Motorsport 7 goes, Turn10 had access to the console from very early on, so they had time to tweak the HDR. They also did something that Polyphony didn’t do.. dynamic weather, and tons of tracks and cars. Both developers approached their games differently. I have played Gran Turismo Sport on my PS4 Pro, and yes it is very pretty, but I know I will not be disappointed by how Motorsport 7 looks at all. Both companies went about making their games in different ways. That’s all. Both should be commended. I guess a better comparison won’t be GT, but Project Cars 2 when the patch hits.

I want to note that I also have a PS4 Pro. Madden 18 looks great on it, as do other games. The only thing I’d like to see is an unbiased review, based on the merits of the console alone. Why bring up the Kinect at all, in a negative way? If anything, it should just be mentioned that it will work with the One X, but it will need the adapter. The One X is reason enough to be excited for the future, and a great value for gamers everywhere. With the Kinect now dead, I don’t think there’s any reason to mention it. Value-add on a lower res television is dependent upon the viewer. Microsoft is setting up the One X to be their 4K console for years to come, and people will then get a 4K tv and be able to see the benefits easier. By then, hopefully more developers will be on-board and be able to create games that look asa good as Gears of War 4. If they do, then the benefits of the One X will be much more apparent. Till then, the 1st party games provide a great glimpse into the future. Personally, I’m very excited by the possibilities. I like that older games got some support, but that’s not where the focus is at all.

 

[marsilies]

It's worth a mention that game updates are huge. I jumped on my regular ol' fatty Xbox to play some Marvel vs Capcom infinite and had a 38GB compatibility patch to download Xbox One X support. Why did I have to re-download the game if I'm not playing it on a One X? I couldn't play online because it was "Installing" all night for no added benefit.

The 4K assets are a separate download, or at least should be:
https://www.windowscentral.com/how-down ... r-xbox-one

Even with a separate download for assets, multiplayer games are likely going to have to patch all consoles just so that everyone's on the same version. Hopefully the massive size of the MvC Infinite update is an aberration.

I would also like a little more information on each game's enhancements. Just marking Xbox one X Optimized next to the game tells me nothing. Especially when the boxes for HDR and 4k gaming are unchecked. The list I'm referring to is on the Xbox site. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/xbox-o ... anced-list

Wikipedia has a more comprehensive list, noting the specific enhancements games have, if known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X ... nced_games

Gamesradar has a similar list:
http://www.gamesradar.com/every-xbox-on ... explained/

The issue at the moment is that a lot of the specifics are still unknown, since most of the patches haven't been released, and a lot of the developers haven't mentioned specifics, possibly waiting to see what they can fully tweak out of the hardware by launch.

 

[reflection inverted]

I somehow feel that if Microsoft had released One X with PS4 Pro performance, and vice versa Sony's PS4 Pro had 40% better perf than One X, this review would sing praises to Sony how they outdid Microsoft again...

The games are the same so I don't see where is the point of having a faster version of the same generation console. These are not the 4K/VR consoles you are looking for *jedi hand wave*

The next generation will be the real 4K/VR generation. Not these... I don't know what these are. Cashing attempts similar to what "HDReady" was? Are these the 4KReady and VRReady consoles?

 

[killerhurtalot]

Your "Bad" list doesn't really seem like "Bad" stuff, so much as several things that would have been there no matter what the specs were.

- Not every older game will get enhanced by the system - of course not
- Not every older game will be designed to take advantage of the additional horsepower, making it indistinguishable from a PS4 Pro - of course not.
- It's being marketed as a console for 4K gaming, so of course the performance improvements aren't as notable on non-4K displays for all games. Of course, games that scaled resolution dynamically under 1080p on the original Xbone, or which didn't reliably hit 30/60 on original hardware, will absolutely benefit.

The one big question mark I agree with, and which will have to be evaluated, is the software support. Microsoft need to re-commit to first party (and "second party") game development, and they need to get on third parties to take advantage of the additional power of the One X.

That will also answer the question of whether the $100 over a PS4 Pro is "worth it", in the medium-to-long term. It's impossible to answer right now.

Pretty sure that 4k HDR blu-rays are worth a extra $100 by itself if you're into that.... way cheaper than buying a 4k HDR blu-ray player.

 

[killerhurtalot]

I honestly can't tell the difference between the images. I really wonder how much of the "improvement" is real, and how much is a placebo effect

Are you looking at it on a 4k monitor?

 

[reflection inverted]

I honestly can't tell the difference between the images. I really wonder how much of the "improvement" is real, and how much is a placebo effect

Are you looking at it on a 4k monitor?

Ha. That's a catch 22 if I've ever seen one. Can't see the improvement without a 4K device or don't need to get convinced because you already bought one.

 

[killerhurtalot]

Can I just say how impressed I am that the PS4 Pro and XboneX are pulling ~150W total system power while gaming?

When a Radeon RX 580 (admittedly not the most power-efficient GPU out there) with 36 CUs has a TDP of 185W.

Looks like sony, microsoft, and AMD did a good job of power-tuning these systems.

At this point though, it's not surprising that they did this. Did you see the size of the power supply in the systems? There's no way to fit anything higher powered in there.

The highest rated laptop power brick i've seen was the 330W rated for the MSI Dual GTX 1080 Laptop. And those are a decent size bigger than the PSUs in the consoles and approaching the SFX PSU size without the fans....

 

[killerhurtalot]

I honestly can't tell the difference between the images. I really wonder how much of the "improvement" is real, and how much is a placebo effect

Are you looking at it on a 4k monitor?

Ha. That's a catch 22 if I've ever seen one. Can't see the improvement without a 4K device or don't need to get convinced because you already bought one.

Not really, the 4k image on a 1080p monitor has less shimmering and artifacts from the AA... but that's about it for the improvement.

The real improvement is that supported games will run at 1080p/60 stable instead of 30 or 60 with dynamic resolution scaling/frame rate drops on the X1S. That better experience alone is worth the price difference imo.

And also, pretty sure it's the same catch 22 as when 720p/1080p screens were made available from 480p/tube TV....

Edit: But seriously though, 4k isn't as much of a difference as HDR is for me.

 

[AllYourBase]

While the X is an impressive machine, it is hard to make the justification to own one when the differences are negligible, but for only a select few people who have the right games and entertainment system setups. It's difficult to tell who the target market is for this thing.

If all the same games run on the original machine, an extra $250 buys three + more games or controllers or HDD space or whatever. If you care that much about the performance numbers down to the pixels, I would wager you are already on the gaming PC train, which is still superior to the X.

Perhaps the X is just Microsoft's reset from the disastrous one launch, but it just feels like the machine is just a marketing slogan without any real gaming innovation or noticeable differences to what is already available. The more complicated the console market becomes, the more they lose their competitive advantage over the PC in terms of usability. I just do not know what to make of the X!

 

[killerhurtalot]

Fair enough. I did link that story relying on the original version from memory. Definitely my mistake.

None the less, you can't deny that their argument was patently absurd on its face. If exclusives were as unimportant as they claim and backwards compatibility was as important as they claim, Microsoft would not have spent the entire generation having its lunch stolen by Sony. The XBO is by no means performing poorly, but it's not even in the same area code as PS4. And those exclusives are a major reason why.

Here's the thing I don't get. MS being behind in this case is having like 30-40million units out there. In the US they are still around 50% of the market.

Why is this painted as a failure? This is a staggering number.

No one puts it in perspective, because it would kind of blow up the narrative for page hits.

All this bad press(?) is causing game makers to bypass a market of 30-40million players... why? So they can only sell to the 67 million?

I want to know the real reason why companies releasing on ps4 and pc are not putting on xbox platform at the same time, essentially wasting advertising dollars if they release it later. Especially japan. Who at MS, years ago under the old management, poisoned the well with game makers so bad that they are missing out on what should be easy gets.

No, XBO's estimated sales are absolutely still great overall. However, with the Switch's successful release, they are down to about 25% of the American market for 2017 and about 17% globally (I'm using vgchartz estimates for simplicity, so engage in a level of skepticism). In Microsoft's defence, however, their hardware sales have been depressed for months as we wait the release of XBX. They will certainly recapture a good percentage of that share.

Focusing on Japan, however, Microsoft is so dead in that market that only the top AAA-calibre developers will even consider it. Which, in turn means that for anyone globally who likes Japanese games (especially JRPGs), it is a no-brainer that you get a PS4. And that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where PS4 sales will inevitably dominate XBO sales in these genres. Final Fantasy XV, for instance, has about a 5:1 ratio of PS4 to XBO sales. On a smaller dev like Atlus, there's just no sense at all releasing for Microsoft - though they are also oddly rigid in their series loyalties. Shin Megami Tensei is always Nintendo and Persona is always Sony. Nihon Falcom wouldn't get anywhere on an XBox release, but Steam has worked out pretty well for them thus far.

Ultimately though, XBox is perceived as the home of western/American games. Playstation is global. Global sales reflect this.

Looks like someone missed the last generation of consoles. Xbox 360 outsold the PS3 handily in the first like 4 years in terms of global sales. and then PS3 caught back up.

When it comes down to it, it was the $100 difference in price and the lack of outreach from Microsoft to secure what was otherwise 3rd party developing only for playstation.