We knew it was coming since last year, so these news are not so much news.

Microsoft has release a new XBox Console to one up the PS4 Pro. Hardware wise, at least the one upping seems to have worked, with a beefier GPU this time around (about 6 Tflops vs the PS4 Pros 4 Tflops), and a higher clock on the CPU cores. Seems like the whole thing was possible on an even smaller footprint (not that the XBox One was small for a console to begin with) thanks to liquid cooling.

Microsoft claims that this machine allows them to run games at native 4k resolutions while the PS4 Pro only has enough grunt for doubling the pixel count to 2k and letting checkerboard rendering do the rest. Now, given that the machine has about 4 times the power of the weedy Xbox one, I personally wouldn't want to run the latest AAA games on an XBox One X in 4k.

The Xbox One was too slow really for 1080p/60Hz with modern games, so the Xbox One X will be too slow for 4k/60Hz too. Certainly 4k/60Hz will run fine with older or less demanding games, and I am sure that if the dev team REALLY works hard on optimizing their game for the weak hardware, an exclusive game can look pretty good on the new XBOX even in 4k... be it at 30 Hz instead of 60 Hz, or without some of the more expensive "Ultra" options available for PC games enabled.

Now, this will be a FANTASTIC machine for 1080p/60Hz gaming. The power at disposal should rival an overclocked GTX 970, RX 580 or GTX 1060, which all are fantastic 1080p cards in the PC space. The bigger VRAM and shared Memory, some architecture tweaks to the GPU, and the higher shader core count might even edge the machine ahead of these cards. Either way, you certainly can port over games from PC and run the highest settings while still getting 60 Hz on 1080p, if the port is well optimized.

Now, the PS4 Pro was already a fantastic 1080p gaming machine. Still, the PS4 Pro was still too weak for no compromise 1080p gaming. Don't get me wrong, the games run on the PS4 Pro in 1080p look good. You just can see the compromises that the devs had to make to get AAA looking graphics out of a machine that is just barely catching up to a midrange gaming PC... which to date already have trouble with some newer titles at max settings, even at 1080p.

This will be a no compromise 1080p machine for the next 2-3 years. Which I really like. A no-nonsense powerful console is exactly what I grew up loving, and this time Microsoft finally delivers.

What I was a little shocked about at first was the price. 499$ just sounds like about 100$ too high for a games console. Then I started thinking about how the PS3 was even more expensive at the start, and how people gladly paid the price because of the Blueray Player built in. Given the XBox One X also has a 4k Blueray player built in, which at the moment are still sold for a lot of money, that asking price might actually be quite cheap for people who need a powerful new gaming console AND a 4k Blueray player.

So while the XBox Ecosystem and their exclusive games do not appeal to me a lot, the console looks good to me, price looks in order, and I really like how MS and Sony push the power of their Consoles as a customer. I am not so sure about the 4k pedigrees of this machine, and I have no idea how developers like the additional build target this introduces (2 I guess like with the PS4 Pro, one for 1080p and one for 4k). But at least looks like some strong competition to the PS4 Pro and a step in the right direction for gaming consoles as a whole.

Less frills, more raw power. Me likes.

However some other games avoid full 1080p because a 4-layer 32bpp gbuffer doesn't fit in ESRAM, but the X has corrected this design flaw.

Good point, missed that.

The XBox One X has GDDR5 RAM now, and does away with the ESRAM. Basically it fell back to Sonys solution, and one upped them by adding 4G of GDDR5 RAM for a whooping 12G of GDDR5, from which up to 9G are available for games compared to PS4 Pros 5.5G.

Sony must feel proud of themselves now that MS basically have switched to the solution they had from the start.

Also, MS seems to be quite able to learn from user feedback as of lately. No forced Kinect, no new silliness about always on sheenigans or blocking users from running second hand games, and actually silently admitting their competitors solution was better when their own solution was proven wrong in the wild.

EDIT:

Oh, almost forgot.... going to be interesting to see how MS really handels dev support for its two different Console hardware specs.

MS did allude to not 100% going down the Sony route in forcing every dev to also support the PS4 Old/Slim with their game, which forces everyone and their dog to support the lower spec machine, and might hold back some cutting edge (*cough*cutting edge for PS4*cough*) games which might build for the 1.8 TFlops machine, and then just use the added headroom on the PS4 Pro for additional image effects and stuff while keeping objects at a lower poly count than necessary or compromising on other things that a modern mid range PC should be able to handle.

Now I recognize that this might be a moot point, as PS4 Pro titles might go down that route ANYWAY to be able to support 4k and 1080p enhanced graphics without having more ooomph at hand when rendering for 4k, regardless of the PS4 Old/Slim in the equation.

Word on the street last year was that MS might allow Xbox One X only games that wouldn't run on the lower specced machine. Which, given MS does not want to retrofit VR Support to the weedy and tired old XBox One, would have to happen anyway at least for the Occulus Rift enabled titles.

As a customer, I like the possibility of getting titles optimized for the more powerful machine. Sucks for the early XBox One adopters, but then, as a customer owning a new XBox One X I probably wouldn't care much about that. More about getting games developed for the machine I bought, and not some 4 years old console.

If it makes more sense for devs I am not sure. On one hand, one less build target to handle. Certainly you can build a bigger, more advanced game regardless of 4k as an additional build target. On the other hand, we still don't know how well the new XBox does in the wild. Given the XBox One did poorly, it can only improve on that... but you still will leave a lot of potential customers on the side if you ignore the original XBox One.

As to what it does to the ecosystem, IDK. This could fragment the user base even more... I am not sure MS cares at this point in time. They might be too desperate to make up for the botched start with the last console half-generation to really care about this anymore. I guess they would really like to bury the whole XBox One story somewhere and start fresh with a new generation at this point...

Interesting how all the marketing around the new machine mentions the hardware power, the new gaming expieriences it enables, VR, but does not waste a single word on the console as an entertainment center, Kinect, and all the other shenigans MS thought would sell the Xbox one 4 years ago.

I'd like to point out (again) PS4 Pros better fp16 performance:

PS4 Pro: 4,2 Tflops fp32 so 8.4 Tflops fp16 @ 218GB/s

XBoneX: 6 Tflops fp32 @ 326GB/s (really?)

This leaves me thinking both consoles will settle at similar performance if fp16 will be used properly, and PS4 uses less resolution on textures. I'm disappointed - MS may have made a mistake.

I do not expect XBoneX games will look significanly better.

Word on the street last year was that MS might allow Xbox One X only games that wouldn't run on the lower specced machine.

Is this for sure? Would be nice if Sony allows this as well anytime soon - Devs will not jump on this too fast anyways.

I don't understand the problem with 1080p. I've been pc gaming for 20 years with a resolution of at least 1024 * 768. For a period i ran at 1600x1200 (~2000-2005) and now i run at 2560*1080.

I have never been one to go for the cutting edge gpu's, usually settling on a good value mid-high £200-£250 mark. I've never struggled with frame rate. What is it about consoles that has led to this 60HZ/1080P selling point? Why is this so hard to achieve? It should be easier to target a specific framerate for a console because you know the hardware.

I think this move to different version of the same platform will result in 1 of these scenarios for any give game.

1) The game will be optimised for the lowest common denominator and then they will just see how far they can crank the resolution on the beefier version.

2) The game will be optimised for the beefier versions then resolution and possibly quality settings will be lowered on the lowest common denominator until 60HZ is achieved.

Both are bad for different reasons. I cant see a developer micro optimizing for both - the QA is too much. Maybe someone could back me up: due to the complexity of algorithms some algorithms will scale upto 4k (LOD draw distances will also change) no problem while others will not and thus different techniques may have to be developed for the low and high versions.

Also, I hate exclusives - why should i have to shell out £400 to play games when i already own a computer that can do it. There were technical reason in the past to make games exclusve (radically different hardware is 1) but now is it just a way to sucker people in. Please don't tell me exclusives help great games get made - sure it helps somewhat (debatable) - but it's not necessary.

All xbox games are available on windows so comparing PS4 sales to XBOX(x) is not fair - there are customers that are not buying xbox's (and to an extend PS4's) because they have windows pcs (a microsoft product obvs) so I really think a fair comparison is (Windows + Xbox) VS PS4. I think exclusives are the only thing consoles have got going for them now. MS want to sell a great piece of kit, Sony want to sell the right to play certain games - I'm with MS even if it is a losing commercial position.

2) The game will be optimised for the beefier versions then resolution and possibly quality settings will be lowered on the lowest common denominator until 60HZ is achieved.

Art for consoles isn't made the same for PC, so there isn't a fallback. What they have done in the past with games that was available in the previous and new gen, was to strip content.

The most noticeable is the ones released for both PS3 and PS4, except most people would never buy a game for both so they don't notice.

Cant see them doing things any other way, or the lose the whole art advantage of making games for console.

and my opinion is that it isn't really worth the upgrade. Imo, it's also a forced upgrade,

It isn't really forced, more like necessary, it has to happen for console games to keep up with PC. The thing you have to keep in mind is that making next gen assets takes the same time to produce as current gen assets.

If a AAA studio gets a team they aim for the best because it costs the same as second best, if the consoles don't keep up a developer might just decide that it isn't worth aiming for.

Already the art team has to hold back so the game can work on consoles, also artist learn on computers so they learn the newest tricks, the larger this gap is the more problems it causes.

This isn't a upgrade, it's just a smoother transition to a new generation.

If there are some good exclusive games coming out, I'd consider getting a PS4 Pro/Xb1x, but most of what I've seen so far seems to be coming to PC and console.

Well, on PS4 you have Horizon Zero Dawn which, unless you have been so saturated with Far-Cry-likes in the last few years that you bitch and moan if yet another game has Radio-Towerish features in it (yes, that really was a complaint), is a brilliant open world game with a refreshing original story (at least not the usual fare we get every year), a rather good graphics for a console game... definitely enjoying my time playing the game even though the close combat system kinda sucks... well, you are not meant to do close combat anyway.

There are the Naughty Dog titles, which I am impartial towards besides The Last of Us. But The Last Us has a remaster on PS4, and a sequel seems to be in the works.

There aren't a slew of good JRPG titles out there anymore, leaving Final Fantasy out which for me is way to Artsy and Special since some decades (I don't like the designs and the gameplay to me moved away from a JRPG), but there are the "Tales..." games which are only slowly coming to Steam, and yet again with non-existent controller support. Tales of Berseria is the first Tales game which seems to have a story worth the playtime, and that is most probably 1-2 years away from a steam release anyway.

Then there is Gravity Rush 2 which must be quite a great game, if you dig its style of art and gameplay.

All in all rather poor for a Console already 4 years old. Still waiting for the old names in the business to stop dicking around with new concepts and game formats, stop betting on a dying platform (mobile), and start releasing sequels to once great console sellers again... still waiting on a new soul calibur, a return of a true Castlevania (Ritual of the night might scratch that itch), or a new Breath of fire game that isn't trying to be so innovative that breaks under its own weight (looking at you, BoF5 Dragon Quarter).

Still, there are now 2-4 good exclusives on the PS4 I know of that are worth playing. And I am sure many more that I haven't heard about yet.

Mostly I bought my PS4 Pro for getting guaranteed controller support for thirdperson titles and fighting games... which with Steam games, is always a gamble. Game might claim full controller support, but the shoddy port is not working right with a controller.

On a console the controllers HAVE to work 100%. Which is why I got Nier: Automata for PS4 even though I originally wanted to buy it for Steam. But "partial Controller Support" was too much of a gamble for me.

I don't understand the problem with 1080p. I've been pc gaming for 20 years with a resolution of at least 1024 * 768. For a period i ran at 1600x1200 (~2000-2005) and now i run at 2560*1080.

I have never been one to go for the cutting edge gpu's, usually settling on a good value mid-high £200-£250 mark. I've never struggled with frame rate. What is it about consoles that has led to this 60HZ/1080P selling point? Why is this so hard to achieve? It should be easier to target a specific framerate for a console because you know the hardware.

I think this move to different version of the same platform will result in 1 of these scenarios for any give game.

1) The game will be optimised for the lowest common denominator and then they will just see how far they can crank the resolution on the beefier version.

2) The game will be optimised for the beefier versions then resolution and possibly quality settings will be lowered on the lowest common denominator until 60HZ is achieved.

Both are bad for different reasons. I cant see a developer micro optimizing for both - the QA is too much. Maybe someone could back me up: due to the complexity of algorithms some algorithms will scale upto 4k (LOD draw distances will also change) no problem while others will not and thus different techniques may have to be developed for the low and high versions.

Also, I hate exclusives - why should i have to shell out £400 to play games when i already own a computer that can do it. There were technical reason in the past to make games exclusve (radically different hardware is 1) but now is it just a way to sucker people in. Please don't tell me exclusives help great games get made - sure it helps somewhat (debatable) - but it's not necessary.

All xbox games are available on windows so comparing PS4 sales to XBOX(x) is not fair - there are customers that are not buying xbox's (and to an extend PS4's) because they have windows pcs (a microsoft product obvs) so I really think a fair comparison is (Windows + Xbox) VS PS4. I think exclusives are the only thing consoles have got going for them now. MS want to sell a great piece of kit, Sony want to sell the right to play certain games - I'm with MS even if it is a losing commercial position.

Well, the problem with 1080p is simple... its still hard to build a 400$ PC that can consistently play games at 1080p/60Hz... or it was 4 years ago when the original PS4 and XBox one came out. By now this is possible... but because both Sony and MS think that they cannot justify a new enhancend PS4 and XBOX just for finally delivering on what they already promised 4 years ago (1080p gaming), they had to throw around 4k and VR which these consoles are just barely able to support.

But I cannot really fault them. You try to sell a gaming PC with controller and OS for 400$ that can play 1080p/60Hz consistently with modern games, and still make a profit, and then come back to tell us this is not a big undertaking from a technical and business perspective.

Sure, you can achieve 1080P/60Hz easely if you lower the fidelity of the graphics. But that usually is not what customers want. If CoD on the PS4 looks considerably worse than CoD on medium settings on the PC... well, people would bitch and moan just as much as they do with 30Hz framerates and upscaling.

If all the console exclusives coming out on PS4 and XBox look like Nintendos firstparty titles released for their weedy consoles... what exactly would the selling point then be for PS or XBox? After all, Nintendo has perfected the "it does not need cutting edge graphics" business model, hard to compete with them on their hometurf.

Big Console titles still need to look great, on not-so-great hardware. Which is why 1080p/60Hz still is a problem on the PS4 and XBox One, save the new supercharged models.

As to exclusives: Do I like them? Hell no. Would I have bought a console without the exclusives as an added incentive? In my case yes because of the lacking controller support for many games on PC. For some gamers that would be a clear no.

So while I hate it when MS or Sony buy up a game and make it exclusive, I have no troubles with some devs not releasing on PC when the game really should be played with a controller and the devs don't want to put up with supporting PC Hardware. And I also have no troubles with the firstparty exclusives... hey, many of these games wouldn't be there if they weren't needed as system sellers. Without an XBox to promote, there might be no Halo. So I don't think hating on firstparty titles for being exclusive is the right thing to do.

As to what the halfstep generations will do to the console market: I am also not sure its an entirely good thing.

But: as a consumer I like it. I hated how the original PS4 was just a tad too weak for true 1080p gaming. I hated how both Sony and MS were in progress of gimmicking up their consoles and promoting non-gaming features when people clearly just wanted powerful gaming machines back then. Thank you, if I want motion control nonsense and hardware feature creep that only 1% of games will ever use, I will buy a nintendo console.

But these new consoles are finally the upgrade over the PS3/XBox 360 generation we have waited for so long. The upgrade from 720p to 1080p gaming. And neither Sony nor MS seem to be spouting any non-gaming nonsense after the consumer backlash 4 years ago. Kinect seems to be dead... good in my book. Hopefully VR nonsense will not detract Sony and MS too much...

As too if this is asking too much of devs... IDK. PC devs have been tackling a way worse problem for years and seem to be able to handle it (unless its Ubisoft or Warner Bros which seem to think that QA is too expensive and not really needed thus skip it entirely). Of course it means less optimization will be done for all the different build targets but then... how many games really optimize that much these days? I feel many just lock the framerate to 30Hz and be done with it.

Or, in case of some Japanese devs, just limit the graphical quality to PS3 level quality. Instant 1080p/60Hz even on the PS4 Old :)

Personally I think its a good thing... locking the hardware for 7 years was never a good idea to begin with. Sure, I was impressed with what devs got out of the PS3... still stopped buying new PS3 games after 4 years or so just because the quality was starting to look shite compared to my gaming PC. At least for the games that weren't shoddy ports.

If renewed hardware means that you can get more up to date graphics at least if you are ready to invest another 400$ every 3-4 years, that is groovy for me. This is an expensive hobby for many of us anyway, with many 1000$ spent on gaming PCs, gaming peripherals, and now DLC infested games, and at least having the option to upgrade your console for the people that can spend the money is great in my book. At least I am getting something in return for my money here, instead of parts of the expierience being held ransom behind a DLC Wall (looking at you, Street Fighter 5).

I do see the concerns... we have to wait and see if there are any merits to those though.