Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Unveils The Smallest Xbox Ever -- The Xbox One X (theverge.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the eight-letters,-three-of-them-'X' dept.

An anonymous reader quotes The Verge: After months of speculation, Microsoft is unveiling its "Project Scorpio" games console today, and it's officially named Xbox One X. Microsoft's Xbox One X naming comes just days after the company trademarked a mysterious S logo, and started dropping Scorpio hints in its E3 teaser videos. Microsoft is planning to launch the Xbox One X on November 7th worldwide. All existing Xbox One accessories will work on the new Xbox One X, alongside all existing Xbox 360 backwards compatible titles and Xbox One games. Microsoft is even planning to use "super sampling" on the One X to make new games look better even on 1080p TVs. [YouTube] The new console will ship with 6 teraflops of graphical power, more than its main competitor, the PS4 Pro, with 4.2 teraflops. Microsoft is using a custom GPU engine on Scorpio that runs at 1172MHz, a big increase over the Xbox One's 853MHz and even Sony's 911MHz found on the PS4 Pro.
Microsoft says the new Xbox One X is the "smallest Xbox ever."

77 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Nickname: "Xbonxe" by ToTheStars · · Score: 2

    Pronounced "eks-bonks".

    1. Re:Nickname: "Xbonxe" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      They're calling it XOX - and it comes with a free network-playable game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Nickname: "Xbonxe" by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I was reminded of the 1-X Robot from Futurama.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Nickname: "Xbonxe" by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      Xbox One earned the misnomer XBone, so would this one be XBOX?

  2. You buried the lead, don't care about a small box by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real story here is the power, not the size of the box. Unless it's a portable console or a girlfriend, no one cares how small its box is.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  3. Ecks-bonks by maugle · · Score: 1

    I feel like Microsoft and Nintendo are engaging in a contest to see who can come up with the silliest and least informative names for their consoles, and I look forward to the upcoming "XBox One-not-1 X 360" and "Newer New 2DS U".

    1. Re:Ecks-bonks by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Apple has them beat with names like "The New iPad".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Ecks-bonks by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      I predict a lot of pissed off children come Christmas because they got an Xbox One S instead of X, just off of the name to.

    3. Re:Ecks-bonks by meerling · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is on a roll in that category. After all, they named the THIRD iteration of their platform "One".
      If anyone has been in a cave for the last decade or so, it was Xbox, Xbox 360, and then Xbox One. So the fourth will apparently be Xbox One X.
      Somebody ought to find out who's been naming these things and take them to a doctor because they obviously have brain damage.

  4. The littlest giant by nowsharing · · Score: 1

    Is it really an accomplishment to make the "smallest" installment of a line of consoles that often give vintage VCRs size envy?

  5. Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When it comes to GPUs, Hertz are irrelevant. Graphics are calculated in parallel using lots of computational pipelines. It's the number of pipelines * GPU speed that matters. You could have twice the speed per pipeline and only half the pipelines and then advertise it as twice as fast while maintaining the same computational throughput.

    Of course, this doesn't even get into the matter of there being multiple types of processing pipelines (integer and single/double/quad precision) and differing ratios of each of them in the GPU.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by leathered · · Score: 1

      You've contradicted yourself by saying Hz is irrelevant then saying pipelines * speed matters. So what are you measuring the speed in, miles per hour?

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    2. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      So what are you measuring the speed in, miles per hour?

      No, that ridiculous! It's furlongs per minute. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what are you measuring the speed in, miles per hour?

      No, the OP is correct, Hz is largely irrelevant. To answer your question, you measure speed in dhrystones, whetstones, flops, fill rate, FPS, and whatever units are used by popular apps like Passmark. Measuring CPU or GPU speed in Hz is like measuring the speed of a car speed in RPM.

    4. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      How about pixels per hour instead of frames per second? It results in much bigger numbers. :-)

    5. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Luthair · · Score: 1

      What do you expect from a crappy tech blog? Real technology coverage? What is this, 2004?

    6. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's no more or less relevant than number of pipes. Both represent different measurements of different design aspects.

    7. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NO, it is not largely irrelevant at all. It simply is insufficient information by itself. It is actually a core part of the performance calculation.

    8. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by meerling · · Score: 1

      I kind of like Chains per Moment.
      (Yes, those are both specific measurements, google them, but probably not together.)

    9. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If it's the same GPU with a higher clockspeed then of course pointing out that clockspeed is relevant in terms of performance.

    10. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Did they say it's the same GPU? I didn't see that written anywhere.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It's very much likely given the need to maintain compatibility.

    12. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. The Xbox GPUs are abstracted to Direct X interfaces, so all you need to do is implement Direct X. AMD and Nvidia GPUs are totally different, how do you think they can run the same games? -_-

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    13. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Console games are optimized for specific hardware, that is the advantage of having a concrete target knowing things like memory size, clocks and bandwidth, number of compute units, system memory size, cpu speed, number of cores, speed of cores, cache size, etc... If what you do is just increase the clocks then you can maintain perfect backwards compatibility with software optimized for that GPU while increasing performance. If you start changing things like number of cores then you need a different approach to optimizing software for that target.

      This is pretty well established in the games industry for a very long time.

    14. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If it's faster overall, it wouldn't be a problem. If all else fails, put out patches for the AAA games that actually push the GPU that hard. It could be a completely alien architecture and you would be unlikely to notice.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    15. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      If it's faster overall, it wouldn't be a problem.

      By "faster" what is your measurement?

      It could be a completely alien architecture and you would be unlikely to notice.

      Well no, this is the difference between developing for the console vs developing for the PC. Sure you can code purely to the DirectX abstraction and not care about the underlying architecture but the advantage of developing for a console is that you know what the underlying architecture is and can optimize for it.

      Consider say the unified memory architecture that the APUs in the latest consoles provide, you don't really think developers just use DirectX and don't care about leveraging the advantage of unified memory over separate memory groups connected by a system bus do you? They could do that and on the PC it's generally cost effective to do so given the variety of systems you target and just address that inefficiency with "get a better/more CPU, GPU, memory, etc" because PCs have the flexibility to offer that option. But on consoles you make the most of what you have and leverage the fact that it is a known quantity.

    16. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      By "faster" what is your measurement?

      Total computational throughput.

      Well no, this is the difference between developing for the console vs developing for the PC. Sure you can code purely to the DirectX abstraction and not care about the underlying architecture but the advantage of developing for a console is that you know what the underlying architecture is and can optimize for it.

      Those days are long gone. They are just little computers now and that's how software is developed for them.

      you don't really think developers just use DirectX and don't care about leveraging the advantage of unified memory over separate memory groups connected by a system bus do you?

      You don't really think Microsoft forgot about that when they implemented the software their graphics subsystem do you?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    17. Re:Hertz are irrelevant. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Total computational throughput.

      I would have thought this lesson has been learned enough times for people to not make that mistake anymore but increasing raw computational throughput does not necessarily increase performance (see single vs multicore CPUs for an example) but in the graphics world because we know how many compute units we have and we know how powerful each one is we can optimize our data structure layout for that and optimize for cache coherency. If what you do is then bump the clockspeeds then you just get more performance without affecting the optimization, if you start adding more cores you break the optimizations of the data structure layout and end up with stacks of cache misses which kills performance.

      Well no, this is the difference between developing for the console vs developing for the PC. Sure you can code purely to the DirectX abstraction and not care about the underlying architecture but the advantage of developing for a console is that you know what the underlying architecture is and can optimize for it.

      Those days are long gone. They are just little computers now and that's how software is developed for them.

      But it just isn't and I'm not sure why you think it is. There is a vast difference between developing for a platform with millions of different possible configurations vs a platform that has 1 or 2 different configurations. Even if they are ultimately x86 processors and DirectX/OpenGL-compatible GPUs, you really think every opportunity for targeted optimization thanks to a concrete target is just ignored or abstracted away? If so then you could not be more wrong.

      you don't really think developers just use DirectX and don't care about leveraging the advantage of unified memory over separate memory groups connected by a system bus do you?

      You don't really think Microsoft forgot about that when they implemented the software their graphics subsystem do you?

      No, I know they didn't forget about that because you can query that and then optimize your software accordingly but it most certainly does not abstract that away from you no matter how much you might imagine that it does.

  6. Invisa by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    The Xbox Invisa Nano Mini - Holds 8 Billion games!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  7. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it's a portable console or a girlfriend, no one cares how small its box is.

    Logically, aesthetics are irrelevant but truth is stranger than fiction because Nintendo made many millions by simply offering the same Gameboy console in different colors.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  8. Australian Prices by godel_56 · · Score: 1

    The price of AUD (presumably) $649 quoted for Australia is much cheaper than the $500 American price, after currency conversion and tax are taken into account. I wonder what they'll leave out for the Aussie market?

    .

    1. Re:Australian Prices by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      This time around you guys got lucky. The Xbox One X is manufactured in Australia and the price increase for the USA is because they need to add another GPU to put the image right side up.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Australian Prices by gravewax · · Score: 1

      much cheaper? it is about $10 cheaper. I would say it is pretty much a equal pricing.

    3. Re:Australian Prices by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      We have marsupials (opossums) in the back yard here (Indiana) all the time.

    4. Re:Australian Prices by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Can't you just plug the HDMI cable in upside down?

  9. Of course it's smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The size of the Xbox 1/ x approaches zero as the version number of X increases.

    capcha: branded. This joke is bran ded.

  10. you know by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I predict that within 10 years Xboxes will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the 5 richest kings of Europe will own them.

    1. Re:you know by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Why? Is it going to sink without trace? Europe is a landmass (and then some) not a political construct. Fuckwit .

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    2. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Europe is [...] not a political construct.

      But it is though. By all rights, Europe and Asia are the same continent. The land is called "Europe" for social and cultural reasons.

    3. Re:you know by meerling · · Score: 1

      The continent is officially named Eurasia.
      The mistaken idea of Europe being a continent was apparently created by some cartographers centuries ago when they incorrectly thought that the Ural Mountains were an isthmus for some bizarre reason.
      Europe, India, and Asia are all parts of the same continent. I've heard India referred to as a "Sub-Continent", so I'm guessing you could use that same terminology for the other parts of Eurasia as well.
      The worldwide recognition of Eurasia was done way back in 1984, so if your teachers are still getting that wrong, kindly invite them to move up to the late 20th century, or if they can possibly make it, to the early 21st with the rest of us.

  11. Same same same by darkain · · Score: 1

    So watching the presentation, this is pretty much my understanding of the XBox One X: it uses the same controllers, runs the same software, has the same interface, connects to the same network, but in 4K and for $499. So the premium price tag is literally JUST for 4k then over their existing offerings? What else has changed?

    1. Re:Same same same by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      It has one more X, i.e. X+1 which is 11, so it goes to 11.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    2. Re:Same same same by realmolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think of this as the next-generation Xbox, because that is what it is.

      We're entering a new era for the consoles, in which they are *truly* nothing more than x64 PCs. Every generation will just have a faster x64 CPU, and a faster 3D chip from AMD/Nvidia.

      The advantage of this is that backwards-compatibility is assured for a LONG time. Plus, Microsoft and Sony are both pushing developers to make their games work on both NEW and OLD hardware, meaning that a game designed for the Xbox One X will work on the plain-old Xbox One, with reduced graphical quality.

      Like I said, they're going to be just like PCs, but cheaper and more locked-down.

      Basically, MS and Sony realized that developing all-new hardware has been a waste of time and money for them, and by opening up the market with backwards-and-forwards compatibility, they can keep selling ALL games indefinitely, which means they get their license fees for all those old games, too.

      Honestly, I think this is all an attempt by Sony and MS to cash-in on the console market before it completely disappears in the next decade or so. PCs and phones are getting cheaper and better all the time, and it's getting harder-and-harder to justify owning a console for anyone that isn't REALLY into video games.

    3. Re:Same same same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's like upgrading the gpu on your pc except you gotta buy the whole damned machine all over again.

    4. Re:Same same same by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft is also now starting to sell their XBox titles in the Windows 10 App Store to run on Windows 10 desktops. For about the same price as the Xbox versions. It lets them have something non-pathetic in the Windows 10 App Store and as you said, they are merging the XBox into being the same as a Windows 10 box.

    5. Re:Same same same by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      I use Linux, so when it comes to gaming, I have a limited pool of games (but it is getting better.) So I use consoles because I don't want, or need a Windows computer. I'm not knocking anyone who wants to use Windows as their main OS... I just don't. I have issues with Microsoft's direction, and that's precisely why I didn't buy an XBox One this generation. (That and I wasn't sure if they had gotten ANY better at hardware QA, thankfully they did.)

      That's not to say the XBox One is inferior or silly. It's just where I'm coming from in these days of my older and slower butt not being able to hang with the younger gamers. :) I'll still buy my Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, but I'll do it on console if at all possible. Even if my chosen console (PS4) doesn't allow mods in Fallout 4. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    6. Re:Same same same by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      The OS on the console basically just Windows 10 S rebranded with a different shell and running one or more subsystems in Hyper-V?

    7. Re:Same same same by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Not quite. "One Eks" is IX, or 9. That's still 351 less than the XBox 360, but 8 more than the XBox One. We'll just say the original is "XBox zero".

      For those folks that have been holding out on a more moderate upgrade from their original XBox some 15 years ago, now's the time to upgrade!

    8. Re:Same same same by xession · · Score: 1

      It is interesting to think about the parallel histories of playing games on consoles and personal computers. There have been multiple times where console games have been able to outpace desktop graphics on a dollar for dollar comparison, and they just made sense to purchase if you wanted to best visual experience. However at this point, GPU and CPU cycles are so cheap these days for desktop machines, especially if you include the used market, that there almost isn't even room for games consoles to exist anymore. Its only going to be companies that will take huge risks in trying to be innovative like Nintendo, that will survive in the coming game market. I think I scoffed at the Switch when I first saw what Nintendo was bringing to market. I was sure that this wouldn't be their WiiU replacement but honestly, they see the tides ahead and are making proper adjustments to sty relevant.

      The only question that will remain in the post-console market is, where are they going to port games from? /s

    9. Re:Same same same by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I don't see "gotta buy the whole damned machine all over again" as a problem. I'm sure you're smart enough to see why.

      Uh, unless you can integrate your old Xbox physically in an Xbox One S, it IS a new machine. At the time of purchase you had 2 Xbox Ones. When you buy a new video card, you still have your existing PC but with a new component.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Same same same by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I use Linux, so when it comes to gaming, I use consoles because I don't want, or need a Windows computer.

      Ditto, Fedora 25 here.

      I'm not knocking anyone who wants to use Windows as their main OS...

      I won't knock the people, but I will the OS. Windows isn't a very good OS. And While people "can" game on windows...I don't think they "should"....with exceptions for those games that are Windows PC only. I mean if you want to play WoW with good performance...well you're going to have to run Windows.

      It's just where I'm coming from in these days of my older and slower butt not being able to hang with the younger gamers. :)

      Indeed.

      I'll still buy my Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, but I'll do it on console if at all possible. Even if my chosen console (PS4) doesn't

      I also have Fallout 4 on the PS4, and I know that the game most certainly DOES support mods. The limitation being that F4 mods on the PS4 don't support external assets. But here's the PS4 mods, enjoy:

      https://bethesda.net/en/mods/f...

  12. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are definitely not living in Hong Kong...

  13. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually a lot of people care, especially if they travel a lot or live where space is at a premium. Leave it to uncultured, America-centric imbeciles like you to make sweeping statements for everyone in the world.

  14. I'll wait for the Xbox One XXX by BLToday · · Score: 2

    The Xbox One XXX will finally make VR mainstream

  15. Re:This is... by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Actually, if they could figure out a way to run Steam & Steam games, they'd be off to the races. Or if Steam comes up w/ a box of its own

  16. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't waste money on another console if it isn't portable.

    Since we bought the Switch, our house barely wastes time on Xbox One. We just pack it up and go sit somewhere else. It has basically changed our entire game play dynamic.

    Switch looks as though it will eventually get a good game lineup too. We may miss the Xbox lineup, but Switch is just a better console all around. Its performance won't win any awards as it's not much faster than an Apple TV, but Nintendo has apparently invested very heavily in building the infrastructure we should expect to make a game console happen.

    So, if it's not portable, we're not interested.

  17. Confusing name over predecessor = bad sales? by barc0001 · · Score: 1

    A lot of pundits said the Wii U crashed and burned compared to the Wii because many parents who do the console buying didn't even realize it was a different console due to the confusing name. Let's see if the same happens with the Xbox One X.

  18. Uuuh supersampling... by raynet · · Score: 2

    They should first hit 60fps and 1080p without upscaling and perhaps then talk about supersampling stuff.

    --
    - Raynet --> .
    1. Re:Uuuh supersampling... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I still can't for the life of me understand who at MS thought that the minimum resolution at less than 1080p was acceptable for their next gen console. It would have been acceptable back then that 4K resolution or 1080p at 60fps was too high given the lack of content, bandwidth, video cards, etc. Geez even Apple who never has the fastest specs on certain features went 1080p with their AppleTV 5 years ago.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Uuuh supersampling... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      probably someone that actually understands resolution better than you.

      I understand that Sony releasing their console to play games at 1080p gave them a leg up on MS.

      1080p and 60fps is great, but sacrificing one or the other in certain scenarios is fine.

      That wasn't the point. MS didn't release their next gen console to do 1080p as the minimum. The fact that it didn't do 60fps all the time was just another negative. Some titles don't even do 900p.

      both Sony and MS do this regularly and for the most part a user won't even notice if it is done right.

      No Sony does not. 1080p is the pretty much the standard resolution for PS4.Only 1 title for Sony is not at 1080p and Star Wars:Battlefront is still in beta. Sometimes the framerate is 60fps. Sometimes it is 30fps. The Xbox One resolution can be as low as 720p and as high as 1080p with the framerate varying between 30fps and 60fpgs.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Uuuh supersampling... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      At launch how many Xbox One titles were at 1080p vs how many PS4. How about today on the same consoles? Did you click the link because I seem to have a link to actual research while you have just words with nothing to back it up.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  19. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    You think that living in tiny hovel because your country is overpopulated makes you more cultured? I think you're confusing the English words "cultured" and "miserable."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  20. Re: pc is the master by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

    It's "you're" you thick git

  21. Re:XBox future uncertain? by eWarz · · Score: 1

    Xbox One X is Scorpio (Check your sources). Also, the One and the One S are exactly the same...The One S is simply smaller. All games made for the One X will work on the one

  22. Packaging. by TheRhinoplast · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the packaging it comes in is technically an Xbox One X box.

    1. Re:Packaging. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      You win the internets today.

  23. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    I mocked the Switches portability and the multiplayer functionality in the adverts.
    Now I watch people actually use the console like in the ads. Plus whipping out the switch and having a Mario Kart battle on a plane is an awesome way to kill a short haul flight. I totally misjudged.

  24. Re:I don't think small impresses in this space by lokedhs · · Score: 1
    Even more important is the availability of good games. I think I'd be willing to overlook shoddy construction if the games were amazing.

    The Xbox hasn't really delivered in this area either.

  25. Re:This is... by meerling · · Score: 1

    Steam did, it's called the Steam Machine.
    Here's a link that has more info and the peripherals and the Steam Machines themselves.
    http://store.steampowered.com/hardware/

  26. Re:I don't think small impresses in this space by meerling · · Score: 1

    I agree. It's the selection of desirable games that determines the medium to long term market potential of any console.

  27. Looks familiar by MonteCarloMethod · · Score: 1

    Play Station 2, something something full circle, something something...

  28. Re:You buried the lead, don't care about a small b by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

    I know Microsoft could make a mint with a desktop PC/XBox combo. There are places not in the US, where having one function for an appliance would be very useful. I'd probably say split the PC and console, so all the super-duper, locked down stuff stays on its side of the fence, while the PC side would get a decent i7, 32-64 gigs of RAM, a decently sized M.2, NVMe SSD, etc. Integrating the two sides can be done in many ways.

  29. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    The One-X? So 1X. So basically IX. Let's call it the Xbox 9.

  30. But no games by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    All that fuss over new hardware but not a single unveiling of a new game IP out of any Microsoft studios.

    That and the lack of comparison between Xbox One and Xbox One X at their presentation leads me to believe stuff will look just as good if you don't have a 4k TV, and by 2018 only 1/8 US households will even have 4k.

    Spending $500 this close to the PS5 when I find I wouldn't benefit much from PS4 Pro seems like a bad decision.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:But no games by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Spending $500 this close to the PS5 when I find I wouldn't benefit much from PS4 Pro seems like a bad decision.

      When is the PS5 being released?

  31. Re:This is... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    SteamOS and the Steamboxes are a failure because Valve couldn't figure out who they're for.

    Console gamers weren't going to dump their PS4's for Steamboxes. For example, if you want to stream your game on a PS4 you use the share button, choose your streaming service, maybe describe your stream, and you're good to go.

    On SteamOS you have to fiddle with OBS or command line ffmpeg scripts because Steams built in Steam Broadcast DON'T work on Linux/SteamOS.

    Gabe Newell made some grandiose statements about how Steam machines were going to be as easy to use as consoles, well he didn't follow through on that, and Sony and Microsoft started making inroads with indie developers.

    And the hardcore masterrace-gaben-is-king types weren't going to dump their desktops, their KB/mouse, and their Windows only games, to play games with a controller.....on Linux.

    Most of the people who want to play games on big screens with controllers already have consoles.

  32. Re:This is... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    Or if Steam comes up w/ a box of its own

    They did! Didn't you see all the stories on Slashdot over the past few years?

    Goes to show how much a failure of marketing the SteamOS boxes were.