So I've been thinking about Scorpio's price and setting back at least $800.

Here's why. Phil Spencer has said that this thing is being made for the hardcore console gamer just like the Elite Controller was. Top of the line One S is what 350-400? It will have a UHBD drive, and we all know games will eventually be exclusive to it
and require such discs. I'm betting it will have no less than a 4TB HDD. Today, I came across the Alienware console at Walmart for 799.00. Now take the Alienware name off, and we're still looking at $5-600 and they aren't near the graphics horsepower of Scorpio.
They aren't making this to sell tens of millions because they have the One S, since they will both play the same games. The Elite controller was over twice the price of the normal one and I expect a similar pricing model for this. Putting this out at 4-500
isn't realistic thinking and they are going to lose money anyway at $600.

They'll lose more money per console than they did with the original Xbox of they sold it less than 600. Phil even said they aren't trying to release this to everyone.

People who will be turned away are the people who don't understand the nitty gritty of the spec differences between that and the Pro and what benefits it will have. They will see "4K" on both and buy the cheaper console. MS knows this and that's why they're
not marketing for the mainstream.

Phil, I hope you read this and give your thoughts.

:)

 

Does anyone still play this?

Just picked this back up myself for the bargain price of £3, was half expecting it to be a graveyard but every time I've fired it up there have been at least 8 per side in vanilla and about 4-5 in Vietnam.

Forgot quite how good this game is, much better suited to consoles than BF3 was/is.

 

Xbox Fitness Tai Chi add on not appearing

Is it a good programme? Been thinking about getting it, and the price is right.

 

Well since they've over-priced their Xbox 1 Elite controller, it's easy to say Microsoft will be charging around at least US$749 for Xbox 1, AT LEAST. A GPU with 6 TFlops compute power and 320GB/s bandwidth ain't cheap. Nor will the CPU/GPU/APU thingy. Then
again Microsoft has over US$200 Billion in assets, so selling Xbox Scorpio at a loss of say $10 or $20 is no biggy for them, cuz they can generate that revenue through XBL Gold subscriptions and other means. I agree guess the console will only cost US$499-US$599
is unrealistic. High end custom gaming PC's can easily cost US$2,000 or NZ$3,000. It WILL however (99.9999% chance) have less than 4TB storage. It would probably come with 1TB to start off, but it should have external hard drive support. Also SSD technology
is far better with size, boot, loading, and saving; than mechanical HDD drives which look like some 1970's record player (something my parents would have used, not my generation though). But no one knows the full specs for Xbox Scorpio yet. All we know is
a 320GB/s bandwidth and 6 TFlops compute power.

 

Isn't the really hardcore gamer going for a PC already anyway?

Would be strange if Scorpio serves to replace that.

So maybe call it intermediate segment, more than casual, gamer or something.

2012 when I dropped PS3 and looking at PC for gaming ended in going for 360 instead.

PC really makes you look at things like power supply to be able to run a high end graphics card, apart from rest of specs like cpu and memory - too messy and you really have to be tech person along with being gamer. So from a console you expect something
really thought through and cause less problems since devs run the same hardware as you do.

4K gaming is beyond my understanding - you cannot see a difference at all unless huge monitor above 60" or bigger at about 2m watching distance. You just suck energy out of a game. So 1080p with a lot of headroom for running visual effects as the best PC
hardware manage is my hope, and 60 fps fluently at any time.

About 4K - look at this article:

Notes by Dr. Optoglass: The Resolution of the Human Eye

So our eyes cannot really see a difference between 4K and 1080p unless big enough monitor, and still very minor in itself. The jump DVD->HD->FHD you can spot but not like night and day in my view. I have FHD monitor, and watched some bluray and don't bother
buying tv-series and films on anything but DVD anyway - the difference is not that large that it brings a better viewing experience. The modern produced series are made on digital media to start with and is stunning visuals even on DVD.

Smaller digital cinemas used 4K so far, 8K exist but not majority. 4K can already be spread on huge screens with first class experience.

So for all pixel hunters - it's just thinking more is better - not quite true. Useless waste of power in console.

But running 1080p 60fps and every existing visual effect present - that makes a difference.

Sony's Cerni recommend at least 60" to see a difference for home use.

But next question is if difference enough so it really matters and raise gaming experience.

What do you prefer:

a) like current gen that struggle to keep framerate, and it going up and down and reduction in visuals to actually keep up - and run Scorpio on these premises in 4K?

b) fluently keep framrate at 60 fps and all visuals present at all times at 1080p.

For those that think Scorpio will do b) at 4K - dream on.

 

It's not an uncommon tactic for console manufacturers to sell their units at a loss. The main idea is to recoup losses through game sales.

A bunch of online sources suggest that Project Scorpio will cost around $600, but we'll cross that bridge once Microsoft actually announces a price.

I expect the sales and the general aftermath to play out similarly to the PS4 Pro, unless if Microsoft has something up their sleeve that takes advantage of whatever the current competition completely lacked for their "half-step" submissions (PS4 Pro, Switch).

All I know is that there'd better be something good to play once Scorpio takes the spotlight.

 

I do think that Microsoft will take a big hit on the price if they want to shift Scorpio units if it is going to be capable of doing all they are saying. I know that bulk discounts on the chip sets will lower the price somewhat, but not by as much as people
think.

The Scorpio is going to live or die by its release price, especially if Microsoft remain true to the information they released saying it will only be playing the same games as the existing One but with better resolution and frame rates. Are people really going
to want to upgrade to play the same games with just a bit more shiny? If this was a PC discussion I'd be saying yes but this really goes against the general PC gamer mindset.

As to people not seeing the difference between 4k and 1080p, I would tend to disagree. Microsoft could introduce some supersampling (in short downscaling a higher resolution to fit a lower resolution screen), this is how I run many of the games on my PC and
gives an image with far better clarity and lets you turn off antialiasing (as the supersampling is achieving the same goal).

In regard to needing a bigger screen to see the difference (as size doesn't define the resolution), I'm not convinced of that. The 1440p screen on my S7 looks better than the 1080p one on my friends One Plus Three, and those screens are under six inches in
size.

What I'd like to see with the Scorpio is that the games start to get more graphics options. By all means keep the defaults that people are happy with now but allow people to turn off settings or lower resolution for a more stable frame rate. The great problem
with this of course is the Scorpio playing the same games as the One, a higher frame rate would give players an advantage in competitive shooters and so unbalance the playing field.

 

Not seeing a difference between 1080p and 4k is false unless you're blind. Totally disagree with that. I've seen the difference with my own eyes side by side on a 47 inch and the difference was staggering.

As for price I'm guessing €600. If it's too high and not many people buy it, would it be worth it for developers to take extra resources and making 1 look good for Scorpio and one for the One?

If it's more than €600 I might wait to buy it until I see what their plans are or how people are getting on with it. €600 or less and I'm diving in day 1.

 

What you say makes sense - that would be nice to have that headroom to do that - run 4K even if monitor is or set to 1080p.

It's just also makes sense to me - if 4K produce really high quality visuals in a cinema with at least 5-9m screens watching - that 1m screen hardly is noticable compared to 1080p.

We will see, maybe in june then what reality is with Scrorpio.

 

We clearly have a difference reference measure on quality - either blind or 20/20 vision - that's kind of black or white, nothing in between, no gray scale at all.

So guess your grade on quality is crap or staggering regarding visuals too - nothing in between.

Fore me difference between best looking DVD productions, and bluray - clearly noticable, but not staggering. But this is mostly crim series and films where you are more story driven, than visuals themselves. I might change my grading if getting the Planet
Earth series on Bluray, which I am thinking of, where visuals is everything.

But as LodgedBonsai mentioned, it could be that it all is downsized from 4K or even 8K to start with - and removing a lot of artifacts.

I started doing photo and video productions in the last year, and importance of good algorithms for downsizing is massive difference compared to just removing pixels.

In three months we will know about Scorpio unless MS give a pre notion before then.

 

LodgedBonsai, funny that you mention those 2 phones as I have the S7 and my colleague has the One Plus Three and there is a pretty big difference.

We have a 1080p 43" Samsung TV at home and it looks very good. I took my wife and kids to DiD Electrical and showed them the 47" 4K TV and their jaws dropped. We are currently shopping for one They had a 1080p TV next to it so you could see the difference.
Amazing. I was only about 3 feet from the screen.

 

Maybe I will re-evaluate.

But still, don't forget that every generation monitors are better than previous in general - in contrast, maybe hdr stuff etc etc. I've seen on laptops I've had what a major difference each generation is - smartphones too, ability to read from any angle,
read in daylight etc.

So a better monitor will certainly floor everything else - but what is due to 4K or something else like 1080p?

Just stuck with these numbers a bit, how eye cannot actually resolve pixels - 4K really good for cinema even. Article mention front row probably appreciate 8K.

But our brains are fantastic so they do things that numbers don't tell.

I watch a 47" LG 1920x1080p monitor at about 2m distance, 2.1 or so - when that breaks and fails on me, a 4K is most probable choice to replace, but still not 100% sure having a couple of DVD players upscaling to FHD only. Hopefully this is some years ahead
still.

Upscaled 1080p to 4K looks really good as well, as I read on various forums - Sony's too. That is what is available for gaming today, and my BD player can too.

So bottom line with native 4K - how big a difference it does will be interesting to hear in reviews to come - just an energy thief or worth the trouble.

But saw that Planet Earth series had an edition with both bluray and UHD discs in a bundle. Maybe that tells a story running those on a UHD player + monitor.

Either way I hope MS floor all current consoles with Scorpio.

 

I'd probably get the Scorpio regardless of price. SpencerBox has to be better than MattrickBox. I know they fixed as much as they could, but it still has that Mattrick stench all over it. Besides, I'm curious to see what a console made under Mr. Spencer
will be like. I have a feeling he's the kind of guy who will always make us proud in the end.