@Thanatos2k: By the way on a side note, the critics here can’t claim that the X1X is “too expensive” out of one side of their mouths while simultaneously suggesting that everyone just “buy a PC” out of the other side.
To more directly respond to your earlier point though, I have a gaming PC as well (a high-end Falcon Northwest Mach V), but I spend most of my time on the Xbox One (and now the Xbox One X). My Falcon gets used primarily for games that just don’t work well logistically on a console, such as flight sims and real-time strategy games. Everything else, though, is infinitely better on console, especially now with the advent of the One X. The reason is simple: My PC lives on a desk attached to a relatively small monitor, while my One X is driving my brand-new 4K HDR 65” Sony X930E and pumping sound through my extremely capable surround sound system. And, I get to play in a comfy recliner instead of an office chair.
I know, the inevitable response will be, “You can connect your PC to your TV and surround system and use an Xbox controller with it”, but let’s get real: How many people do you really believe will do that when to do so would mean seriously compromising the PC’s non-gaming uses (are you really going to put a keyboard and mouse in your lap?), or alternatively would constantly move their PC between the living room and the desk? My estimation is that the number of people who actually do either is pretty close to zero.
So if you want to game with admittedly even better visuals (though very marginally compared to X1X), spend much more for the privilege, and do so on a small monitor sitting in an office chair, then go right ahead. But for 99% of real folks out there the far better option is a console, and for me at least the X1X is a no-brainer as the best console choice (though that question admittedly depends upon what each individual values most - in my case Xbox has the games I want to play, and X1X takes them to a whole other level).
@timmyp1982: Not to flame (I'm a PC gamer as well as console), but I find it a little funny when the "PC Master Race" folks look down their noses at console-only gamers and call them "peasants" and berate them for "not being able to afford PCs", but then they themselves whine about how expensive console games are. Can't have it both ways.
As for the living room comment: Sure, you can drag your PC out of its proper location, attach it to the TV and AVR, attach a wireless controller, and after all of the unnecessary effort, actually play a game. But why bother when a relatively inexpensive console will provide 90% of the experience with 10% of the hassle? Also, what happens when you want to play something that demands a keyboard and mouse, and maybe even a head tracker like TrackIR? Are you seriously going to say that you balance everything on your lap in the living room? Of course not...You'd have to drag all the crap back into the office/den/wherever and set it up in there again.
I don't buy the "PCs are even better than consoles in the living room" argument. I have both and know better from experience.
@vxxjordanxxv: Yes, more of everything....including cost. I have both a gaming PC (Falcon Northwest Mach V) and an Xbox One, and I spend way more time gaming on the Xbox. Aside from non-gaming uses, I primarily use the PC for RTS-style games and various flight simulators, all of which work better on PC because of the need for keyboard and mouse, TrackIR for head tracking, etc. But other than those specific use cases, I far prefer sitting in a comfortable recliner rather than a desk chair, playing the Xbox on the big screen with the sound pumped through the home theater system. I know I could do the same with the PC, but then you make the other uses that require mouse/keyboard pretty much impossible.
@liza104_basic: Regarding the LinkedIn purchase, keep in mind that the $26 billion Microsoft paid to acquire it is is over 70% of the value of Sony's entire company! All of Sony (not just the PlayStation division) is worth about $36 billion. Microsoft, by comparison, is worth over $400 billion. Sony also continues to struggle financially, while Microsoft is healthy.
Financially, Sony is a fly and Project Scorpio just might be the fly swatter.
@dirtyvu: And it's going to be even worse if they actually try to drive that VR headset with the existing PS4, as they apparently plan to do. Sony got lucky with the PS4 because their competition shot itself in the foot. That won't be happening again, and by announcing Project Scorpio Microsoft has essentially slammed the door on the PS4 party and reset the game board.
@Lacerz: Sony doesn't have the resources to compete. Microsoft is worth over 11 times what Sony is as a company. Microsoft isn't struggling financially. Sony is.
The only reason the PS4 was more powerful, and thus more successful, than the Xbox One is because Microsoft misjudged the market and designed compromises into the hardware. They've now acknowledged their mistakes and under Phil Spencer's guidance, have charted the right course. Project Scorpio proves that they now will accept no compromises on hardware design. Should they decide to continue rapidly evolving their console technology, Sony will be left in the dust (already has happened with Neo) as Sony just can't afford to spend the money needed to maintain that pace of innovation.
It seems pretty clear to me how this new paradigm will work: Project Scorpio gets Xbox to the point where it can credibly support 4K, which is rapidly being adopted and therefore must be supported. Will it support it perfectly and for all games? Probably not, but it isn't intended to. We're just not there yet technologically.
However, several years from now, when reasonably-priced tech can easily drive even very complex games at 4K, Microsoft simply moves the bar upward, making Scorpio the new "entry level" console in the Xbox lineup, and introduces more powerful hardware at the upper end. Makes sense to me, and I far prefer that model to the alternative of being stuck with a rapidly aging box for five to eight years.
Logan303's comments