Most companies one so much more optimization. At best they'll just let Scorpio users download the 4K assets, and run the same xb1 code.

It's still the same architecture and api, just faster.

I'd be very surprised honestly if any aaa games were 4k/60fps. I understand the optimization potential of a closed boxed super system but really when people are spending thousands and still struggling achieve that 4k60fps standard it's hard to believe a console aimed at plug and play gamers will be affordable and capable.

1080p/60 games like forza, halo, gears ect all done on a system with 1.3 - 1.4tf gpu, jaguar cpu and 68gbps 8gb ddr3 + esram.

You think they wont be able to run those same games 4k/60 with a 6tf+ gpu, amd zen cpu and 320gbps 12gb ram?

Albert penello has already confirmed it and its not hard to believe really considering the spec jump.

@jukins,
If devs like Turn 10 can do 1080 60 with 1.6 tflps, I am pretty sure they can do 4k 60 with 6tflps.

It's pretty funny. Go read benchmarks of an overclocked i7 coupled with a GTX 1070 or 1080, and see how hard it is to get 4k/60 on ultra or near ultra settings.

Now realize Scorpio won't be nearly as powerful, like half as powerful, and graphics in the meantime will be getting more extensive.

If you notice many games were 720, 900p on the consoles. Some even 30fps at those resolutions. Look at Quantum Break. Those sorts of effects and more are coming to mainstream games in the years ahead.

Now what would Quantum Break be running at on Scorpio? 4k/60? 4k/30? Nope. Try 1080/60, with dips.

Sure Scorpio could run 4k/60 for games that came out in 2012.

The best way to say it is this. Scorpio will run 4k/60 less well than XB1 plays 1080/60. It's that simple.

XB1 is much closer to being a 1080/60 machine than Scorpio is to being a 4k/60 machine.

Both machines can do it, hell even Neo will be able to do it, but only if you are asking it to run medium settings on a game developed in 2012.

Since that isn't going to happen, it's going to be very rare, and games will have to be optimized to include a level of quality lower than low in order to achieve it.

People just don't understand. To truly do 4k/60 in 2017-2020 timeframe, you are going to need 15-20 Nvidia TFLops with a powerful i7 processor that is overclocked to 4.3-4.8 ghz. That's just reality, and could be on the conservative side. You really might need MORE.

So if people are thinking 6 TFlops (which is really like 5 Nvidia TFlops) coupled with a underclocked mobile CPU is really going to power 2017-2020 quality games at 4k/60 are taking some crazy drugs.

It's simple Phil Spencer said it is equivalent to a GTX 980. Well GTX980 doesn't run 4k that well, let alone 4k/60. Let alone on a mobile CPU that is underclocked. Let alone on more advanced graphically games from 2017-2020.

The few times they hit 4k/60, you can bet your butt that they made extreme sacrifices to get there. None of the advanced graphics. Low or below low settings. It also won't be a stable 60.

@itBourne

where have you been since E3? "6TF computing power", "True 4K gaming", "it's a monster" etc. have you been missing them all?

at first, it was 4K as standards, now not all games will be 4K. since their reveal, it's like they have learned nothing when it comes to mixed messages to the public.

Prepare to be surprised

I personally dont care for 60fps makes the game action look like its in fast forward to me Im happy with 30fps and 1080p. Ill wait to these "premium" models just like all this VR nonsense. If sales are good and they have a must have game Ill make the jump but having bought a 500$ collectors edition Ps4 Im in no hurry to buy a Neo. Hell I need a 4k tv first.

Because 30 FPS is not fun. 720p looks janky as hell.

Some people try to separate the two... graphics and the fun quality of a game. I've always found that you need both working together at a certain level. The medium and how it is presented can completely get in the way.

We used to game at 360p and 15 FPS. We moved past that thank god.

Even 240p, 10-20 FPS you'd find on a lot of older games like on the NES at times. (hell even lower resolution on things like Atari)

You have to think of your tv and power level of a machine being a dirty window in the quest of looking at what's outside. The more dirty it is, the less you can see out of it. Basically, it gets in the way. Can you still enjoy the scenery with a dirty window? Sure. But it won't pop at you or give you the full experience until you clean that window.

So if you have a display and the power to run a game at higher resolutions and framerates, you aren't playing the game through a dirty window. You can see more clearly. It's that simple. The display and function of the game stop being hindrances to the experience.

Therefore, the game itself isn't the only judgment that determines fun. Just like you can't have fun if you have a little brother or kid nagging at you.... you can't have fun if the framerate is causing you to not be able to efficiently track your enemy, or the resolution makes it so it's hard to traverse the game world. (especially if it's coupled with a bad framerate). Especially if you're used to higher framerates and resolutions.

The game isn't the only thing that impacts fun, the medium of how it is presented is a very important consideration. That's why if you can ever increase the resolution and framerate of a good game, it becomes an even more enjoyable experience.

30 FPS is most definitely a hindrance. Is it more devastating on some games than others, sure. But it is noticeable in EVERY case if you know the difference. Even 60 FPS isn't that good. It's the MINIMUM for many people for a reason. Because if you've ever played games around 120 FPS, you know even 60 isn't that good. 30 by comparison seems like a slideshow. Seriously.

Higher framerate means you can interact with that game world more smoothly. You can read and react to the 'fight' or whatever is going on much quicker and smoother. You can better plot your trajectory and gun path and read your enemies better. It's not even a question. It's reality. Hell, for whatever reason, I was playing Overwatch on PC and I play it at 120FPS. Smooth as hell. For whatever reason it was playing it at 38-50 FPS. Damn near unplayable.

think most will stay at 1080/60. Indies should hit 4k easier since they try to do less.

What fidelity level, what resolution, and what framerate is something that is determined by the power of the machine and the way the developer wants to make the game.

With Scorpio they could do any of the following, if Microsoft allowed it.
4k at ultra low settings and anywhere between 20-60 FPS.
1080 at very high or ultra settings and 60 FPS.
1080 at medium-high settings and 120 FPS.
1440 at medium-high settings and 60 FPS.

There could be more, like utilizing 1800p or 1620p, but those are rarer.

Personally I think most of the AAA games are going to go for 1080/60 route. This allows the high fidelity they want to achieve while maintaining acceptable framerate and hit the native resolution of most people's tv's (for the moment).

Some will try for 4k/30 to really max out the visuals at the expense of framerate. Of course they'll also be sacrificing on visuals as well, but they'll be choosing one aspect resolution over other graphical aspects.

Some may try for 4k/60, because they want to hit that and sacrifice anything and everything to hit it.

It's sad that with consoles you really don't get much of a choice on how you prefer it. Because ultimately that's what it comes down to. What do you prefer.

Ultimately Scorpio seems like it's going to be a great 1080/60 machine, that could do 1080/120, but likely won't be allowed to do it. A poor 4k/60 machine, and somewhat decent 4k/30 machine if you can accept lower visual quality settings to achieve 4k.

I think most devs are smart enough to make their game around strengths of a console, not it's weakness. I think the big AAA games are going to stick with 1080/60. Now, perhaps you'll see a situation where the multiplayer will be 1080/60, and perhaps on a couple of those games they push 4k/30 for the singleplayer, but it won't be that likely. As for standalone single player games, I

"Rockstar Games’ co-founder and former VP of Development Jamie King said he envisions GTA 6 as a game that’s “maybe not quite as edgy or quite as funny” as its satirical predecessors."

oh yeah, totally internet grifters spreading rumors...

Contractual agreements are not the same as “gentlemen” agreements. If you think that they work with their distributors a month before production then their entire business model is trash. They work with companies like nvidia constantly for building the graphics cards they need. They work with companies that build motherboards years in advance. This is what proper business planning does.

They are not buying components on a whim like a consumer. So again, considering the ram isn’t a singular module and is integrated into the motherboard I highly doubt they wouldn’t have a final schematic that they are supposed to be building around.

If they are delaying production another 3 years then it’s obvious again this is an after though project and is just trying to be responsive to their bad execution they had the last 14 years.

It also isn’t far fetched to use their failure to produce first party titles the last 7 years including the highly anticipated games I mentioned all being cancelled. That they would continue to you know… lie

Yeah with FSR 5 they should be able to offer a much cheaper version of Helix.

Series S is what has killed Xbox Series so... Will they dare?

The factors are largely external. Covid and Russia-Ukraine war causing inflation led to the first price increase in 2022.

Then we get Trump's tariffs increasing hardware prices, AI boom causing a RAM crisis, war on Iran causing a worldwide fuel crisis which impacts the cost of everything.

Gaming doesn't exist in a vacuum. The last few years have been a shitshow and lot of it was definitely avoidable.

LucasRuinedChildhood,

For sure. No disagreement on the external factors doing a lot of this. Where I have to gently push back however is on two fronts:

1. The pandemic definitely caused some issues: asynchronous development was a big issue and really complicated timelines and affected game quality. At the same time, when it comes to price hikes, it's really difficult to know what was genuine necessity and what was taking consumers for a ride. The pandemic brought about "stag-flation" which was increasing prices and stagnant wages, which was a problem caused by supply chain constraints. There was also "Greed-flation", where companies that were slightly affected or had no issues took advantage of the situation and squeezed everyone citing supply chain issues when there were none.

2. It's definitely true that the tariffs, AI boom, and RAM crisis were all things enabled by tech broligarchs throwing money at this caricature of a world leader, one of them being Satya Nadella. I don't think Sony and Nintendo have contributed much to this problem if at all, but Microsoft's Nadella I feel was instrumental in causing every one of those issues. Microsoft as a company contributed to both candidates (though they gave Harris 4x as much if I recall), but Nadella was all in on letting AI run wild. He paid for unregulated AI, and got a war that's not a war (even though Trump called it that at least five times on television) that screwed up helium access. So for me, I feel that one of the players in the gaming industry is a key architect of these issues, and for that reason I struggle a bit to think of it as "external".