Xbox Series X - $499/£449 or $35pm/£28.99 via All Access Nov 10

[dyne]

Yeah there’s no way we’re getting a noticeable increase at $400 or less anymore.

[Talal86]

Visually we really don't need a 'noticeable increase', yes games can look better, but we're verging the diminishing returns. I think they're better off making 60fps a standard for AAA games

this is why I think next gen will be a hard sell, specially because of the xbox x, and to a lesser degree, the pro. the current systems aren't 'struggling' to run games, and they look pretty good

[Steedeel]

No support for VR confirmed. Oh well, that’s me sticking with Sony next gen. Thanks for making my mind up for me Microsoft.

[dyne]

Where was this confirmed? Also not having VR be a priority doesn't mean it can't be supported later. Look at the PSVR. It wasn't there at launch.

[animefan77]

Originally Posted by dyne

Where was this confirmed? Also not having VR be a priority doesn't mean it can't be supported later. Look at the PSVR. It wasn't there at launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4GbgzDaZTg&t=170s

story starts at around 1:13

[animefan77]

Extremely disappointed with no VR at XBox One.

I bought XBox One X because I thought there was a plan for VR. My reason was that X was more powerful than PS4 Pro to handle the VR better and it has 4k disc play.

I should have just bought the PS4 Pro and separate stand alone 4k player.

I only have a basic laptop and don't need more powerful machine. That's why I still prefer to own a console and not more expensive and powerful PC.

I'm never going to buy xbox ever again.

When next playstation comes with 4k playback, I'll buy that. Otherwise I might be just done with game consoles. I don't really play much these days anyway. The VR was the only thing that I was really excited about.

I am hoping there is enough outcry that Microsoft will change their mind, but I don't think there is any chance of that

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by animefan77

Extremely disappointed with no VR at XBox One.

I bought XBox One X because I thought there was a plan for VR. My reason was that X was more powerful than PS4 Pro to handle the VR better and it has 4k disc play.

I should have just bought the PS4 Pro and separate stand alone 4k player.

I only have a basic laptop and don't need more powerful machine. That's why I still prefer to own a console and not more expensive and powerful PC.

I'm never going to buy xbox ever again.

When next playstation comes with 4k playback, I'll buy that. Otherwise I might be just done with game consoles. I don't really play much these days anyway. The VR was the only thing that I was really excited about.

I am hoping there is enough outcry that Microsoft will change their mind, but I don't think there is any chance of that

You have to think that VR is coming eventually. They have a well publicized partnership with Oculus, plus one of the first things that was talked about at E3 2016 on MS stage regarding Project Scorpio was Fallout 4 VR. I think they're simply waiting for market conditions to be right before they green light it. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to make Oculus compatible with Xbox One X, considering they're both Windows based. It may just be something as simple as a software patch and then come out and say "Xbox One X is compatible with Oculus VR headsets. They may not even need to build a console specific model.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

You have to think that VR is coming eventually. They have a well publicized partnership with Oculus, plus one of the first things that was talked about at E3 2016 on MS stage regarding Project Scorpio was Fallout 4 VR. I think they're simply waiting for market conditions to be right before they green light it. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to make Oculus compatible with Xbox One X, considering they're both Windows based. It may just be something as simple as a software patch and then come out and say "Xbox One X is compatible with Oculus VR headsets. They may not even need to build a console specific model.

Bingo. I don't get why people feel a headset has to be supported from the start or that a console needs to be made around it. SONY obviously added it down the road.

Also agree on the 2nd point as they already support 3rd party webcams so they're open to 3rd parties.

[animefan77]

https://gamingbolt.com/xbox-one-vr-s...ng-planned/amp

Did you guys see that video or other recent news article?
They are no longer planning VR for Xbox One.

Yes in E3 2016, they talked about it. I demo the Oculus Rift and was very impressed by it and the demo actually used Xbox controller too. So naturally, I thought Xbox would eventually get it and reason why I bought the Xbox one x.

But this latest news says they have now abandoned the plan and just going to stay with PC only.

[dyne]

We hear what you're saying. We're just saying that if market conditions improve (which is what the likely reason is for them to stop pursuing it at this time) it would be very simple for them to implement a 3rd party device instead of doing it all themselves and they could do that rather quickly.

The big question is how much SONY will support VR in the next gen. If you see their support tapering off then you'll know why MS made the decision they did. MS needs to spend money on exclusives (and they're doing just that), not expensive peripherals that fragment the market.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

We hear what you're saying. We're just saying that if market conditions improve (which is what the likely reason is for them to stop pursuing it at this time) it would be very simple for them to implement a 3rd party device instead of doing it all themselves and they could do that rather quickly.

The big question is how much SONY will support VR in the next gen. If you see their support tapering off then you'll know why MS made the decision they did. MS needs to spend money on exclusives (and they're doing just that), not expensive peripherals that fragment the market.

My concern with Sony is they are going to pull a Kinect with PS5 and double down on VR. If hey decide to build VR-centric features into the PS5 that not every gamer will want but be forced to pay for, it could create a backlash the way Kinect did with the X1. I hope that's not the case. I want to see VR succeed but not at the cost of potentially having a more expensive console to accommodate it. Whatever Sony puts into the PS5 to benefit VR, it HAS to equally benefit standard gaming for those who aren't interested in VR.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Cass083

Personally I think the next gen of consoles is going to be a hell of a console war. Microsoft knows it blundered the hell outta the One launch and Sony was on point. I think because how focused Microsoft will be this next gen Sony is going to be on point as well. I totally think this could be a neck and neck dogfight of a console war next gen. I'd expect both machines will be very powerful and exclusives will be a decision maker for most people. I think Sony will bring their A game again next gen and Microsoft will be a powerhouse to contend with. I truly believe it could be possibly the best console generation yet.


-PS5 will be backwards compatible with PS4 games.

.

That's gotta be in there. MS has backwards compatibility, but they've sort of half-assed it, where only some games are compatible. I hope it will be compatible with all the current Xbox One X enhanced games. I'm probably going to skip getting a One X and wait for the "Scarlet" if that's the case. But Sony needs to one-up them and make it possible to just put any PS4 disc you own in the system and it will play (not download and take up HD space), and offer enhancement patches for some games, like the Xbox One enhancements. The knock-out blow would be to include internal emulation of all PS systems, so you could put any disc for any PS system in and it will play, with enhancement patches for many games, but that's a pipe dream.

[animefan77]

Yeah. The word being “IF” market improves. Less likely of that happening now with this announcement.

I never expected them to release VR right away. I would rather have them work at it and release best possible version. But when they announce they are not even planning anything, it means we are not going to get any improved or innovative product even if they release it. And that’s far less likely now.

I’m sure one of big reason VR hasn’t caught up yet is the high price. Regular consumer who are not into PC gaming or need of more powerful PC in their regular life isn’t going to spend that much money just to get the VR.
I wasn’t even willing to buy PS4 for VR because it didn’t support 4k disc play. Even that was too expensive for me for just doing that.
But with Xbox, I thought I finally have the machine that i can justify spending my money on because it will have both 4k and VR that I was looking for.

Now with this announcement, I’m afraid VR will have much tougher time taking off. Which is very unfortunate because from what I had demo, this has lot of potential. Because I’m certainly not going to buy powerful PC for VR and because I already spent my budget on Xbox one x, I’m not going to buy PS4 pro again for VR. And however small the number, they just lost all consumers in similar situation as me. And other consumers who were on a fence to get VR, and this announcement confirmed to them that VR is just a fad and going to disappear soon like 3D and Kinect.

I still think VR is the future, because it is that awesome in its potential. But if Microsoft just stands there doing nothing, you can be sure that I will be rewarding the innovators and not followers. If Sony makes their next generation console that can do both VR and 4k, I will definitely be buying the next PlayStation and not supporting Xbox.

This stings because it does feel like I’ve been lied to. With pretty much the same money, I could be enjoying VR right now with PS4 and have stand alone player for 4k. I thought I was thinking about the future by buying Xbox because by the time they release VR, we will have better VR games with better headset and have more powerful system to handle it. But now all I get is expensive mediocre 4k player.
I know it’s my fault and should have seen this coming from what happened with Kinect, but it still stings.

Now Microsoft will pay since I don’t plan to buy any more Xbox games (I don’t really play much these days anyway) - well I’ll probably still buy Cuphead if it’s on sale. - but that’s it. (Probably )

But seriously, next gen. I’m not supporting Xbox. I won’t be supporting Sony either if they don’t do both VR and 4k - but yeah, make it optional. Don’t force it down to consumers. We like choices. And with Xbox not giving us the choice to have VR. - not supporting them. (Ok, end rant. Sorry )

[Steelmaker]

VR's biggest challenge is how to market it to consumers. You can't "show" somebody VR in a commercial or in a magazine ad. It's one of those things that you have experience first hand. That was the same issue that 3D TV's had. Plus, People complained about 3D glasses. You think you're going to get them to wear a large contraption strapped to their faces with chords running everywhere? IMO VR will not be mainstream for a while. The tech has to get smaller (I'm talking "eyeglasses" smaller), it has to get cheaper, it has to get better (higher res, no screen door effect, etc), and it has to get wireless. I think we are at least another 10 years away.

I can tell you without a doubt what I'm waiting for. I'm waiting for NCAA College Football and NFL Sunday VR tickets to be a thing! IMO THOSE kinds of things will push VR popularity more than video games.

[Mavrick]

Update:

There are two consoles, one a traditional next gen hardware which is code named "Scarlett", the second is a low spec streaming device code named "Scarlett Cloud" that will be used to stream content via MS own streaming service.

https://www.thurrott.com/xbox/163896...aming-service#

[SethRex]

Oh, interesting. I'll buy the actual console, naturally, but I wouldn't mind seeing what the streaming system ends up looking like.

[Captain Flint]

That's interesting. I'll be buying the regular console with the disc drive though.

[Mavrick]

MS had a streaming device code named Hobart due to be revealed in 2016 but was canned at the last minute. Wouldn't surprise me if this is the result of an extra 2-3 years work on that.

What makes this different is that when streaming essentially there are two games running at the same time. One your end on the streaming device and another server side.

Supposedly it reduces latency below that of a disc or installed digital copy because the streaming device links directly to MS cloud servers where as normal versions go through whatever form of server is used for said game.

I'll be waiting to see reviews on how it goes because I'll most likely be buying PS5 first anyway. And if this works as well as it does in theory and cost significantly less then it would be an easy choice as a secondary console.

Of course you would then need to purchase a games pass to play on it so it will come with a fee which in the long run could negate the cost if you don't use it regularly. Could work out cheaper just buying the proper console if you don't plan on using it as a main console.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Mavrick

What makes this different is that when streaming essentially there are two games running at the same time. One your end on the streaming device and another server side.

I don't understand what this means. At all.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/...p-latency-low/

According to Sams, Microsoft's solution is that the Scarlett Cloud box (as one person called it) will have some amount of processing power of its own. Not enough to run full games, but enough to do collision detection, input handling, and some amount of graphical processing locally without having to wait for the remote server. To do this, games are split into two parts (referred to as "slices" or "splices")—one part runs in the cloud; the other runs on the console.

This makes it much more clear. However I don't see how marrying two processes (one local and one remote) will make latency any better.

The rest of the article

In fact, Sams reports that every Scarlett game will run on every Scarlett device, so streaming gamers won't be left out.

seems to indicate games will need to be "Scarlet" games to run on Scarlet devices. So you're going to split the library now as well. Great.

Also why get into this now when your biggest market is having it's internet ruined by getting rid of Net Neutrality and whatever that future holds? Typical MS. They always have a good idea at the wrong time.

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by dyne

I don't understand what this means. At all.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/...p-latency-low/



This makes it much more clear. However I don't see how marrying two processes (one local and one remote) will make latency any better.

The rest of the article



seems to indicate games will need to be "Scarlet" games to run on Scarlet devices. So you're going to split the library now as well. Great.

Also why get into this now when your biggest market is having it's internet ruined by getting rid of Net Neutrality and whatever that future holds? Typical MS. They always have a good idea at the wrong time.

Well here I was assuming people read the source I posted on the previous page