Xbox One X vs. PS4 Pro vs. $500 PC

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

True, but XBL Gold also gives you 2 free games a month (that's 24 games per year). A lot of them are cheap indie games, but every few months you get an older AAA title, and occasionally you get a newer AAA title.

 

So that counter balances the ongoing cost.

 

Will that be worth it for everyone? Certainly not. But you cannot immediately dismiss it without considering this very excellent feature of XBL Gold. In addition, you get discounts on a bunch of games every month.

Well most platforms have sales and so I don't know if sales on games are that big of a factor. Steam has 5+ major sales a year and most others have 2-3.

[Mradr]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Either way you string it, for $500, buying new hardware (since used hardware prices and availability of selection vary like crazy in different areas - even in the US), while matching all the main features and performance of the XBOX One X, is simply possible right now.

 

In a year? Sure maybe. But the XBOX One X will also have likely dropped in price by then too.

 

That's simply the point. Yes you can match or beat by buying used hardware. Or by spending more money. But those are both compromises. Some will be okay with those compromises, but an objective comparison starts by making the closest comparison you can, and working from there.

No really. They will be sitting on this for another few years and with in a year not do another price drop for a while. Remember GPU release in summer - so less than a few 6 months away really. You wont be just seeing a price drop either - but over all hardware increase to go with it meaning over all - you get the best bang for the buck in total.  I am not saying consoles are worse or anything, but function wise - you are getting more going a PC than a console in total. Even if you buy yourself a decent tablet and a console to offset it - it still be about the same cost really. You are just aiming at one function only - and there is more to the store than just one function/reason to do anything.

 

For example, VR is more important than 4k gaming when it comes to real world feeling that you are in a place that you are not - you can't really do that on an xbox can you right now? You also can't run the over billion different apps, exes, and platforms that has been with the PC for a while either.

[SupremeChunk]

People using overclocking, operating systems, multi-tasking, emulators, 120 FPS, etc. as an argument here are obviously not very familiar with these consoles target markets and what does and doesn't matter to your everyday console purchaser.

If you think the guy buying a Playstation 4 on Black Friday to play FIFA and Minecraft could give a shit about emulators of 120 FPS you're mistaken.

They're different devices, with vastly different core demographics (though there is SOME overlap)... They just happen to run the same games, that's about it.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Mradr said:

No really. They will be sitting on this for another few years and with in a year not do another price drop for a while. Remember GPU release in summer - so less than a few 6 months away really. You wont be just seeing a price drop either - but over all hardware increase to go with it meaning over all - you get the best bang for the buck in total.  I am not saying consoles are worse or anything, but function wise - you are getting more going a PC than a console in total. Even if you buy yourself a decent tablet and a console to offset it - it still be about the same cost really. You are just aiming at one function only - and there is more to the store than just one function/reason to do anything.

 

For example, VR is more important than 4k gaming when it comes to real world feeling that you are in a place that you are not - you can't really do that on an xbox can you right now?

Not yet but Microsoft does have several OEM partners coming out with new VR headsets.

 

Not to mention that your average gamer isn't going to touch VR anyway, because GOOD VR is MORE EXPENSIVE than an XBOX One X anyway ($600+ for a Vive, $500+ for a rift - regular pricing).

 

VR is a very very very niche segment of an already niche market. So sure, VR is more immersive than 4K. But 4K is by far more attainable, and more desirable by your average consumer. Not to mention having the necessary empty space for whole room VR (the most immersive).

[Mradr]

13 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Not yet but Microsoft does have several OEM partners coming out with new VR headsets.

 

Not to mention that your average gamer isn't going to touch VR anyway, because GOOD VR is MORE EXPENSIVE than an XBOX One X anyway ($600+ for a Vive, $500+ for a rift - regular pricing).

 

VR is a very very very niche segment of an already niche market. So sure, VR is more immersive than 4K. But 4K is by far more attainable, and more desirable by your average consumer. Not to mention having the necessary empty space for whole room VR (the most immersive).

LOL Ok

That is true- but most of them are *laughs a little* design for the PC not the xbox:) Along with that - the hardware requirements are not that "more expensive" to have reach already for the xbox if they went with a slightly bigger GPU for the refresh really. VR is always coming down and has already hit 350 price point and soon will have a 200$ price point next year... 

 

Doesn't matter if it's a niche segment or not. If I want to be able to play in VR or even work in VR I do want that ability to do so. Why should I be limited because it's a niche segment because they didn't want to allow that route? That is something the PC is allowing me to do without any problems in doing so. 4k is harder to attain than VR is for the same workload really. Your "average customer" doesn't even know what 4k really is they will just say "it's 4x the pixels :D!" without knowing that they are not getting real true 4k but a TV gimmick of 4k. VR only needs about mmm the same room as you standing up to play in. It doesn't require a whole room even then you can sit down and play and work like I do all the time  I see this is one area I might have an advantage over than most that come here.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Mradr said:

LOL Ok

That is true- but most of them are *laughs a little* design for the PC not the xbox:) Along with that - the hardware requirements are not that "more expensive" to have reach already for the xbox if they went with a slightly bigger GPU for the refresh really. VR is always coming down and has already hit 350 price point and soon will have a 200$ price point next year... 

 

Doesn't matter if it's a niche segment or not. If I want to be able to play in VR or even work in VR I do want that ability to do so. Why should I be limited because it's a niche segment because they didn't want to allow that route? That is something the PC is allowing me to do without any problems in doing so. 4k is harder to attain than VR is for the same workload really. Your "average customer" doesn't even know what 4k really is they will just say "it's 4x the pixels :D!" without knowing that they are not getting real true 4k but a TV gimmick of 4k.

 

 

Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "without knowing that they are not getting real true 4k but a TV gimmick of 4k."?

 

A UHD 4K TV is a 4K TV. Same resolution as you would get from a 4K gaming monitor - 3840 x 2160p.

 

Yes, right now a Rift is on sale for $350. But that's a Black Friday sale price. That's not a discount you're going to see all the time. And if we take that route, we can see that a PS4 Pro ($50 off BF sale), and a PSVR ($100 off BF sale) means you can still have a VR experience with a console at an even cheaper price compared to a PC.

 

As for those OEM VR setups being aimed for PC? It's all about API's to make compatibility. Microsoft could easily add VR support to the XBOX One X once the OEM headsets come out. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't.

 

If you want a niche experience like VR, obviously it would be better if you could do it on any platform, but you're already spending a ton of money to get that niche experience, that we're definitely not talking about average consumers anymore.

[Mradr]

23 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you elaborate as to what you mean by "without knowing that they are not getting real true 4k but a TV gimmick of 4k."?

 

A UHD 4K TV is a 4K TV. Same resolution as you would get from a 4K gaming monitor - 3840 x 2160p.

 

Yes, right now a Rift is on sale for $350. But that's a Black Friday sale price. That's not a discount you're going to see all the time. And if we take that route, we can see that a PS4 Pro ($50 off BF sale), and a PSVR ($100 off BF sale) means you can still have a VR experience with a console at an even cheaper price compared to a PC.

 

As for those OEM VR setups being aimed for PC? It's all about API's to make compatibility. Microsoft could easily add VR support to the XBOX One X once the OEM headsets come out. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't.

 

If you want a niche experience like VR, obviously it would be better if you could do it on any platform, but you're already spending a ton of money to get that niche experience, that we're definitely not talking about average consumers anymore.

I don't see 4k in that number :)) 8k is the real 4k of what we should be getting if we're really talking about 4k but instead we get the UDH value of what TVs wanted to promote instead and say it's 4k. Granted it is 4x the pixels - but nowhere in that number is it really 4k and that is what I mean by people not even knowing what that they are getting. More or less 4k = 2k in the real world sense of anything. That is my point... 

 

You already said it yourself though. Oculus and Vive offer the "Good" VR more so than PSVR - is you are counting price - it's well place differences for that 50$ offset. The PSVR is offering at 299 that is only a 50$ difference still + going back to the fact it is a PC meaning you can do much more over all with the same hardware than what the PS would be offering for that same cost...

 

Look we can keep taking blows, I am not saying consoles are bad. They do their jobs for what they are designed for - gaming - but at the same time - that is all they are good for for the same cost factors when you count them all in. I still will be picking up an xbox just so I can get a few game titles that I can't get on the PC, but at the same time saying the console is better over all - is just plain silly to me I guess

 

More or less 4k gaming is only really taking off because TV sell men don't know what else to tell customers. 3D TV failed and the next step is to go higher resolution instead. That is what they are doing. Consoles are going in that direction because of the same reasons. Hardware is getting better so that naturally move to 4k. Your Average gamer doesn't really care if it's 4k or 1k so long as the game looks good and is enjoyable. That is all they care about. Gamers are simple and scale with power requirements and performance gains. Use an upscaler on a 1k to 4k and people will still be blow out of the water that everything looks so breathtaking because they wouldn't know the differences between what a real 4k to 1k produces in terms of image quality until you show them  but then tell them the price differences and they will just shake their heads and point to the cheaper option instead.

 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Mradr said:

I don't see 4k in that number :)) 8k is the real 4k of what we should be getting if we're really talking about 4k but instead we get the UDH value of what TVs wanted to promote instead and say it's 4k. Granted it is 4x the pixels - but nowhere in that number is it really 4k and that is what I mean by people not even knowing what that they are getting. More or less 4k = 2k in the real world sense of anything. That is my point... 

 

You already said it yourself though. Oculus and Vive offer the "Good" VR more so than PSVR - is you are counting price - it's well place differences for that 50$ offset. The PSVR is offering at 299 that is only a 50$ difference still + going back to the fact it is a PC meaning you can do much more over all with the same hardware than what the PS would be offering for that same cost...

 

Look we can keep taking blows, I am not saying consoles are bad. They do their jobs for what they are designed for - gaming - but at the same time - that is all they are good for for the same cost factors when you count them all in. I still will be picking up an xbox just so I can get a few game titles that I can't get on the PC, but at the same time saying the console is better over all - is just plain silly to me I guess

 

... what?

 

Okay, I guess we're going there.

 

4K DCI = what most people call "real 4K". 4K DCI is a Digital Cinema standard, and refers to 4000 x 2000 pixels. However, 4K DCI is a specific and defined standard. "4K" itself is defined by "a resolution which has around 4000 horizontal pixels". "Around" being defined as "close to".

 

Also, spoiler alert, 4K UHD actually has MORE PIXELS than "True 4K".

 

4000 x 2000 (4K DCI) = 8,000,000 pixels

3840 x 2160 (4K UHD) = 8,294,400 pixels

 

I have no idea what you're talking about with "8K = real 4K", or "4K = 2K". Both of those statements are nonsensical.

 

You cannot compare a $300 full priced PS VR to a $350 discounted Oculus Rift. Regular price of Rift is $500. Discounted price of PS VR is $200.

 

So either we're comparing $200 PS VR to $350 Oculus Rift, or we're comparing $300 PS VR to $500 Oculus Rift. Pick one. Either way, cost of getting into VR is by far cheaper on Console with the PS4 Pro + PS VR.

 

Is Rift better than PS VR? Yeah, but you have to consider how much better - and that largely relies on how much you spend on a PC ($500 vs $1200, etc).

 

Lastly, consoles are not just for gaming. Consoles make the best "Home Theatre" experience out there right now, since they combine gaming + streaming/playing local media + streaming online media (YouTube, Netflix, etc) + optical media playback (DVD, Blu-Ray, UHD Blu-Ray).

 

I agree that buying a console is not necessarily the best purchase. It highly depends on the users needs.

 

My point is that at a specific cost ($500), considering new parts only, an XBOX One X is a great value. It's also a good value for people who want a low cost to entry, and want a hassle free experience.

 

For computer tech enthusiasts, building their own PC using a combination of new/used hardware to get a super great deal is totally fine. But that's not a normal consumer.

[Mradr]

Now, it’s not as if TV manufacturers aren’t aware of the differences between 4K and UHD. But presumably for marketing reasons, they seem to be sticking with 4K. So as to not conflict with the DCI’s actual 4K standard, some TV makers seem to be using the phrase “4K UHD,” though some are just using “4K.”

To make matters more confusing, UHD is actually split in two — there’s 3,840 by 2,160, and then there’s a big step up, to 7,680 by 4,320, which is also called UHD. It’s reasonable to refer to these two UHD variants as 4K UHD and 8K UHD — but, to be more precise, the 8K UHD spec should probably be renamed QUHD (Quad Ultra HD). (Read: 8K UHDTV: How do you send a 48Gbps TV signal over terrestrial airwaves?)

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing

I think says it the best... 

 

Anyways my point still stands. You are not an average customer either:)) but most people will not even know where to start talking about what is consider 4k or not. All they know it's 4x the pixels and that was my point.

 

Forgive me on any miss information here....

 

 

I don't see the price point you are saying they should be at here? The rift retails at 399 not 500? The discount was only 50$... As we already said the PC itself could be as low as 500-600 to run the rift - YES. It really doesn't take a 1200$ computer to run the rift. It all depends on software titles and the likes - but in the PC world no one HOLD you to it like the consoles world does. Meaning you can spend 120,000$ if you want and really out pace any software out there - but what's the point if you are only aiming for a set goal?

 

Anyways like I said I think trading blows is not going to work well... we both agree on that fact that it's good hardware. I think I will just leave it at that, but I still don't believe a console is "better" than a PC any day of the week. It's just a machine design for a few things I do once in awhile when I get time to do so.

 

 

[asus killer]

shouldn't the cost of paying for online play be a factor?

psn plus and xbox live gold is 50'ish dollars a year. So in just a year a PS4 costs 450$ and a Xbox One 550$, let alone thinking about the live span of this consoles.

 

Of course people could buy a console and games and not play online, but hey let's be realistic, there's like 1% of the console users no? (not saying there aren't more users with consoles that do not play online, maye the console is a paper weight or they did not buy games that year, or just bought skyrim and nothing else. I mean people who buy the console and games and actually play them activily)

 

the all video seems disingenuous, sorry for the guys who made it but hey it's how i feel about it

 

[Sfekke]

I enjoy the PS3 SS/PS4 Phat.

When I come home from work I just lie back kick my feet up and boot up a console.

Why? Because they just work. The PS4 already updated my games, charged the controller and is ready to go.

Do not get me wrong, I love PC gaming. But when my main goal is to play a braindead FPS like BF4/BO3. Give my a controller and I'm happy.

Games like NFS & GTA I even prefer on the console. Even though they only run at 30FPS, a controller just makes the experience better.

Yes you can attach one to the PC, but then everyone else has the advantage of a mouse. When is quicker when it comes down to it.

[Sfekke]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

shouldn't the cost of paying for online play be a factor?

psn plus and xbox live gold is 50'ish dollars a year. So in just a year a PS4 costs 450$ and a Xbox One 550$, let alone thinking about the live span of this consoles.

 

Of course people could buy a console and games and not play online, but hey let's be realistic, there's like 1% of the console users no? (not saying there aren't more users with consoles that do not play online, maye the console is a paper weight or they did not buy games that year, or just bought skyrim and nothing else. I mean people who buy the console and games and actually play them activily)

 

the all video seems disingenuous, sorry for the guys who made it but hey it's how i feel about it

 

Well I do not like the PS+ or XBLG honestly.

I even go as far as calling it a ripoff.

"Server costs"

"Better end-user experience"

We got all those things with the 7th gen PS3, it had free online connectivity.

Not bashing MS here but their XBLG for the X360 kinda started a disgusting trend when it comes to online play.
Sony just followed suit with PS+ and eventually on next-gen made it a requirement too, since they had no reason not too. People believe it is worth it and do not manifest.

At this point I just pay my PS+ yearly, with a sour aftertaste but well that is a price I'm "willing" to pay to be able to join all my friends on PSN.

[S2000Gan]

What were the specs of the $500 PC??

[HimymCZe]

On 11/26/2017 at 11:32 PM, 48Hz said:

Enjoy that CPU based stuttering.

 

I mean if you like average FPS I assume that's the route to go, but you aren't going to have a good experience with that weak of a CPU.

I honestly don't know how to argue with stupid people, that only buy the most expensive components, full RGB, full watter-loop and think anything less is worthless junk.
ESPECIALLY when FPS 99th percentile is exactly the same.

(Unless you pay $120 for Ubi DRM miner.)

[FartingBob]

On 26/11/2017 at 8:20 PM, nicklmg said:

Yep - it was all rendered out in 60 (we knew we had to to properly represent the game footage, it would've been awful in 30) but Luke was shot in 30.

 

This video being in 60 is a one-off due to the gameplay footage.

Why don't you film all the studio parts in 60fps? You guys have an 8k camera that costs as much as a house, a petabyte of storage and as fully paid up members of the PC GAMING MASTERRACE surely 60fps would be the preferred option at LMG?

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, FartingBob said:

Why don't you film all the studio parts in 60fps? You guys have an 8k camera that costs as much as a house, a petabyte of storage and as fully paid up members of the PC GAMING MASTERRACE surely 60fps would be the preferred option at LMG?

60 FPS for non-gaming shots provides little to no benefit for them. All it will do is:

 

1. Increase the amount of storage needed, by needing to film in 60 FPS (they film in 30 FPS)

2. Increase the upload time for every video

3. There would be very little benefit to the end result

 

99% of videos are a dude talking while standing still. There are very few "action shots", etc.

 

CSF might benefit from 60p content, but regular LTT videos (gameplay video aside) would not.

 

Besides, how many people saw the Hobbit and bitched about the HFR? Personally I got used to it fairly quickly, but many people hated the "soap opera" look that was a side effect.

[Bouzoo]

On 11/27/2017 at 4:09 AM, dalekphalm said:

A UHD 4K TV is a 4K TV. Same resolution as you would get from a 4K gaming monitor - 3840 x 2160p.

Here is the thing, the whole resolution naming is contradictory to itself imo. Technically UHD should not be 4K. The definition of 4K is that it has to have 4000 horizontal pixels. Then again, we are saying left, right and center, that 4K UHD (UHD-1 to be more precise) is the dominant 4K resolution. It's the same as 2K resolution which iirc is your peeve. We're also making the same thing with 8K.

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

60 FPS for non-gaming shots provides little to no benefit for them.

Honestly, I'm still for 60 FPS. Look at any E3 conference in 60 FPS (example). Don't look at games but at the presenters. I still say it's a huge difference over 30 FPS. You can see it, I can see it, we both know I'm right, but sadly it takes too much space for most people to care.

 

 

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Besides, how many people saw the Hobbit and bitched about the HFR? Personally I got used to it fairly quickly, but many people hated the "soap opera" look that was a side effect.

Also I don't know about you but I totally dig this. I could get used to it.

[corruptedkeep]

IMPORTANT >> Finally Luke is back! We need you in the videos more often Luke. 

 

I think I'll buy a One X after I upgrade my PC. I really want to play Forza 7, looks amazing, and I think it seems to be more comfortable to play on the Xbox. But as I said, I have priorities. I need to buy a new PC, and upgrade my others two PCs first (If someone hire me, I hope so). So I'll see what's more convenient in that moment.