Xbox Project Scorpio 4k Gaming And Supersampling 1080p (1 Viewer)

[DavidMiller]

The present and near-term future of 4K content resides heavily in gaming or streaming video, not physical disc media. Why would Sony increase the cost to make the PS4 Pro by adding in a 4K drive for content that doesn't exist? Especially considering they're doing exceptionally well without it?

I mean, besides the fact that you personally want it, what business sense is there in doing it?

There are more UHD discs in the market then Blu-ray launch day and date. Blu-ray did have HD-DVD eating into the market some but not really since many titles where launched on both formats. Sony lead the way in the Blu-ray world but decided that streaming was going to be the model for the PS4. The drive can't be that much since the Xbox One S could do it for the same price as the Xbox One. Sony could have done it but chose not to because they wanted you to buy their UHD player.

4K TV sales are booming because that is almost all you can get now, so 4K gaming makes since, even more so if you are talking at the end of this year beginning of next year. However, much like most things 4K, will people even notice since they gave us HDR now? The Scorpio is targeted to go after the PS4 Pro it is not replacing the Xbox One S. So I'm guessing we will see a pretty high price tag.

My comment around the console gaming market is because of mobile. There have been a ton of articles about the effect. My ~3% number was the last qtr because most of MS money is now coming from cloud (Azure/Office365/etc). I know lots of gamers my age are starting to scale their gaming back or not gaming at all. Out of the 100 or some gamers I had on my list 75 no longer play or have greatly scaled their gaming back. One of the reasons my gaming forum closed its doors a couple years ago. We are too slow to play against these kids. I still play a bunch but I would say I have cut my play by 25% or more. If I look at my sons gaming it is mobile or PC even though he has his own console. Most of his friends are the same (high school).

 

[LeoA]

Edwin, you're a bit confused on what my opinion is...

Morgan said they were very comparable machines and I agreed, except for stating my opinion that there was one significant difference between the two machines, which was the lack of Blu-Ray support on one of them.

Why are you then trying to tell me how wrong that opinion was, because you also consider it a significant difference that only the PS3 had Blu-Ray capabilities? Can't you see that my initial opinion was in complete agreement with what you're now arguing with me over?

 

[Steve Y]

Xbox One S and PS4 Pro owner here, and I think we're in a golden age of gaming. Yes, PS4 has been more successful, I think for good reason, but Xbox's new status of underdog has forced it to make some bold choices. I'm rooting for both.

The state of game hardware? A mess. 4K display tech is still ahead of the ability of these "inexpensive" game consoles to render acceptably on it, so we're stuck with game presentations that are more ambitious than the hardware can handle. All because they need to be able to slap "4K" on the box.

The latest console iterations are an attempt to solve this problem, and so far the experiment has not been completely successful. Whether we see new consoles in a few years or continued iterations on the same platform, we still have a ways to travel before 4K becomes as affordable, ubiquitous, and reliable as 1080p.

 

[Edwin-S]

Edwin, you're a bit confused on what my opinion is...

Morgan said they were very comparable machines and I agreed, except for stating my opinion that there was one significant difference between the two machines, which was the lack of Blu-Ray support on one of them.

Why are you then trying to tell me how wrong that opinion was, because you also consider it a significant difference that only the PS3 had Blu-Ray capabilities? Can't you see that my initial opinion was in complete agreement with what you're now arguing with me over?

The only thing I'm disagreeing with is the claim that the two machines were comparable. From a completely technical standpoint the two machines were never comparable and it was the Blu-ray drive that tipped the balance.

The drive was was what increased the extendability and versatility of the PS3. We agree that the drive was the difference, so I don't quite get why you would agree with him that the two machines were comparable. They weren't, regardless of the final sales numbers for both systems.

 

[LeoA]

Outside of the Blu-Ray playback on one of them (Which was rather inconsequential for the console's primary function of playing games), what were the great differences that made each such a different experience from the other?

As an owner of both from early on (2006 on the 360 and 2008 on the PS3), I see two very comparable machines that were designed for similar goals and evolved in similar ways to meet the needs of their customers at comparable points in their lifespan, like the explosion of streaming apps.

90% of the software was the same, and after the first few years as developers mastered the PS3, pretty much ran identically. And the features that one had were pretty much covered on the competing system, such as both embracing motion at approximately the same time with their own unique takes on it.

The single biggest thing that one could do that the other couldn't, was to play the winning format of HD optical video discs. The other differences yield no clear winner, like exclusives. They were just differences, with each having their advantages and disadvantages like faster download speeds on the 360 or the PS3's frequent mandatory installations.

Minor deals outside of Blu-Ray video playback.

 

[Bryan^H]

the PS3 was slightly better than the 360 in terms of graphical capabilities

 

[LeoA]

That was countered by the 360 being an easier to program for platform and the clear sales leader for years by virtue of its early launch, that saw many multiplatform titles be developed with the 360 as lead platform. So the PS3 often wasn't able to show its strengths outside of 1st party development, since games were ported there rather than crafted with its strengths in mind.

The quantity of multiplatform titles that looked and performed better on the PS3 seemed to be much smaller than the other way around, especially earlier on. And even when developers learned the art of PS3 development and the system established itself as a force to be reckoned with as the sales leader outside of North America, the best we usually saw was equivalency.

The differences when we saw them even in the latter days just before the XB1 and PS4 hit, usually still favored the 360 version.

 

[Bryan^H]

I forgot who even made the snarky comments for Microsoft regarding the restrictive "always online", and "sharing" capacity before the XBO launched. I hope he got fired. I think he alone cost Microsoft millons of units in sales.
a slew of arrogant comments directed at the hardcore gamers who simply wanted to play offline.

Even after the policies were reversed(again before the system even launched), I think the damage was already done. Especially with the infamous "We have a system for that, its called the Xbox 360" in regards to playing offline. What a nightmare.

 

[Carlo_M]

Yeah that "online only" pre-release comment likely cost a lot of goodwill for MS. And it didn't need to. So many of the games I (and I'm guessing a large percentage of gamers) play requires online connectivity anyway. So many FPS and MMO require it. So they didn't need to issue a statement to anger the masses. For us, it's about having the illusion of choice, even if really there isn't one (i.e. I can't play Destiny offline on either PS4 or XB1).

I'm console agnostic. I've owned Atari, Sega, Nintendo, MS, Sony, NEC, Colecovision, Amiga, etc. I find it totally interesting that from PS3/360 to PS4/XB1 their positions re: home media center and home theater playback essentially reversed. I owned both PS3 and 360, and while I did most of my gaming (NCAA FB, Halo) on 360, I had a huge Rock Band catalog on PS3, plus it doubled as my primary BD player until I got my Oppo.

I bought XB1 first, primarily due to Halo and Destiny, with designs to eventually buy a PS4. When the Pro and S came out, I was excited for both. I was on the fence about the S, as I already owned an XB1, but I was sure I was going to buy a Pro.

And then I learned that the S played UHD discs and the Pro did not. I ended up buying the S.

I know the common refrain is "The Pro is for gaming" and I get that. It's just curious that Sony, a mega player in the home theater market and which had been cutting edge in putting BD in the PS3, decided to reverse course in the Pro. I'm sure many people are happy with that decision, but I can't be the only one who didn't pull the trigger on a Pro due to lack of UHD BD playback.

What's interesting is: if by late 2017 they still haven't put UHD playback in the Pro, I'm likely going to buy a Scorpio and will end up owning 3 XBoxes and no PSs for this generation.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The PS3 went with bluray (and PS2 with DVD) as the format because of the space requirements for games, not the media playback options. Most movies now are watched through streaming services, which Sony knows, so adding the cost of a 4K bluray drive to the PS4 Pro and then having an extremely small number of people utilize that function is kind of pointless.

And yes, there are 4K movies, but how many are there? And how well are they selling? And what do 4K players typically cost?

Yes, the Scorpio is a big leap over the previous Xbox consoles. However, the fact that MS is requiring devs to make all of their Scorpio games also work on the One and S means it's going to functionally be not far off from the PS4/Pro dynamic. It's not the "next Xbox console" but rather a more powerful version of the current Xbox console. I don't think this will result in much that consumers will care about, really, especially if they have absolutely nothing special coming out for it this year.

 

[DavidMiller]

And yes, there are 4K movies, but how many are there? And how well are they selling? And what do 4K players typically cost?

~180+ (211ish announced)
They are outselling blu-ray at launch last I read
$300-$600 both game console and dedicated available

Is that enough? I don't know but Sony just released a dedicated player for $300 so I'm sure it wouldn't have cost them that much to add it. Just weird to me.

 

[Carlo_M]

The processing power needed to do the decoding is already all there with the Pro, so the actual cost of the physical drive would not add all that much more to the manufacturing costs. If the XB1S could have a UHD drive (and keep in mind Sony is actually in the hardware side of UHD so they'd likely "charge" themselves much less for the drives than Microsoft, who has to purchase their drive from another manufacturer) at still be priced at $100 less than the Pro, then I'd hazard a guess that cost was not the leading factor behind its omission.

I'd buy that cost savings was a factor if they did not have an optical drive at all in the PS4 Pro, but they do. Samsung's player has now dropped to $229 at Best Buy, and that's for the optical drive, all the hardware and software to decode and display it, and for the manufacturer and retailer to still make a profit, and to still charge a price premium on the fact that UHD is still the "newest/latest/greatest". You know if they wanted to, they could manufacture and sell both players and discs at very near standard BD prices.

And although 4K discs are limited, as David points out they're further along than BD was at the same point, and BD was following the most successful home video format of all time, DVD. So all of the "reasons not to put a 4K drive" were present when the PS3 became one of the best, and earliest, BD players in Nov. 2006 (BD debuted early summer 2006). And yet Sony put one in the PS3 anyway.

This article postulates why Sony omitted the drive, and it's a pretty good read. Also further down in the article it says that the cost of the UHD optical drive is around $40 for the XB1S.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Say what you will, but the PS4 has sold 56 million units and the Xbox One, including the S and it's UHD drive, has sold 26 million units. Clearly, the public doesn't care about the UHD drive and Sony has saved a good amount of money by not including it.

And honestly, I'd wager a good guess that most media consumption now is through streaming services. There's much more potential for 4K Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon video than there is for UHD discs. Consumers are more likely to want 4K streaming video over 4K discs. Annual sales of DVDs and Blurays are on the decline (which is especially bad because Bluray, as the newer/better format, has not come anywhere close to the sales numbers of DVDs but is already past its peak).

The PS3 comparison isn't really fair because you're looking at a GAMING console through the lens of a VIDEO format. Yes, having bluray playback in the PS3 (along with its many media features) was pretty awesome, but remember that the thing came out at $500/$600 and the size of games necessitated the larger format. (The Xbox 360 took quite a lot of negative feedback from developers because it stuck with the DVD format.) The PS3 didn't have bluray support because Sony was trying to pull the same thing they did with the PS2 and DVDs, it had bluray support because it needed it.

Also, the Xbox One S costs the same as a PS4 Pro ($400). It's still weaker hardware than the Pro but has the UHD drive.

In the article you posted, the guy says "I know people buying a One S simply for the media capabilities." That may be true, but there's 7 billion people on the planet and 26 million Xbox Ones have been sold. I don't know if his personal inner circle of technophiles and geeks is representative of the larger "gamer" demographics that MS needs to appeal to. It's not very convincing evidence of anything.

 

[Carlo_M]

Morgan, I have a long buying history with Sony and have nothing against the company. I want to buy the PS4 but due to the lack of UHD I can't justify it. I'm not personally attacking it, and I realize it's sold more units. None of this is up for debate. I don't know why you have such a personal tie to the PS4. You are attaching a level of emotion that I (nor many people in this thread) am not doing, like you're personally invested in it. I'm not. I'm just saying why I didn't buy it.

Also please do some research before stating things like "Also, the Xbox One S costs the same as a PS4 Pro ($400)"

An easy search on Google Shopping, Target and Best Buy.com shows an XBox One S with Minecraft bundle for $249
Target
Best Buy

So that means they put a UHD drive in there, and sold it with a bundle, for 38% less than the cost of the PS4. I'd believe that article's conclusion: that Sony Consumer (not gaming side) for whatever reason is late to the UHD game unlike how they were with PS3/DVD, and they did not have a suitable UHD drive for inclusion to the PS4 Pro. It would have added very little to the cost, and once you have the lead in any market, why even tempt losing any ground to it by releasing something that has one missing element that your competition has?

 

[Morgan Jolley]

You're right, the One S is $300 MSRP or less on sale (which is the case with the two links you posted). I was thinking of the premium model, the 2 TB HDD for $400. There are cheaper options (the bundle you point to, an old Xbox One, etc.) but the top-of-the-line option is the same price as a PS4 Pro, $400. You can find a PS4 or One (whether Pro or S) for somewhere between $250 and $400, so they're kind of even in that sense, with the exception of sales.

If you compare the technical capabilities of the PS4 Pro and Xbox One S, the Pro is more powerful but the One S had a UHD drive. They're marketed by both Sony and MS as gaming consoles first and foremost, and in that particular regard the PS4 and Pro are "better" than the One and S.

Your personal interest may lie more in the UHD drive capabilities than the games. That's fine, it's your prerogative and your personal decision. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying I think the degree of love for MS and hate for Sony over a UHD drive is kind of silly because it clearly doesn't matter to most people. I'm not a Sony fanboy or anything (I own an Xbox, Xbox 360, Kinect, and a bunch of games for them, but do not own a One or S) but I think MS has royally screwed over their supporters and fans this generation in comparison to Sony.

The PS4's bluray player app is pretty bad but serviceable. When watching a movie on it, I wouldn't be able to see a real difference from any other player. With the sole exception of 4K UHD support, what difference is there between a PS4 and Xbox One S? The majority of the function of a game console, as I see it, is the games. The difference between the two platforms lies primarily in their exclusives. And MS doesn't seem to have many coming this year, and that's on top of the hit-or-miss ones that have come out previously. Even as a system to play 3rd-party multi-platform games, it's inferior to the PS4. That's ironic considering the weaker-but-simpler Xbox 360 typically had superior versions of multi-platform games over the PS3 versions.

I know that this is the Home Theater Forum and it makes sense that people here would care about things that are bleeding-edge and top-of-the-line like 4K UHD playback, but this is also the Gaming subforum and it would make sense that people here care about things like...games.

 

[DavidMiller]

Morgan I would say even though MS has less exclusives for their console I think they have been focusing on the independent small market games. I see 10-20 new indy games every couple months and some of them are pretty good. They may not be as good as the major studio games however most are free to play or micro transaction. Obviously I don't have a PSx so I don't know what their story is but it is very important to MS. Honestly 90%+ of games come out for both consoles anyway at some point. The major studios can't afford to just build games for one or the other.

 

[Carlo_M]

Again. "Hate". I don't have it towards Sony. But you keep throwing that word out there like a paper tiger. I have neither hate nor love for these companies. I love people, not things. And I hate rude drivers.

And your talk about one company "screwing their supporters" over the other. I don't see anything MS has done post-release as screwing their user base. Both Sony and MS have fractured their devices with tiered hardware releases. What they did do, which was serious and egregious, was talk about online-only pre-launch. Had they not done that, I would suggest the race would be closer. They really took a black eye with that comment, I was even tempted to dump them until they 180'd on that decision.

We hear streaming is the future. We hear "viewers can't tell the difference between 2K and 4K". We hear "4K TV penetration is weak". Those exact same arguments were heard in 2006 but replace 4K with BD and 2K with DVD. And just because you and I have robust internet (loving my 300MBps), keep in mind the vast majority of Americans do not have anywhere near this speed.

Here's a 2016 FCC report on broadband access. Keep in mind those numbers are "access to". That doesn't mean everyone who has access to a broadband tier is buying it.

So for the vast majority of Americans, 4K streaming recommended of 25MBps down is not available to 2/3 of them, and I'm going to guess the 1/3 that have access to it aren't all buying it. Meanwhile the price of 4K declines rapidly. Last year I purchased a smart 65" 4K UHD with HDR for half the price of my first HDTV (which was a smaller screen size). Adjusting for inflation, that's more like 33% of the price. UHD will never approach DVD penetration, but neither did BD and it had a great run.

With regards to who is potentially screwing their supporters: can you imagine when UHD takes off, and it will be sooner rather than later, how PS4/Pro owners will feel when the next rev of the PS4 has UHD in it? I'm not talking PS5 in 2025. I'm going to bet it's more like 2020. Some people will have shelled out $800 for both machines, and then rev.3 will have UHD.

 

[Alf S]

Speaking of the One S.

Am I reading correctly that I have to buy some bulky adapter just to connect a Kinect to a One S unit?? My 8 year asked for a Kinect for his bday and it seems I'm stuck having to buy this adapter just to use an XBOX ONE Kinect.

My other issue that pisses me off is finding the adapter in B&M stores seems to be nearly impossible.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Morgan I would say even though MS has less exclusives for their console I think they have been focusing on the independent small market games. I see 10-20 new indy games every couple months and some of them are pretty good. They may not be as good as the major studio games however most are free to play or micro transaction. Obviously I don't have a PSx so I don't know what their story is but it is very important to MS. Honestly 90%+ of games come out for both consoles anyway at some point. The major studios can't afford to just build games for one or the other.

PS4 has been VERY pro indie support since launch. There are a TON of indie titles available and lots coming to the console constantly.

Often times I think they are too pro indie, as there are certainly a few really crap titles that make you go 'WTF? How did this make it on to a console?'

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Even the Wii U has been exceptionally pro-indie. This is something that is just the new norm with gaming, not any particular platform.

"When UHD takes off?" You really think it's going to take off? Bluray barely even took off. It has already peaked and is on the decline. And with that peak, it is selling less than 1/4 of the number of DVDs being sold in a year (as in, during the same year). Streaming and digital purchasing has increased a lot, however. I think you're more likely to see people buying digital (read: watch on every device you own) versions of movies in 4K rather than getting a physical disc (even if it comes with a digital copy code). And I'm not saying this because it's what I want or do or like, because I actually prefer physical media. I just see this as becoming the trend now and it's where all of the sales are projected to go.

You're right, internet bandwidth is incredibly low in many places. Yet, MS was about to launch an online-required game console a few years ago. To what extent do you think these giant corporations are considering the components that they use and their tech strategy across the entire globe based on what some parts of (relatively) rural America have for internet speeds? MS didn't put a UHD drive in the One S because people in the middle of the USA have slow internet.

The rate of people buying 4K TVs is still very low. Sure, they're getting cheaper all the time, but there are a bunch of problems in the tech world right now. People buy new smartphones every 1-2 years because of the unique situation of what a smartphone is and how quickly the tech evolves. However, we have seen that this 1-2 year cycle absolutely does not carry over into computers, tablets, game consoles, or TVs. So there are going to be people who are perfectly content with their 60" 1080p HDTV that was $1500 brand new just 3 or 4 years ago and don't feel the need to buy a brand new 65" 4K TV at less than $1000 any time soon. 3D came and went, curved is on its way out, and yet people are still not buying TVs like electronics companies are hoping for. Sure, the amount of 4K TVs being sold every year has gone up for the last few years, but the total number of new TVs being sold is down. Yes, eventually 4K will be the new standard format and everything everywhere will be 4K. But not soon enough for 4K UHD disc sales to matter to the Xbox One S.

Regardless of the reasons, bluray didn't do as well as DVD and 4K UHD is probably not going to do as well as bluray. Call it uninformed consumers, call it too much competition from streaming, call it tech moving too quickly. But it's the truth.

In the same way that the PS4 Pro was a premium console aimed at people who want that more-expensive-but-better experience, that's kind of what the Xbox One S was trying to do except with pretty much only the UHD drive (sure, some games can do better graphics and HDR, but it's literally like less than 10 games). The Scorpio is trying to one-up that, which seems like a good idea but won't matter if there aren't any interesting exclusive games.

EDIT: I fully expect the next piece of physical gaming hardware from Sony, if it has a disc drive (versus carts like Nintendo or download-only), that it will have a UHD drive (or whatever is the best/near best at the time). It's a good idea to have one because of the amount of data that can fit on the disc. It has little to do with people wanting to watch UHD video discs and more to do with how it improves the gaming experience.

Alf - Yes, you need a special adapter to use Kinect with the One S. You can get it from MS' online store, I think.