Xbox One X's UK Launch Sales Eclipse the PS4 Pro

It’s impressive I wonder how NPD will see the X in November and December sales data respectively

I also heard Japan in one area sold out on the Xbox One X which is mind blowing just cus Japan no like Xbox only like 70K sold there...

That was just UK sales though and there are still 'shortages' in some stores. It was inevitably going to sell 'well' in its opening weeks/months as people had been waiting to buy for a while. It will no doubt settle down to its ball park sales as these things do.

I think its an impressive piece of technology but with Sony's BS commercial stating '4k' gaming and showing games that don't run at 4k - even with Checkerboarding on Pro for a cheaper price, we will see if it can maintain the sales.

I do think we will see sales grow of the iterative hardware as more and more switch up to 4k TVs and more and more games continue to drop in terms of PQ/Performance on base hardware. The XB1s for example having to use CB rendering on SWBF2 to get above 900p (just) and the PS4 seems to be having fewer 1080p games now too.

Microsoft have done more than been vocal. Sick of seeing adverts for it. If only they put this much effort into games.

I wonder how many were new to the xbox family, and how many were existing one owners looking for a more powerful system. I expect it was more of the latter. A good return for Microsoft, but interesting to see if it lasts. Their pr team will be all over that stat though

I get the feeling that's sales to the hardcore. I don't see it staying that strong personally. In fact it's already on the second page of Amazons best seller lists in the UK and US in under a week. That could be telling...

to be fair if it did not do this in the launch week it would be weird should do it for a few weeks, to be honest. plus it is not a real side by side the Pro has just had its first birthday I think.

@Derpie1 Could Microsoft have given Japan less Xbox X than US and that way made the illusion it sold well?

Guess I wait for Japan sales chart on... Wednesday I think

@artemisthemp who knows

The Xbox X has better features so its not suprising its selling well.

@JoeBlogs ACOrigins doesn't use Checkerboarding at all - not on either console - at least not according to experts like Digital Foundry! The fact of the matter is though, that the Pro is nothing more than a 1440p at best console and calling that 'Dynamic 4k' is like saying the XB1s is Dynamic 1080p - although the XB1s is far closer to 1080p than the Pro is to 4k - even some 'Pro' enhanced games only run at 1080p In fact its closer to calling the PS3/XB360 consoles as 'dynamic' 1080p.

I knew that would stoke the fire so the PS4 fanboys would crawl out and come to its defence. Its not like I don't have a Pro to know what it offers, how well it does do with 'UHD' and in which games actually do offer 4k but its still lacking in the majority of games. If you think the gap is big between the PS4 and XB1, the gap between Pro and X is significantly larger.

In some games like Fifa 18, there is no gap. ACO has around 50% higher pixel count on X - as well as a few other visual enhancements and games like Rise of the Tomb Raider - especially in Quality mode is a bigger difference than the 'definitive' edition of Tomb Raider was on this gen compared to last gen. SWBF2 has 100% higher pixel count and runs at 2160p (albeit CB) compared to the CB1296p on the Pro (at least the beta of the Pro version did).

PS4 fans would be annoyed if MS claimed the XB1s was a 1080p console - especially if it showed 900p and under games.

If they made games for it I might actually buy one.

Too late with no great exclusives. Exclusives are what sell a console. I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars just to play multi-plats in slightly higher quality.

Just noticed I recieved an email last night from Sony with a survey for owning a pro for one year.

It asked a bunch of other stuff too but was asking how saitsified I was with the Pro and to comment on it. Wondering if they are getting this feedback to make minor tweaks potentially ?

I thought Microsoft wasn't keen on sharing their console sales figures with anybody.

Sales figures and graphics...Feels like we have not moved on since the days of the C64 and Spectrum...

I'm off to play Chuckie Egg..

@JoeBlogs And yet if you read the latest 'Eurogamer' article and watch Digital Foundry video's on ACO, you would realise that the game is running at 'native' - albeit dynamically scaling - resolutions and the CB artefacts that they 'thought' they noticed are in fact Temporal Anti Aliasing artefacts instead.

"the fixed 900p framebuffer on both PS4 and Xbox One is gone, replaced with a dynamic scaling technology that aims for optimal GPU utilisation at all times, increasing resolution in simpler scenes and lowering it on more complex scenes while maintaining a relatively consistent frame-rate. It's not a new technique, but the use of temporal AA helps to mitigate the visual side-effects as resolution decreases - you're losing the raw pixel count, but you're still super-sampling in more data from prior frames"

"Regardless, even though the visual payback isn't as dramatic as you may expect on the new Xbox, the pixel count does indeed ramp up dramatically in the leap from Pro to X. In general gameplay, we didn't get to see the Microsoft console deliver full-fat 2160p, but we did measure 3584x2016 at the upper bounds - a 62 per cent increase in maximum resolution up against the highest pixel count we saw on Pro: 2816x1584. In terms of the minimums, it's X at 1656p vs Pro vs 1350p"

As you can see, neither console is using CB methods and I will agree that the Xbox X doesn't offer 'full 4k' either but its still delivering a 55-60% increase in pixel count.

That's not to say that some games don't use CB rendering to hit 4k - like SW:BF2 for example on Xbox but that's still a massive improvement over the 1286p (also CB) on the Pro

I have NO issue with CB rendering as that still gives a full 4k image with NO upscaling. Its just that only half of the pixels are rendered per frame with the other half carried forward - but that still gives a 'full 2160p' image. My issue is that you can't call 1440-1800p 4k - that's the equivalent of 720-900p being called 1080p. What's worse is the fact that some games don't even offer UHD in 'Pro' enhanced titles - like Tekken 7 and Dirt 4 - both of which offer just 1080p on a Pro - and that's 'enhanced'.

@BLP_Software 60fps in those 30fps games is very unlikely on either iterative hardware. Both Sony and MS went 'big' on GPU in terms of upgrades - a clear sign that their priority was to visuals. Its NOT surprising either though as 1080p on a 4k screen looks 'worse' than a 900p game on a 1080p screen because of the amount of upscaling and blur that brings. A lot of games will need to run at the same (or at least similar) as the 'base' console for parity.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PS5 has a significantly better CPU. That would enable Sony to offer more 60fps or at least higher frame rates - especially with Game VRR support. With VRR, they could target whatever frame rate they want and not be limited to 30 or 60fps. They could target 45/50fps for example and that will look and feel smoother than 45-50fps does without Game VRR.

Again the discussion about 60fps yet 90+% of the best 'games of the year' are all 30fps on console. I bet 30fps won't affect sales of Sony's upcoming exclusives like Spider-Man, God of War, Last of Us 2, Days Gone etc

Quite surprising given how low the uptake on 4k TVs is in the uk

@legalstep Haha they only like to share sales numbers when they're good. Otherwise hours of "user engagement" is preferred! lol

@Dodoo ah the xbox live usage. My favourite report. That's why they forced me to make a live account to play solitaire on my pc right? To contribute to that total?

It is a neat console and the marketing has been clear and quite widespread compared to the Pro. I would be worried if it didn't sell better than the Pro.

The question is the amount of base sales comparisons.

More 4k consoles sold is more better for me. I hope this means better optimization for 3rd party games with the Pro.

Didn't actually realise it came out last week XD
Decent sales for it, but it'll be interesting to see how well they do in the weeks to come.

I doubt the numbers in mainland Europe will be comparable.

@BLP_Software The gulf between GPU and CPU is certainly extended with these 'iterative' consoles and its not as if they were 'balanced' on the base models either. Its clear that the iterative devises were built primarily to cope with the more demanding graphical resources needed to display games at higher resolution rather than look to boosting the 'frame-rate' as a priority. The fact the CPU only received a 'small' performance boost relative to the GPU boosts is an illustration of where the biggest gains were planned for. At the end of the day though, these consoles were built primarily for 'current' gen gaming but at upto 4x the resolution - in other words, to play the same games at the same standards but with enhanced visuals for 4k TV's.

A 1080p game on a 1080p TV looks 'sharp', looks great but take that same game onto a same size 4k TV and the image now looks 'worse' because of the upscaling and 'blur/softness' that introduces. These 'iterative' consoles are really built to make the transition to 4k look better rather than make their games look worse.

This is where PS5 though could have a distinct advantage over the X - even if the RAM and GPU are not significantly better. If Sony do opt to go with Ryzen, as people expect, they could offer more 60fps 4k games. By having a much more powerful CPU, Sony should offer more higher frame rates as well as off the full 4k. It could also lead to 'new' gaming styles too. AC: Unity and Just Cause 3 tried to push gaming in a 'newish' direction but the console CPU's were far too limiting to offer decent performance and thus games reverted back to the directions we continue to get.

Maybe if Sony do go big on CPU, we may see game development change a bit to take advantage of CPU strengths - such as physics and AI as well as more 60fps (or at least higher frame rates).

There really doesn't seem to much of a need to push frame rates to 60fps on console - as much as we gamers want it. The fact of the matter is that most 'Game of the Year' award winners are 30fps and it doesn't appear to affect sales so much. A visual downgrade though or any 'weaknesses' in visual presentation has affected sales far more.

I obviously prefer 60fps where possible but I do prefer a 'locked' 30fps to a 40-60fps game where its constantly in the 40-50fps range when playing - only reaching 60fps if you look at the ground and don't move. Primarily because of how TV's work and their refresh rates but with game VRR, that could change. 40-50fps with VRR will look and play smoother than a locked 30fps with no screen tear etc either.

As the X has Game VRR, I expect the PS5 will too but if Sony do go big with the CPU, the average fps could be significantly higher - even offering more than 60fps (with HDMI 2.1) - up to 120fps. Knowing how simple Fifa is, you could get a 4k/120fps console version in the 'near' future.

It will die down the Xbox ONE X sales to nearly nothing like the Xbox ONE S Sales are like now + can't believe Gamers are buying a Games Console that has no Exclusives to?!?! Hmm, I hope SONY don't get that idea

Xbox one x is a better upgrade for xbox owner compared to ps4 pro to ps4 owner since box one s is underpowered compared to ps4 and microsoft put more though into the x compared sony to pro, I still can't believe sony doesn't patch bloodborne to at least have perfect 30 fps with no frame pacing

@BAMozzy Mate please can you stop.i know the Xbox is better maybe you should go work in Microsoft advertising sometimes i think you have beef with Sony so maybe you should look up a nice Microsoft site and be happy there. 😉

@Flaming_Kaiser yeah I hear that makes you wonder what the aim is after a while.

@wiiware I dont own a Pro but does the unlocken mode change anything? Just asking BTW.

@Flaming_Kaiser I think it make games (that don't have patch) framerate more stable.

@JoeBlogs I agree that there is too much marketing BS that goes on. I consider the PS4 though to be a 1080p console because the majority of games run (currently) at 1080p but we also know a fair few don't and it seems more and more are using Dynamic scaling as well which would lower the average.

I guess it really depends on how many games run at '4k' - whether CB or Native as its still a '4k image' that is presented. We can all pick games on PS4/XB1 to make our argument seem 'valid' - picking games like Forza, Gears 4 etc to say the XB1 is a 1080p console or picking (most) Frostbite games on PS4 to show its not a 1080p console. The same is true with the Pro and X - picking Fifa, Skyrim etc to say the Pro is '4k' and a game like ACO to say the X isn't 4k.

ACO though does use 'native' resolutions with TAA to try and make up for the drops in resolution. Its no different from 'Doom' in that respect on base consoles - using Dynamic resolution scaling but on both 'base' consoles its regarded as a 1080/60 game. The fact is though, that on XB1, you get a predominantly 900p game (with drops to 752ish) and occasional drops to 900p on PS4. I guess you could call ACO as a 4k game on Pro despite the fact it never reaches above 1584p whilst the lowest resolution of the X (thus far) is 1656p (compared to Pro's 1350p).

I guess what I am trying to say is that at what point does a console become a '1080p' or '4k' console? What percentage of games must run at the max resolution? I have no issue with calling the PS4 a 1080p console despite the numerous games that fall short of that target. I struggle to think of the XB1 though as a 1080p gaming console because the majority of 'big' releases are 900p or less. If you averaged out all the resolutions of the big releases, I bet the PS4 is much closer to 1080p than the XB1 is. I bet though if the XB1 was 'weaker' than it is, therefore offering around 720p visuals (occasionally offering 900-1080p) via CB rendering but still kept the same texture/lighting quality as the 540p (SD) version - even offering a few 'enhanced' 540p versions, PS4 owners would be critical if MS claimed this as 'dynamic 1080p' or even just a '1080p' console.

There is more to 'visuals' than just resolution alone though - textures, draw distances, polygon count etc etc but I can still not accept the Pro as a '4k' gaming console. The X, at the moment anyway has the majority of games delivering a 4k image. Where that is the 'norm for X, its a rarity on Pro - like 1080p on PS4/XB1. I would happily accept the Pro is a UHD gaming console as the majority of enhancements are UHD but 4k (native or CB) is not the norm.

Like I said, what percentage of games must run at a certain resolution (like 1080 or 2160p) for a console to be considered a certain resolution. If only 10% of games offer 2160p, but the other 90% are 1800p or less, is that a 4k console? What if only 1 game hits full 4k does that make it a 4k console? If MS then built a simple game that can run at 4k on the XB1s, would that be a '4k' console? We know it can output at 4k and the games are all upscaled to 4k - like the majority of Pro games (although significantly less upscaling required) but both are upscaling the games to 4k and sending a 4k image to the TV. When I had my PS4/XB1 connected to my 4k TV, both sent 1080p images which my TV upscaled in a similar way to the Pro and Slim now offer. If dug out my OG Xbox or still had my PS2, I could plug those into my 4k TV and get a 2160p image displayed - just massive amounts of upscaling required by my TV. Obviously wouldn't be 3840 pixels wide as these consoles were only 4:3 not 16:9 widescreen but I would still get a 2160 vertical pixel count. Just because a game runs at 720p on the XB1s doesn't mean that the TV is receiving a 720p image - on Slim, that could be a 3840x2160p image because the Xbox handles upscaling. This again can 'nullify' or be used to win an argument. The fact is, the XB1 Slim/PS4 Pro can send the TV a 4k image - both using upscaling so are 'both' 4k consoles or do the games themselves have to have a 4k image (whether that is natively drawn every frame or whether only 50% is drawn and the other 50% pulled forward from the previous frame rather than redraw the same details every single frame) to be classified as 4k? What percentage of games must not need any 'upscaling' - let alone starting resolutions. Like I said, ACO is upscaled to 4k on 3 consoles - XB1s, XB1x and PS4 Pro - all by differing amounts. A game like Shadow of War is upscaled to 4k on both the XB1s and PS4 Pro (again by differing amounts) but the XB1X can offer 'native' 4k - no upscaling. I could go on but the point is, ALL 3 of these can upscale to 4k if needed/wanted but with the Xbox One X, fewer games will need any upscaling at all.

If ACO had decided to use Temporal Filtering (Checkerboard rendering), I am sure that the X would be CB2160p solidly. Why - because even at its 'worst', the X is currently drawing much higher pixel counts than would be needed for CB2160p. In other words, it could remain constantly at 2160p, no drops and have resources left over for other visual 'improvements'. On the Pro, chances are that if Ubisoft had gone the CB route, we would be looking at 1800p. This is based on the amount of pixels being drawn each frame. The values we see for the Pro are in the same ball park as other games - 1350p is not that different from CB1800p. 1440p sits in the middle and 1582p is not dissimilar from CB2160p. Of course some resources may be required to ensure better accuracy with pulling the pixels forward for CB rendering but this game falls in the same ball park as virtually every Pro enhanced game. H:ZD, a fantastic looking game that runs at 2160p with the help of CB rendering would only reach around 1582p if 'native' resolutions were used. GT Sport - a CB1800p game would run at around 1350p if native resolutions were used. Point is - the majority of games would be around 1440p if Checkerboard rendering had not come along. The X on the other hand would be 1800-2160p range most often but with the added advantage of offering higher res textures to match up with the higher res of the image.

In both cases though, CB rendering would be an 'improvement' to the overall sharpness than what we have got currently with ACO but for some reason, Ubisoft have opted not to use it - something they have pioneered and been referred to as a 'game changer, a revolution' on PC's - even if it gets stigma attached to it on consoles. I have nothing against CB rendering and I think if Sony had insisted on ALL games being 1800p or above - even if that means CB rendering, I would have 'less' issue with Sony claiming its a 4k console. The ND games running at 1440p could have at least hit 1800p with CB and maybe even CB2160p as that's only 2x the pixel count of native 1080p and the Pro received a 2.3x improvement to its GPU. As 1440p sits between CB1800p and CB2160p in terms of pixel count per frame being rendered, its not even a 2x boost over 1080p. Its this that best explains why the Pro is more a 1440p console than a 4k one.

I don't think Sony were wrong to build the Pro this way. That still gives Sony a chance to make a PS5 that is clearly noticeable 'generational' upgrade. If the Pro was 4k with 4k assets and Dolby Atmos, game VRR, 4k HDR bluray player etc then why would you want to buy a PS5? Games wouldn't look 'superior' even if the superior CPU doubles (or more) the frame rates. People want to look at a screenshot or watch a video where the 'differences' between current and 'next' gen were obvious. We saw a noticeable difference between PS3 and PS4 - even though we only jumped up a bit in resolution. We went from 720 to 1080p - that's like going from 1440p to 4k. That's also why I think the Pro is only around 1440p so that Sony can put the PS5 next to the Pro and the visual differences will be obvious - the sharper image with 4k textures too.

I am seriously not criticising the philosophy or specs that Sony built the Pro for. I may think its wrong though to class it as a '4k' gaming console - UHD is fair enough but 4k is a stretch too far. Its not me saying the Pro is rubbish either - I have one and 'happy' with it but I also am waiting for Sony to join the 4k gaming console market. Its clear the games don't stand up to scrutiny when compared to a proper 4k image but that was to be expected. Based on its specs, I think most of us were surprised how well it does deliver UHD and how well CB1800/2160p really stands up to scrutiny too. The X is much closer to a high-end 4k PC visual but I know Sony could offer more with its PS5 - most notably in the performance. Its that I want from my gaming...

Well that's a nice start, I may be looking into buying one next year. The build quality of XBO consoles are nice though, will be hard to let go of my current one.

@Flaming_Kaiser Please can you stop picking apart everything I say. Of course the Xbox X is better than any other console - it was built to be. Just like the past 4years, Sony have had the superior console - something you 'gloated' about over and over again.

I don't have any 'beef' with Sony which is very different to yourself and your obvious 'beef' with MS. In EVERY one of my posts, I have always given credit where its due and I have certainly pointed out MANY times that I believe Sony's remit for the Pro was very different to Microsofts approach. I do think that MS now have more of an issue with handling the X and their future than Sony do but I cannot give the Pro credit where it isn't due - that's not being a MS fanboy at all - its about pointing out the areas that I fully expect Sony to improve on when they bring out the PS5 and its these areas that stop the Pro being the 4k console Sony claim.

I have owned EVERY Playstation and still have my PS3 (OG Day 1 60GB Phat and a Slim too), PS4 and PS4 Pro and 'every' game I bought for those. My son ended up with my PS1/2 consoles and games though but the point is, I have been a PS gamer longer than an MS gamer - unless you count PC and MS windows. I have probably more hours of gaming on PS than XB. However, as I am a 'console' gamer, I am not 'bias' to either and when something is clearly better on one device, regardless of who built the lump of plastic and electronics, I have NO issue in stating that. The fact is that most here - especially you it seems - are happy to BS against MS without any 'fact' and then get upset when 'fact' or their 'hypocrisy' gets pointed out to them.

If you don't like truth's don't read my posts. I am sure 4k, better visuals etc will suddenly become important again when Sony announce the PS5 (and I will be at the front of the queue to get mine) beats the X and you can return to 'gloating' that Sony once again has the most powerful and 'best looking' games.

Like I said though, if you don't like truths, don't read my posts and don't bother responding because I too am tired of your excessive fanboyism.

@dellyrascal you forgot the Amstrad you heathen!

Amstrad cpc FTW!

Just want to throw this out there but Ive been led to believe that hardly any of the 4k tvs out there actually show 4k at all times, usually when moving in game displaying a lower resolution. Never even considered that.

@JoeBlogs I completely agree with you. 8bit to 16bit was an revolution too - not just in terms of visual improvements but we also had better audio - more than a few beeps, better, wider range of colours and we also started to get 3D.
Obviously with the PS3/360 era, we made the jump from 4:3 SD to 16:9 HD but these consoles also had a 'better CPU/GPU balance' and so we got some 'revolutionary' changes to game-play too With the PS4/XB1, we only got an evolution - predominantly down to the design of these consoles and the 'big' gap between CPU and GPU. Obviously RAM had a big boost too which has helped big open world games and the lack of 'corridors' to hide 'loading' the next area as that can now be streamed in from RAM. The GPU boost was primarily to make the jump from 720p to 1080p as well as the boost to lighting/shadows etc. The CPU isn't much of an upgrade overall - more cores but much slower speeds. Its this that has held gaming back this generation. The fact that the consoles are GPU heavy is why we are seeing 'prettier' games rather than 'different' games.
Just Cause 3, ridiculed for 'poor performance' was built for better CPU's. A better CPU would enable much more physic based destruction and many more particles to be tracked - that's typically what a CPU does and then tells the GPU where to draw everything. Another game, AC: Unity was CPU intensive as it had so many complex AI characters on screen - densely packed. I know you can look at Days Gone or Dead Rising and the number of 'Zombies' they have on screen BUT these have much more simplistic AI.

Point is, the lack of CPU resources has meant that games that try to push for more AI or more physics based Destruction - even in combination, have been criticised for 'performance' issues and therefore pushed 'ambition' back. This then results in 'safer' games - games that fall within the parameters of the hardware, that feel 'familiar', but can now look 'prettier' because of the big (relative) GPU focus.

I have said many times, I would be very surprised IF Sony don't target a much more powerful CPU in the PS5 which should allow more options in gaming directions. More complex AI with more complex destruction and more Enemies/NPC's/wildlife with their own personality etc - leading to even more dynamic feeling worlds. I don't think it will happen overnight though but Sony's devs could set the bar as 3rd Party devs would still be looking at the PS4/XB1 hardware and needing to make their games playable on these. This is where you may see 60+ fps on PS5 and 30fps on the others. If Sony (or other devs) go out of their way to push games in a new direction to utilise a more CPU capable device, I can see those still running at 30fps but not running at all on the other consoles.

The fact that all 4 consoles now have Jaguar CPU's ranging from 1.6 to 2.3Ghz, leads me to believe that we won't see a massive revolution in gaming. The 'difference' in GPU though is far more significant which is why we see a bigger divide in visual presentation than we do in overall performance. The focus on GPU this gen was more, I think, to make it seem like a 'revolution' in games - because of the more impressive visuals but the lack of similar boosts to CPU have throttled game devs to make 'prettier' games rather than 'game changing' games.

Before anyone starts about games like Witcher 3 or Arkham Knight that wouldn't work on last gen for reasons like having to load up areas or building interiors and thus lose the emmersion or the facial animations and small details that U4 was able to pull off, most of that comes down to the massive jump in RAM and GPU.

Its difficult for us now to see much 'revolution' in games. Jumping up from beeps to synthesised sound to CD quality stereo to full surround sound and now 'Atmos' - you can't really get more than that. We are already at being able to show 1bn different colours - a far cry from the select few we had at the start of gaming. The next step has to be 'photo realistic' but again we are there with most things - look at the cars in GTS or Forza, how the tracks look like their real life versions. Obviously some things can look more realistic than others but we are very close to that now - its mostly people but we do see some plant life looking a bit off/flat on closer inspection. There is still a noticeable difference between CGi, real life and in-game visuals but that gap is closing. I can't see how we can get a revolution like 3D was and all other things - like AI, Destruction, dynamic environments etc will be more 'evolution' now. It would be nice if a game world did continue to evolve, grow naturally over time. For example, if you play an RPG, the world evolves whether you play or not - the passage of time is shown by things like grass, trees etc continually growing and if you cut down a tree for example, it rots but wildlife around it grows faster. NPCs age, die - have a life-cycle. Villages grow into towns into cities etc - feel dynamic and real - that things carry on whether you were gaming at that time to see it or not. Its not much of a revolution as such as we do get some 'dynamic' features in games - including Weather.

Realistically though, we are more likely to see 'evolution' rather than revolution now because that's where gaming has reached. There was a natural progression from 2D to 3D but once these 'revolutionary' steps are reached, then its just 'evolving' on those steps. Even if we do get bigger jumps in the CPU that enable more complex AI, NPCs etc and/or bigger physics based destruction, its evolution over what we see today. AR/VR could be 'revolutionary' but I think that's more in how we become emmersed in games rather than a revolution in the actual game.

@JoeBlogs Considering what it offers, its a very reasonable price. You cannot build better for the money and it comes in a small package, 4k HDR Bluray Player etc too. Its a CPU upgrade short of being 'next gen'. MS have actually said they can see a time when the X will get its 'own' software so I really do think they are looking at the PC/mobile model - an iterative upgrade every 3-4yrs (as necessary). They want to bring your Library with you so it makes sense to build 'iteratively' too because if it worked on 1 gen, it should work on the rest. That would mean that around 2020/21, MS will bring out its more powerful CPU console. GPU and RAM could still see an upgrade but not to the same degree. That's when MS will make that CPU jump that some expected to see in this console.

As I have said, Sony built the Pro to be a 'half step' so it could make the PS5 a 'full step' up and part of that will come down to visual superiority over anything they have currently offered (ie Full 4k with 4k assets) and at a better frame rates than 'any' console can offer because of its CPU - can't say full 4k with 4k assets hasn't been seen on a console before. It no doubt will have a 4k HDR player and the only thing they could do 'better' than anything before - have a DV (Dolby Vision) enabled bluray player and 'games' too for that matter. Dolby Atmos is next gen audio. Add in HDMI2.1 with game VRR, eARC and HFR capability) that's truly 'next gen' over anything Sony have offered before.

As for pricing, MS may prove $500 isn't unreasonable for a console to target - whether that's iterative or next gen. That may mean they 'tweak' their parameters on what the PS5 will have. If they initially thought people would only pay $400, then they can now spend a bit more on specs than they previously were thinking.

If Sony went the way I suggest - even in Q42018, I am sure that people would pay $500 for a 4k console (better than the X 4k) and at frame rates 60+ (120fps??? HFR), Dolby Vision support etc - a 'next gen' Sony, the PS5 will sell big time. The chance to play Sony's exclusives at a full 4k/60+ is far more appealing than 1440p/30 on a Pro - let alone any multi-plat releases.

There is always a cross-over phase when a new gen console releases so it's price will drop and a library will build up - like every new gen consoles. There is always going to be people that think its too soon, too costly etc but then some who want the best, the latest, etc and buy day 1. 80k sales in the opening week for an 'iterative' upgrade is not too shabby and I would think Sony's PS5 would sell more - even in Q42018

Sony also had two hardware Items on sale at the same time PS Pro and PSVR at $399 each buying both was to much.

I'm not a big fan of these mid-gen upgrades at all, so looking at it from an unbiased perspective on both sides, the Xbox One X is clearly the better product. Even at the ridiculous price of $500 (I'd never pay that for the console itself, $400 is as high as I go, any more and might as well just start considering a PC) it's not surprising it's off to a better start than PS4 Pro. I will say I thought Sony's advertising was a lot less deceitful, for better or worse. It didn't pretend the PS4 Pro was a new console, MS has hyped the One X up like it's a brand new next-gen console and frankly it isn't. But from the business side... whatever works.

Could also be because Sony didn't advertise it here at launch. I'm only now seeing Pro adverts in mainstream media.

100 GB for some improved textures, increased pixels and more frames per second, it's an impressive box but I wouldn't pay that much even if it had a PS logo on it.

Its a Beast allright and thats an Impresive start to the sales. I am waiting to pick up a 4K TV either in the Black Friday sales or January Sales. At the moment i am rocking a 1080p screen but the improvments are instantly visable. Also due to the fact that games that have not been enhanced also make use of its power, all games get upgraded even the backward compatible titles. Plus the amount of work they put in to the design of the "X" only makes it even more intresting to see what they do to the next gen machines in the future. #ItsGreatToGameOnAllSystems

Nothing like a bit of competition. Hopefully they'll have a price war in the next year or two. 😊.