Xbox One X Has Advantages In Other Areas That Make Up For PS4 PRO’s 2X16 Bit Ops: Surviving Mars Dev

Of course, straight numerical comparisons like these rarely represent the true picture.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars290226d ago (Edited 226d ago )

"Of course, straight numerical comparisons like these rarely represent the true picture."

Nice of the author to proclaim his article pointless with the first sentence. I mean you're trying to offer that differences in power make a difference while ignoring what's done with the power at hand is as is if not more important.

While this version of the Xbox is more powerful than the current Playstation, as was the case between OG Xbox and the PS2, it means nothing if all that's really done with that power is make better resolution multiplatform titles. With that then differing from dev to dev.

Brian7655492226d ago

Once again you are taking an article out of context to satisfy your own needs of wanting to curb any advantage the X has. There is a pattern you display that when you break it down really stems to your issues with Microsoft. This is why you comlicate things on purpose and bring up history so often.

This is not about enhancing multiplat titles and how it relates to sales. It is about the PS4 Pro being able to double 16-bit values unlike the X, but how the Xbox X can overcome that in other areas. Then they say straight up numbers are always tricky to compare side by side. It is a comment coming from a multiplat developer, so for you to somehow use exclusives as leverage on how this doesn't really matter is irrelevant. Just like most of your comments here.

fr0sty225d ago

It's a feature you'll likely see Sony use on first party stuff, but beyond that, multiplat devs usually cater to the lowest common denominator unless the extra power can be easily added in without much time.

theXtReMe1226d ago (Edited 226d ago )

I can turn that around on you and say “What’s the point of these added features, if only first parties are going to take advantage of them?”. It was the same with the PS3 and the cell. Features are only beneficial if developers can easily take advantage of them. Because if they can’t, they will generally take the path of least resistance to get them where they need to be performance-wise. The same could be said of the Xbox One and S’s eDRAM.

2x16 is only useful for basic functions, that don’t require the precision that 32bit provides. While it can be very useful in theory, implementing it takes extra work that many developers will choose to forgo.

The only special features that ever get used are those developers have no choice over implementing. If they are forced to, they make do and make the best out of it. If they have a choice, once again they will always choose that path that gets them there the easiest, fastest and cheapest.

This isn’t a knock on any company or system. Just a fact in game development. Each system has their strengths and weaknesses, which I don’t need to reiterate... as they are argued here on these pages every day, in near every article.

As I always say... play games, not systems. Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo could care less about your allegiance... they only care about that green paper sitting in your wallet. There is no reason to argue over specs, because 99% of the games you play are the same across platforms... with a few more or less pixels.

Godmars290225d ago

The PS3/Xbox 360 was largely a mess specifically because Sony had no real idea what to do with the cell processor. By any logical count couldn't afford to utilize it in anything but tech demos. Nevermind AAAs or mid level titles where as currently MS was largely focused on PC ports, at a time when PC gaming was pricing itself out of business chasing bleeding edge graphics. Then many of those devs moved to consoles complaining about how under powered they were as they did.

Actually, why are you trying to argue with me when my stance is that power doesn't really matter?

glenn1979225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Well said more bubble's for you man

TheCommentator225d ago

Honestly TheXT, this comment is directed at Godmars but the point you brought up reminded me that not many functions would operate in FP16. That meant that the PS4 wouldn't magically produce 8.4TF worth of performance, but Sony's false statements would have less educated people believe otherwise:

I don't know why so many people around here hate on MS, yet pretend like Sony never does anything wrong...
Look, I admit that MS does dumb things and now I'm just playing Devils Advocate to demonstrate how stupid the concept of allegiance actually is. I constantly razz MS for handling of 1st party games over the last decade, for example. Can we just admit that all three companies suck for different reasons, you have a preference that is not always the same as other peoples, and stop "poking the hornet's nest" all the time, please?

rainslacker225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

"2x16 is only useful for basic functions, that don’t require the precision that 32bit provides. While it can be very useful in theory, implementing it takes extra work that many developers will choose to forgo"

About half the floating point operations in any given game, outside he rendering engine, don't require that much precision, and 32 bit floats are generally clipped for speed anyways. It is certainly useful for more than just basic functions. For instance a lot of physics calculations do not require 32 bit precision. Most transpose variables don't actually need to be that length.

It is useful to free up memory, which can help to give more performance on the rendering itself, which is where it's biggest advantage is for this gen since most games aren't going to add stuff in that could be added to help increase what's going on in the game design itself. But changing a float to a 16bit float isn't really that hard. All it really takes is a change in it's assignment at time of creation.

I don't think we'll see the best things that can come from 16 bit floats, but it certainly does help in the graphics department by freeing up memory registers, and overall, those operations that can be converted can also run faster, which is an advantage that doesn't take much time since it doesn't take much to change them for the PS4P over the base model because it's built into the API.

Otherwise, X1X will still win out on sheer power alone, because it's unlikely that any game is going to be made completely in 16 bit precision. It's actually possible though depending on what needs to be achieved on screen, which essentially could free up enough power to match the X1X in number of calculations. But the X1X still has some advantages in it's rendering pipeline that would require a complete rewrite of the PS4P graphics pipeline...which isn't going to happen from any one dev because it'd be time consuming.

BlackTar187224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

I dunno may be its because MS always barks louder then bites. Except the original xbox but they've strayed away from that awesome machine since then. On every front really.

Godmars290224d ago

"I don't know why so many people around here hate on MS,"

I don't know why many here only see hate towards MS. That Sony's issues are brought up only to be directly ignored as if never brought up.

While all three of the console companies have repeatedly made mistakes, its that MS's tends to be so overly ambitious only to fall short while also trying to influence /direct the rest of the industry is what gets them the most attention.

Going to the old example of motion control, where Nintendo first got that mess started only as something different to be different and cause property damage, Sony's copycat Move a subdivision of gaming, Kinect was suppose to be a whole new level of controller that would integrate into the whole household. With MS promising games like Milo and wanting 3rd party studios to add Kniect-themed elements into their multiplatform titles, which wouldn't have alienated PC or PS3 at the time while increasing production costs. And where motion control died a quite death with the Wii, lives on subtly in the Switch, and Move ended up salvaged into PSVR - itself something not a dead end fad - Kinect was left to be lynched and amputated from the XB1 along with a number of anti-consumer policies presented as pro despite painfully obvious restrictions.

TheCommentator224d ago

Point taken, Godmars, but that doesn't explain your penchant for coming into every thread and saying something off-topic just to point it out. It's your (and others) need to point it out all the time that's uncalled for. All three companies suck so can we just move on already, please?

Godmars290224d ago

"All three companies suck so can we just move on already, please?"

Not when the supporters of one of them insist that they do no wrong as wrong is being done. Sony's game streaming service is crap, a bad direction for the industry to go now that its only on consoles, while MS doing it is an innovation. What they planned with the original XB1 policies need to be revisited and even Kinect wasn't all that bad.

Its that attempt to repeatedly retcon mistakes rather than letting go is why this keeps happening.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 224d ago
gapecanpie225d ago

PS4 secret sauce..... 😂😂😂

LOCO209225d ago

No secret sauce needed .. :)
The only secret sauce stuff we have heard this gen is from the Xbox camp but instead they had to release a few newer upgraded consoles, hardly ever hear about the original Xbox1 only the S and the X now.

rainslacker225d ago

I'd imagine one area the X1X has an advantage is the straight up power advantage. The 16 bit calculations, while handy, aren't going to make up for that in many cases. Otherwise, the two GPU's are not that much different from each other except in power and some back end bus command handling, which both have some pros and cons over the other.

This seems like a pointless comparison really. 16 bit flops are an advantage, but they aren't something that really bridges the power gap. It just doesn't work like that, and likely a lot of multi-plat games aren't going to take advantage of it anyhow because the game isn't designed around such things. Next gen, if the base console offers it, then more code would be used to take advantage of it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 224d ago
Kumakai225d ago

obviously considering the resolution and texture filtering and resolution advantages its shown time after time.

michellelynn0976225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

The X Box One X is much better to develop for, but the sales of the ps4 will keep them with Sony. Microsoft messed up with the original X Box One which costed them market share. The PS2 was horrible to devlop for, but Sony's marketshare forced publishers and devs to make games for it. And the only reason a lot of people bought the ps2 was to have a cheap dvd player. Sadly, not the games.

tontontam0225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Lol fanboy delusions.

you clearly did not own the ps2 or even the original xbox.

michellelynn0976225d ago

What part of my comment is fanboy?

tontontam0225d ago

Lol pulling a shit article from some unknown forum and a website that has a track record of writing shit articles about sony citing a butthurt developer, yeah a very reliable source indeed.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 225d ago
_-EDMIX-_225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Not really because how do you actually explain PlayStation 3 success? Even more so how do you even explain PlayStation 4 success? It's very difficult to say that people were really buying it because it's a cheap DVD player when technically speaking it became a more expensive one compared to the others that released mid generation.

So I don't know who's going to be spending a few hundred dollars on a DVD player when they could get one for about less than a hundred bucks.

PlayStation 2 sold well because Sony had the format to give developers the games they needed in terms of size, Sony also got the support because they actually had the hardware to deliver the experience. So I would say PlayStation 2 was only horrible to develop for in comparison to Xbox but it wasn't so damn horrible that a developer could not make the actual game itself.

I mean to say that people only bought PlayStation 2 because of the DVD player doesn't really explain PlayStation 3 success in cannot technically even explain PlayStation 4 success there's no way you could have something like that where you're out selling the PlayStation 2 in reaching such numbers unless that was the market you had a previously.

So who on Earth is buying a PlayStation 4 ONLY to be a Blu-ray player?

If that's the case how on Earth was PS3 able to move 90 million? When you have an install base by a system for reasons other than the actual games what you're actually going to see if they won't stay with the market they're only there for the fat look at the Wii versus the Wii U.

What you're seeing with PlayStation is it consistent 100 million that are buying the system which can't be attributed to Simply the media format alone.

The actual game sales breaking records show otherwise so the strange desperation to try to pretend that the PlayStation series of console success just comes down to a media format is laughable. Trust me the majority of PlayStation fans are not buying it just to watch a movie on it...

michellelynn0976225d ago

I meant some. Not a big percentage. The ps2 had lots of great games. But, for some, it was a dvd player. Now, the ps2 was a mess to develop for. Sony better be thankful that they had such good will after the ps1, a lot of devs hated making games for it. That is why some wanted to move their games to X Box or even Gamecube.

_-EDMIX-_225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

@mic-well I agree with you that of course there was some people that were purchasing it for a DVD player but I believe it's a bit exaggerated if to say something like "only reason a lot of people bought the ps2 was to have a cheap dvd player."

So I don't disagree with your reply that you mean some but you're going to have to watch your wording and be careful on such absolutes as anybody could easily look at that statement and understand it doesn't really make sense.

I even agree that the PlayStation 2 was not as easy to develop for as the Xbox but, there wasn't even that many developers that were unable to create a PlayStation 2 game based on design.

I would argue there was more developers that skipped the Wii than the PlayStation 2 based on development issues or system limitations. So of course it was difficult to design for but you would not really have the amount of developers developing on Playstation 2 if it did not actually really have an install base of Gamers that wanted to buy games I'm sorry but you are not just seeing numerous games not sell. So PlayStation 2 may have had its development issues but PlayStation 2 also had one of the largest libraries in history. So the amount of developers that may have wanted to make something on GameCube and Xbox is extremely limited it is a very very small number compared to how many developed on PlayStation 2.

It actually means that the 150 million plus indeed was actually purchasing games. It's not as if you were seeing the top third party games only sell 1 million units establishing that the install base was not buying games but just watching movies there just isn't any evidence to suggest that.

But I accept your post but simply at least word it so it's understood you only mean by a small degree because anyone is going to miss read that and look at your comment history in simply think you're doing it to troll or something.

I understand what you're saying more based on your second post than your first.

michellelynn0976225d ago

But the Wii was easy to devlop for. The ps2 was not. I think it had more to do with the motion controller.

_-EDMIX-_225d ago

my comment regarding the Wii was simply that it's a limitations cause them to not get lots of games.

Simply comparing and saying that yes development hurdles whether they be limitation or because of other development issues can clearly cause some developers to not put games on a platform. So I would say by what I'm trying to compare that the Nintendo Wii had more game developers avoid the system because of its limitations technologically than the PlayStation 2 lost developers because of its difficult development.

Simply pointing out that such an issue is not really that big of a deal when you kind of see what happened with the Wii by comparison. Its limitations caused it to miss multiple entire franchises or something like that was not really happening with PlayStation 2. I mean I won't disagree with you that games like Half-Life 2 Doom 3 what have you would have easily been made on PlayStation 2 of Sony released a more powerful system but you're not talking about entire multiple huge franchises skipping the system because of PlayStation 2s either power or development issues.

It definitely could have been worse.

michellelynn0976225d ago

I don't know. Mario Kart does it on a regular basis. Lol But, that is true. The ps2 had tons of million and multi million sellers. The ps2 was a huge success.

tontontam0225d ago

"I meant some. Not a big percentage. The ps2 had lots of great games"

"had lots of great games" is actually an understatement and saying this is further proof that you never owned a ps2.

BeOpenMinded225d ago

Worldwide appeal is the simple answer. Gotta win more than the US to be top dog

Dragonscale225d ago

@michellynn, the wii was underpowered and the wrong demographic. The only advantage it had were the motion controls.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 225d ago
Lime123225d ago

So where is your link for 17.8 million? Did you just make up?

michellelynn0976225d ago

I showed it to you. This is not the same thread so are you following me? Read the link I posted.

Lime123225d ago

So not because GTA, MGS, FF, DMC, Gran Turismo,...?

michellelynn0976225d ago

For a system that sold 155 million, tell me. Why didn't zero of the games sell over 20 million? Some did buy it for a dvd player.

_-EDMIX-_225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

@mic-Gran Turismo moved over 14 million units Grand Theft Auto moved over 16 million units.

So it's not normal for a game to move 20 million even Call of Duty is not moving 20 million on just the one system as much as it's moving that combined.

You would also need to consider that the 155 million install base is extremely diverse so diverse that there's not really one type of game that selling there's literally dozens upon dozens of games that have different audiences by different publishers.

The more open you have an install base, the more spread out you're going to see the game sales.

Put it this way if Activision made a console and they were the primary publisher on this console and they locked so much third-party support it would actually make lots of sense that 80% or more of the game sales or simply from Call of Duty because it's reflecting that the install base is buying the system for something like Call of Duty.

155 million is not buying the system only for Call of Duty or only for Gran Turismo or only for Grand Theft Auto or anything like that the variety allows them to have a more healthy install base and not one lopsided towards one publisher or the other.

Trust me your comment is not really hurting the successful games that released on PlayStation 2. You're just looking at an install base that had lots of different gamers, that kind of is the way you should be seeing an install base I would argue something is definitely wrong if you have one publisher with 90% of the game sales that doesn't tell me everybody else sucks it actually tells me everybody else doesn't even exist on this platform in the first place to have a voice.

It would almost be like trying to say HBO has the majority of its subscribers on Game of Thrones...

Well HBL doesn't have the same number of variety of Netflix so of course something like that's going to happen but trust me that's not benefiting the user that only has something like Game of Thrones to watch compared to Netflix or Hulu or anything like that.

It's not what you think in your comment only kind of addresses that such a thing isn't even normal in the first place.

So I don't disagree that some purchased it for DVD player simply. The whole 20 million thing is not really proof that the majority did.

rainslacker225d ago

By that logic, about 1/4 of Xbox owners, and 1/8 of PS4 owners brought the system for a BRD or UHD drive.

You do realize that not everyone plays every game, and people have diverse tastes. This is even more true the larger an install base gets.

Lime123225d ago

I read your link. It doesn't say 17.8 million. Are you lying?

michellelynn0976225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Oh yes it does. Show it.
Here is another. PS4 sales were down a little. Games were up. Software sales went up.

Lime123225d ago

I read your new link. It doesn't say 17.8 million. Are you lying?

btw PS2 sold 1,5 billion games, not a single Nintendo console sold over 1 billion games, let alone 1,5 billion.

michellelynn0976225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

But no Sony game has sold like Pokemon, Mario, Animal Crossing or BoTW Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Odyssey, Golden Eye, Smash Bros or Mario Kart. Also read the link. That was a long article. You read it already?
The ps2 did sell over 1.5 billion games with newrly 35,000 made for the system.

trooper_225d ago

The delusions are strong with this guy.

Don't bother introducing logic.

_-EDMIX-_225d ago

@mic-seriously you're going to need to stop goal post moving the point that's being made is that the people who purchased PlayStation systems are not simply watching movies it's very very very clear there playing games evident by the sales of all the other Publishers combined.

So you keep bringing up Sony individually as a publisher and you're not really understanding that's irrelevant Sony as a publisher does not need to sell 1.5 billion games.

So when you're saying Sony games are not selling like Nintendo games no one's really disagreeing with you we all know that we see lots of Nintendo games moving massive units like 16, 20 and even 30 million but you're also talking about an install base that literally only buys Nintendo game Upwards to 90%.

Ironically that is actually why you're not seeing the system move 1.5 billion games or any Nintendo system for that matter because it's demographic is very very very specific you basically have to like Nintendo games in order to fit in that demographic.

But you don't need to like Sony games to actually purchase what PlayStation along with lots of games.

So this ridiculous goalpost moving of trying to argue about something that no one's technically arguing really needs to stop especially if you look at the comments no one's really arguing what you're trying to continuously argue and bait for some reason.

I mean I'm literally telling you right now that I agree with what you're saying but it's not relevant to anything we're talkin about it's literally sounds like just an immature come back at an argument no one's really making.

Look at lime123's comment , this person literally never even said remotely anything that you're trying to reply to..

Like I said before what you're actually talking about very much ironically displays exactly what we're trying to say the demographic that buys Nintendo systems primarily only buys Nintendo games, so much so that you're not really going to see many PlayStation game sell like Nintendo games because you're talking about a market that only buys one publisher whereas PlayStations are selling for multiple Publishers as to why they're moving 1.5 billion and games and something no Nintendo system has ever done in likely will never do the demographic is just not wide enough.

tontontam0225d ago (Edited 225d ago )


stupid fanboy everyone who owned a ps2 won't compare the wiii to ps2. by the time the wii u came out ps2 owners were already contented with the games they have played on the ps2 and already moved on to the next generation.

michellelynn0976225d ago

Your comment makes no sense. And I was talking about how horrible the ps2 was to develop for. Not if it was a good machine. Gaming machines are only as good as the games. The ps2 is one of the greatest consoles ever. Can you comment without insulting anyone?

tontontam0225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

First you talk as if you have owned a ps2 which clearly is not the case. you probably wasn't even born yet when people were playing ps2.

And now you talk as if you are a developer complaining how hard it is to develop games on ps2. what games have you developed for the ps2?

Nope, this is the internet it is normal to insult people who spout idiotic comments.

monkeyshawn60225d ago

Read. The ps2 was the worst system to develop for. Lots of articles were written about it.

monkeyshawn60225d ago

Attack the source on this one. They talked to multiple devleopers and just because you don't like the info, doesn't make it inaccurate. And if the only thing you van do is attack the source. Then it shows you have no counter and shows the info was correct.

rainslacker225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

The PS2 used a standard base processor for it's time, that was well understood by the time the PS2 was released. The emotion engine just added coprocessors to the main CPU which would have been separate from the CPU if they weren't integrated. Other systems used the same co-processors.

The system wasn't difficult to develop for. It used standard RISC commands in a MIPS5900 processor, which was pretty snazzy for it's time. RISC commands had been used for several generations up to the PS2.

By integrating the sub-processors into one chip, it reduced the commands required to perform those actions, as they were integrated into the command processor for the CPU, alleviating several steps for the developer.

To give a frame of reference, I built a PS2 game engine in my spare time in 2 weeks which could produce decent graphics. I wouldn't build a full game with it, but just from goofing around, I had some nice demos to include in my portfolio. it would take me longer to do that on the modern systems, and no one is complaining about them being difficult to develop for.

The system may not have been as easy as the other systems, but I'd wager that was from the viewpoint of graphics power, where brute force could save time, whereas the lower specs of the PS2's GPU required more thought. That doesn't make it difficult to develop for, just less convenient than something with more power.

To say it was horrible to develop for is an extreme exaggeration.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 225d ago
Aenea225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Huh, first time I'm hearing the PS2 is hard to develop for, explains the very small library I suppose.... Oh wait!

Edit: ah yes, I forgot, you're a Nintendo fanboy!

monkeyshawn60225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Apparently, she was right. The ps2 had the sales, that is the only reason it got so many games.

Chevalier225d ago (Edited 225d ago )


" Apparently, she was right. The ps2 had the sales, that is the only reason it got so many games. "

Uh yeah that would be how it works. How many systems sold 100+ million consoles? Launched a multitude of franchises we still play today? Sold billions in software? You guys seem to think it must be easy to sell 100+ million and yet Xbox struggles to sell half that and every Nintendo home console has struggled to sell even 50 million. With the exception of the fad that was the Wii.

What a dumb statement yeah you do need high console systems before you get publishers interested and customers actually need to buy games to make that happen. Its a cyclical kind of thing. I can't believe you guys are going to try to downplay how big the PS1 and PS2 were to growing the market worldwide and making gaming a more excepted norm. If it weren't for the leap that Playstation took we would be stuck on cartridges and limited memory. Just look at the Switch ans having to buy extra memory and limited cartridge size and the high cost as well. But Nintendo gets a pass? Yeah okay.

cd1225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

"The X Box One X is much better to develop for" - how many games have you developed for XB1X or PS4 Pro exactly?

rainslacker225d ago

I know you aren't asking me, but to put in my two cents.

I've been involved in the production of 2 AAA games for the PS4, PC, and X1, and one small indie game for the PS3/4, and the base/mid-gens/PC I now write 3rd party tools for, so no direct game involvement. I'd say they're both pretty easy to develop for. Both have their pros and cons, but neither is really a burden on the developer IMO.

X1X allows for less optimization through brute force, which is why some may say it's easier, as less time needs to be done to fix up sloppy code.

trooper_225d ago


People bought the PS2 BECAUSE of the games. The PS2 was a powerhouse during that time.

Are you crazy?

bigmalky225d ago

People didn't buy PS2 for the games? You are either too young, or were intoxicated for a long time during the 00s, or plain just not a gamer.

monkeyshawn60225d ago

Read the comment. She was saying some didn't.

Darkwatchman225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Ps2 has the largest library of games of its generation. People definitely bought it for its games. Buying it for its DVD player was only something that held weight in the first year or two of its launch when DVD players were still new and expensive, especially in japan.

But past that, it was ALL ABOUT the games

Lime123225d ago

Uncharted 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn so far has sold more than Mario Kart 8, Zelda, Splatoon 2, Xenoblade 2,....on Switch.

DrumBeat225d ago

This is just a whole pile of nonsense.

rainslacker225d ago (Edited 225d ago )

Funny. Sony has one of the most fluid and streamlined API's and developer tools of any of the console makers. MS hasn't even released the full DX12 dev kit API's yet, and they seem to be wishy washy on the actual standards that it will adhere to. MS does have some nice tools, but Sony has practically everything you need to make your own engine and games without ever needing a third party company. MS tools and API's are nowhere near the same level.

Otherwise, they're both pretty easy to develop for, because if a developer knows x86, whatever engine they're using is pretty adaptable to that standard.

Also, PS2 was great to develop for. It had it's praises sung left and right from developers.

Where are you getting your information from? The only system from Sony that developers complained about what the PS3. All their other systems have been pretty standard fare, and even the emotion engine in the PS2 used standard RISC code with Sony's own API's making extremely easy to access the extra processors that were linked to the CPU.

The reason people brought a PS2 was because it had a lot of games. It started off strong, and stayed that way through the generation.

Do you just make stuff up, because I can't imagine how you think that the PS2's overall success was because of DVD.

I think you really need to cite some sources.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 225d ago
goatking225d ago

Yea, but ps4 pro actually has games that can use its power. Xbox one x has nothing to use its power for.

jrshankill225d ago ShowReplies(1)
Enjoigamin225d ago

pretty much every multi platform game...don't be salty that games like Red Dead is gonna look and perform better on the not the pro shows its power with Sony exclusives....and for you to say it has nothing to play on it LOL go eat grass yea goat

OpenGL225d ago

Biggest problem is the Xbox One X is tied to the anchor that is the launch Xbox One. Yeah the Xbox One X is the most powerful console but all of its games have to be designed to run on the launch Xbox One, and there are already multiple PS4 games that it couldn't run without serious compromises.