I think he meant he bought his X1 for $400, and will get a $150 trade-in towards Scorpio, so he 'payed' $250 for the years he used his regular X1. Or maybe I'm trying waaaaay too hard to see some logic in his post, when there actually is none. I guess that second option would be more plausible.
Because games that came out on the previous generation are comparable to classics that came out on a console released over 30 years ago, right?
Depends on how you look at it. Best console version doesn't necessarily mean best running version. Now the one with content that's locked for a year is the best console version?
But yeah, best running console version will most definitely be on Scorpio, as it should being released a year later than the competition's mid-gen upgrade.
I don't think it'd be $399 ideally, the product needs a premium price tag to show it's a premium console.
$449 - $499 is the ideal price in my opinion. When you launch this thing at $399 and Sony drops the PS4 Pro to $349, what do you think the casuals would buy? The $50 difference isn't enough from a marketing point of view to convince people who don't know the specs and benchmarks behind the machines that one had an entire year longer to get the bottlenecks out...